Yeah, given the price of health insurance there if you're young and relatively fit I can understand why you would opt to pay cash. It doesn't help if you have a heart attack, but no-one thinks they will be that person. (That's not a critique of you: people are just bad at processing concepts of probability and risk, particularly very outside chance events).
I wasn't aware of the 40% excise on the difference between the cutoff and policy price. I'm not really sure why that exists, either, but I haven't done any reading into it either. It does seem a bit peculiar.
With respect to doctors leaving the direct care marketplace, I found this article interesting (although that is about doctors leaving medicare/medicaid, no front-line services). As an outsider, I find it hard to understand why doctors would be leaving due to the ACA. I supposed it may mean they would end up treating more people who would otherwise be excluded, but if that is the reasoning then I think the doctors themselves should be seen as the morally problematic thing, not the ACA. That said, there may be other reasons - just none of the relevant articles I could find actually discussed the reasons. Unfortunately, they also tended to be generally taking a very anti-ACA position, which means the findings themselves are potentially dubious. I want to be very clear: I'm not saying that doctors aren't leaving primary care, just that I don't understand why there is (or would be) a connection between that and the ACA. It sounds like your situation is a big pain in the butt indeed.
In Australia, the federal government has Medicare, which gives very broad cover. I know someone who had a faulty heart valve at 65, and the entire process from it being detected to being repaired via surgery cost about $100 (mostly parking at hospitals). Similarly, a friend recently had a daughter born with hip dysplasia. Because they had ultrasounds done at private clinics, the Medicare rebate didn't cover the entire cost of the ultrasound. (He could have chosen to have the ultrasounds done at the hospital where the baby was born). Apart from that, $10 for nipple shields, and parking, the entire treatment and care was free at the hospital(s), including: all checkups, an external cephalic version (by the person who wrote the Cochrane review on it, coincidentally) and associated ultrasounds and monitoring, pre-birth classes, birth, follow-up maternal nurse visits by hospital midwife, further ultrasounds at the Children's hospital, orthosis fitting and the orthosis itself, and follow-ups at the Children's hospital. When I say free, of course, I mean paid for by a 1% income levy and other taxes. Funnily enough, though, a political party that suggested dismantling Medicare would be gone faster than you could blink.
Anyway, the point of that was that all doctors (to my knowledge) operate on the government Medicare scheme, although many do charge an extra fee - typically $10-$30. Those with private health insurance are still covered by the government Medicare scheme, but that extra fee is generally covered, and extra services such as massage may be covered depending on the scheme. (Not everything is covered: dental isn't, psychologists have a limited number of sessions although psychiatrists don't, but the vast bulk of health requirements are covered).
People always seem to forget the ultimate renewable resource: the human mind. (Insight courtesy of Julian Simon)
Based on what I've seen come out of some human minds, it might be more environmentally friendly to feed the biomass digester than the humans carrying the minds.
(No, I don't actually encourage starving people with whom I disagree)
That is really interesting, but what I actually meant was that my understanding was users could go to other websites to go shopping for health insurance - e.g. the websites of the insurance companies themselves - and purchase insurance directly without ever involving healthcare.gov
If my understanding was correct, then the claim by 'Austrian Anarchy' that "They have captured 100% of the market at the barrel of a gun." is false. My understanding may not be correct: I am not in the U.S.A., so I don't read as much about it as I would otherwise.
And here I was thinking people could check the prices of insurance directly on the website of the insurance providers and purchase directly if they preferred, removing healthcare.gov from the equation...
I'd forgotten that the alternative to having kids cutting the antennae of a cockroach in half is getting them to empathise with the cockroach. I'll not have children in schools being taught to empathise with insects! Quick, cut those antennae! Cut those thorax-holes!
Wait. What if epidemic of crazy cat lady and crazy dog men is the result of broader social problems, not the result of teaching people to empathise with animals?
What's the point of dissecting a frog? We already know what's in the frog....
I think that there is a lot more to be learned from actually doing a dissection than there is from looking at photographs of a dissection, because of the poking and exploring that can only be performed during a real dissection. In contrast, this particular project provides a visual illustration of a phenomena - i.e. that cockroaches movement is driven by electrical input in the nerves which run through the antennae - but I don't think is has the same degree of exploratory value.
That said, I think this question is certainly among the right ones to be asking in considering the ethics of devices/experiments like this.
First, because it should be obvious - doing something to an animal without killing it is not the same as killing it. For example, shooting a rabbit and thus killing it is not the same as breaking its legs kicking it around a football field. Thus, it could be argued that punching a hole in a cockroach thorax and clipping the antennae is not the same as stomping on the roach. So we should probably write off the "if you've ever killed or would ever kill a cockroach, then you have must accept this as ethical" arguments. Second, just because kids burn ants with a magnifying glass doesn't mean we should be encouraging kids to burn ants with a magnifying glass. As artor3 posted in a previous comment:
When I was a little kid and pulled the legs off a daddy longlegs, my scoutmaster told me not to do that, that it was cruel. Now we're encouraging kids to inflict pain on animals for their own amusement. Can you really not see a problem with that?
That isn't to say that installing this on a cockroach is equivalent to burning ants; simply that just because children do do something doesn't mean they should be encouraged to do it.
Even if people do conclude this is ethical - and I'm not saying it is or is not - then the subsequent question is how you ensure children understand that while cutting half off the antennae of a cockroach is ethically acceptable, cutting half off the ears of a mouse is not. That is, assuming we consider that unethical. There is also the question of when it becomes unethical, in terms of animals used. It wouldn't be too challenging to build a kit to allow mid-teenagers to install a similar device in a mouse (assuming they had a steady hand), including sterile implements and gloves, adhesive, etc. Would that be ethically acceptable?
There are "bedrock scientific doctrines". Like bedrock, they can change, but to change them requires something pretty impressive. Comments on an article are not that.
Look at the first 5 comments on one of the articles they linked as an example of the problem. The article is titled "What Happens To Women When They're Denied Abortions?" For convenience, reproduced here:
The narrative of this article and the study on which it is based perpetuates the falsehood, in that it assumes pregnancy is not a preventable occurrence.
What happens to the baby when it's denied an abortion?
To piggyback off of [first commentor], this article also never explores the possibility of putting the baby of for adoption to a family that will love and look after it's well being, and cover a lot if not all of the mothers medical expenses. Adoption is an option!!
My sister in law is a NICU nurse and has been in a number of different states, and she is baffled when she talks to girls that are considering abortion, all of which indicate that they were never told it was an option to put the child up for adoption. Come on, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country that would do almost anything to have a child, to the point where they will go to Africa for a baby!! I mean when I dont want my dog or cat anymore I dont kill it I give to someone else who will care for it.....sigh....we're doomed.
My mom had 9 kids (quite the opposite from Miss S.) and went through financial collapse and suffered poor health. She didn't ever once consider aborting, if she did neither my brother nor his son would be alive today.
That said, I cannot feel sorry for a woman who hits hard times in spite of her best attempt to kill her child off.
So some women get depressed when they are not allowed to have a government sanctioned murder of a baby. Outstanding...
How selfish is humanity that we condone murder of babies instead of dealing with 9 months of inconvenience, embarrassment, and adoption....
Captchas are intended to block bots, but the bots keep improving. Maybe captchas should be supplemented with logic puzzles to ensure commenters are actually capable of rational thought as well as pattern recognition.
The parts that will allow contributors to port to new devices will (presumably because (a) parts of that are GPL anyway, and (b) because there is a benefit to CM to having contributors doing the work of porting to new devices). Work done by contributors will remain open source (but derivatives of that, who knows) Apart from that: stuff will be made closed source as required to get teh monies.
That isn't to say money is the primary motivation, just that from the posts on Reddit it is clear that it will dictate what will be open source and what will be proprietary: "as a company that has financial needs... we will need to make careful decisions about what we open source, and what may become proprietary." Also, I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong - they need to eat after all. However, I do find it disappointing.
By your implied definition of bias, presenting only material consistent with reality would constitute a bias.
Being 'skeptical' entails rationally examining the claims made about (and from) the science associated with climate change, which may at times mean criticising overreaching claims about the future impact of climate change. It doesn't mean commenting on "ZOMG! Arctic sea ice is up since last year! Global warming is teh h0ax". On that note, I'll leave open the question of whether the Skeptical Science site is truly skeptical.
True, using such terms is science communication. The terms have clearly defined statistical meanings in the content of the IPCC report, but people not trained in statistics are typically poor at understanding numerical statistics. There are a range of cognitive biases associated with statistics. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky did quite a bit of work on cognitive biases. Some interesting work on how people incorrectly interpret statistics has also been done by Pav Kalinowski and Geoff Cumming.
Using terms which intuitively match the statistical numbers provides a means for a broader audience to get a rough handle on the predicted likelihood of certain occurrences. It lacks some precision, but the precision is there under the covers.
I completely agree. I think whistle-blowers play an important role, but I am failing to see the 'whistle-blowing' in this particular revelation. If he isn't just releasing material for fame and grandstanding (and if he is, most of his releases have been in the public interest anyway) then it is valuable to provide the context in which releasing this kind of information is for the public good.
An MRI requires a huge amount of power to run, because it needs to power an electromagnet capable of magnetically aligning atoms in the body. For one mobile scanner, this requirement is 200 amps at 480V on three-phase power. That doesn't specify actual consumption, true, but the magnet needs to be repeatedly used throughout a scan, which can be 20+ minutes.
According to a friend of mine (who a imaging researcher at an Australian hospital) a decent scanner will have a purchase cost of >$1m.
What I got out of the article was not that 'scans could allow early detection and diagnosis', because deploying brain-scans on children to 'detect' a disorder like this is ludicrous (due to the low base rate and high cost of imaging). What I got was that there are 'pre-reading tests' which are apparently useful to detect dyslexia - otherwise you couldn't correlate the brain imaging results with the results of those pre-reading tests, and then call the imaging a 'dyslexia test' right?
Hell, maybe the researchers could develop a battery of pre-reading tests and then look at the correlation of the tests to the smaller arcuate fasciculus to choose good diagnostic tests. Assuming that the smaller arcuate fasciculus is actually causal in dyslexia, of course.
(Note: I am broadly cynical about correlational brain imaging research such as this. It can be good. It is almost invariably overstated.)
Texas Instruments seems good, based on their history with the Galaxy Nexus. Samsung isn't necessarily friendly to AOSP, but they do make their own SoC (Exynos) so at least Samsung isn't hamstrung by another manufacturer when making drivers. They also have a pretty good history for long-term updates. It is worth noting that Qualcomm also makes the SoC for the Nexus 4, which has been updated to 4.3. Still, they hung the HTC One S out to dry, and there is this example too.
Not to encourage crime or anything but it would be awesome if the drivers source for some Qualcomm devices was leaked. Or if Google (and other manufacturers) actually created adequate legal contracts with the hardware providers for their Nexus devices so this shit didn't happen.
If it has greater overuse clogging issues, then private companies can lay out their own infrastructure to compete. Hell, some of these areas are already serviced by HFC so they can sell their services on that.
Having a large government-owned infrastructure doesn't mean competition cannot occur if the government-owned infrastructure really does perform poorly.
As pointed out by others, this 'problem' is nonsense because the random number is generated by the client's browser. A government could lean on browser providers, but that puts the 'attack code' client-side and waiting to be noticed.
Trust of keys from providers is a real problem. In order to be certain that a connection is actually secure from listening you have to trust that what you are getting is the real certificate from the service provider, and not an 'attack' certificate generated by some dodgy CA (e.g. DigiNotar and the Iranian google snooping, and others). This can be reduced in some (limited) cases by using certificate pinning, or by using something like EFF's SSL Observatory. Even if you actually are getting the 'real' certificate, you need to trust that the service provider hasn't already handed that certificate over to government. This isn't just a problem for the current certificate trust model - obviously if the other person is giving away their keys then you're pretty screwed regardless of the encryption system. Finally, even if the communication is encrypted and the spying group doesn't have the keys, you still have to trust the service provider to not just hand over the unencrypted network traffic or your content anyway. That's a lot of trust being spread around.
In the case of something like gmail, the solution is more encryption - it is encryption of the content end-to-end rather than just in transit, and with keys only you and the recipient have. That could be personally exchanged self-signed x509 keys/certs or OpenPGP keys, or even preshared symmetric keys. If you're a bit more trusting, it could be keys signed by a trusted other (a genuinely trusted other, not a large company).
So the solution is more encryption - in part at least. Just not more TLS.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess Im being rude now by asking a reasonable question.
No, you're being rude by wasting people's time by pretending to ask a reasonable question while actually just being a sanctimonious ass.
1. A rose by any other name
2. Healthcare.gov != Obamacare
Yeah, given the price of health insurance there if you're young and relatively fit I can understand why you would opt to pay cash. It doesn't help if you have a heart attack, but no-one thinks they will be that person. (That's not a critique of you: people are just bad at processing concepts of probability and risk, particularly very outside chance events).
I wasn't aware of the 40% excise on the difference between the cutoff and policy price. I'm not really sure why that exists, either, but I haven't done any reading into it either. It does seem a bit peculiar.
With respect to doctors leaving the direct care marketplace, I found this article interesting (although that is about doctors leaving medicare/medicaid, no front-line services). As an outsider, I find it hard to understand why doctors would be leaving due to the ACA. I supposed it may mean they would end up treating more people who would otherwise be excluded, but if that is the reasoning then I think the doctors themselves should be seen as the morally problematic thing, not the ACA. That said, there may be other reasons - just none of the relevant articles I could find actually discussed the reasons. Unfortunately, they also tended to be generally taking a very anti-ACA position, which means the findings themselves are potentially dubious.
I want to be very clear: I'm not saying that doctors aren't leaving primary care, just that I don't understand why there is (or would be) a connection between that and the ACA. It sounds like your situation is a big pain in the butt indeed.
In Australia, the federal government has Medicare, which gives very broad cover. I know someone who had a faulty heart valve at 65, and the entire process from it being detected to being repaired via surgery cost about $100 (mostly parking at hospitals). Similarly, a friend recently had a daughter born with hip dysplasia. Because they had ultrasounds done at private clinics, the Medicare rebate didn't cover the entire cost of the ultrasound. (He could have chosen to have the ultrasounds done at the hospital where the baby was born). Apart from that, $10 for nipple shields, and parking, the entire treatment and care was free at the hospital(s), including: all checkups, an external cephalic version (by the person who wrote the Cochrane review on it, coincidentally) and associated ultrasounds and monitoring, pre-birth classes, birth, follow-up maternal nurse visits by hospital midwife, further ultrasounds at the Children's hospital, orthosis fitting and the orthosis itself, and follow-ups at the Children's hospital.
When I say free, of course, I mean paid for by a 1% income levy and other taxes. Funnily enough, though, a political party that suggested dismantling Medicare would be gone faster than you could blink.
Anyway, the point of that was that all doctors (to my knowledge) operate on the government Medicare scheme, although many do charge an extra fee - typically $10-$30. Those with private health insurance are still covered by the government Medicare scheme, but that extra fee is generally covered, and extra services such as massage may be covered depending on the scheme.
(Not everything is covered: dental isn't, psychologists have a limited number of sessions although psychiatrists don't, but the vast bulk of health requirements are covered).
People always seem to forget the ultimate renewable resource: the human mind. (Insight courtesy of Julian Simon)
Based on what I've seen come out of some human minds, it might be more environmentally friendly to feed the biomass digester than the humans carrying the minds.
(No, I don't actually encourage starving people with whom I disagree)
That is really interesting, but what I actually meant was that my understanding was users could go to other websites to go shopping for health insurance - e.g. the websites of the insurance companies themselves - and purchase insurance directly without ever involving healthcare.gov
If my understanding was correct, then the claim by 'Austrian Anarchy' that "They have captured 100% of the market at the barrel of a gun." is false. My understanding may not be correct: I am not in the U.S.A., so I don't read as much about it as I would otherwise.
And here I was thinking people could check the prices of insurance directly on the website of the insurance providers and purchase directly if they preferred, removing healthcare.gov from the equation...
I'd forgotten that the alternative to having kids cutting the antennae of a cockroach in half is getting them to empathise with the cockroach. I'll not have children in schools being taught to empathise with insects! Quick, cut those antennae! Cut those thorax-holes!
Wait. What if epidemic of crazy cat lady and crazy dog men is the result of broader social problems, not the result of teaching people to empathise with animals?
Probably a combination of initial biology and environment, as always.
(e.g. 'Made not Born', and 'nature and nurture')
What's the point of dissecting a frog? We already know what's in the frog....
I think that there is a lot more to be learned from actually doing a dissection than there is from looking at photographs of a dissection, because of the poking and exploring that can only be performed during a real dissection. In contrast, this particular project provides a visual illustration of a phenomena - i.e. that cockroaches movement is driven by electrical input in the nerves which run through the antennae - but I don't think is has the same degree of exploratory value.
That said, I think this question is certainly among the right ones to be asking in considering the ethics of devices/experiments like this.
First, because it should be obvious - doing something to an animal without killing it is not the same as killing it. For example, shooting a rabbit and thus killing it is not the same as breaking its legs kicking it around a football field. Thus, it could be argued that punching a hole in a cockroach thorax and clipping the antennae is not the same as stomping on the roach. So we should probably write off the "if you've ever killed or would ever kill a cockroach, then you have must accept this as ethical" arguments.
Second, just because kids burn ants with a magnifying glass doesn't mean we should be encouraging kids to burn ants with a magnifying glass. As artor3 posted in a previous comment:
When I was a little kid and pulled the legs off a daddy longlegs, my scoutmaster told me not to do that, that it was cruel. Now we're encouraging kids to inflict pain on animals for their own amusement. Can you really not see a problem with that?
That isn't to say that installing this on a cockroach is equivalent to burning ants; simply that just because children do do something doesn't mean they should be encouraged to do it.
Even if people do conclude this is ethical - and I'm not saying it is or is not - then the subsequent question is how you ensure children understand that while cutting half off the antennae of a cockroach is ethically acceptable, cutting half off the ears of a mouse is not. That is, assuming we consider that unethical.
There is also the question of when it becomes unethical, in terms of animals used. It wouldn't be too challenging to build a kit to allow mid-teenagers to install a similar device in a mouse (assuming they had a steady hand), including sterile implements and gloves, adhesive, etc. Would that be ethically acceptable?
Name one high-traffic moderation/comment system that's better than Slashdot, and explain why.
Ars. Better editorial, fewer click bait articles.
I agree with you regarding the content, but I would strongly disagree that their moderation/comment system is better than Slashdot.
It's a sign of the state of internet comments that the parent gets modded insightful.
There are "bedrock scientific doctrines". Like bedrock, they can change, but to change them requires something pretty impressive. Comments on an article are not that.
Look at the first 5 comments on one of the articles they linked as an example of the problem. The article is titled "What Happens To Women When They're Denied Abortions?"
For convenience, reproduced here:
The narrative of this article and the study on which it is based perpetuates the falsehood, in that it assumes pregnancy is not a preventable occurrence.
What happens to the baby when it's denied an abortion?
To piggyback off of [first commentor], this article also never explores the possibility of putting the baby of for adoption to a family that will love and look after it's well being, and cover a lot if not all of the mothers medical expenses. Adoption is an option!!
My sister in law is a NICU nurse and has been in a number of different states, and she is baffled when she talks to girls that are considering abortion, all of which indicate that they were never told it was an option to put the child up for adoption. Come on, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country that would do almost anything to have a child, to the point where they will go to Africa for a baby!! I mean when I dont want my dog or cat anymore I dont kill it I give to someone else who will care for it .....sigh....we're doomed.
My mom had 9 kids (quite the opposite from Miss S.) and went through financial collapse and suffered poor health. She didn't ever once consider aborting, if she did neither my brother nor his son would be alive today.
That said, I cannot feel sorry for a woman who hits hard times in spite of her best attempt to kill her child off.
So some women get depressed when they are not allowed to have a government sanctioned murder of a baby. Outstanding...
How selfish is humanity that we condone murder of babies instead of dealing with 9 months of inconvenience, embarrassment, and adoption....
Captchas are intended to block bots, but the bots keep improving.
Maybe captchas should be supplemented with logic puzzles to ensure commenters are actually capable of rational thought as well as pattern recognition.
So, to summarise... not really?
The parts that will allow contributors to port to new devices will (presumably because (a) parts of that are GPL anyway, and (b) because there is a benefit to CM to having contributors doing the work of porting to new devices).
Work done by contributors will remain open source (but derivatives of that, who knows)
Apart from that: stuff will be made closed source as required to get teh monies.
That isn't to say money is the primary motivation, just that from the posts on Reddit it is clear that it will dictate what will be open source and what will be proprietary: "as a company that has financial needs ... we will need to make careful decisions about what we open source, and what may become proprietary."
Also, I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong - they need to eat after all. However, I do find it disappointing.
By your implied definition of bias, presenting only material consistent with reality would constitute a bias.
Being 'skeptical' entails rationally examining the claims made about (and from) the science associated with climate change, which may at times mean criticising overreaching claims about the future impact of climate change. It doesn't mean commenting on "ZOMG! Arctic sea ice is up since last year! Global warming is teh h0ax".
On that note, I'll leave open the question of whether the Skeptical Science site is truly skeptical.
True, using such terms is science communication. The terms have clearly defined statistical meanings in the content of the IPCC report, but people not trained in statistics are typically poor at understanding numerical statistics. There are a range of cognitive biases associated with statistics. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky did quite a bit of work on cognitive biases. Some interesting work on how people incorrectly interpret statistics has also been done by Pav Kalinowski and Geoff Cumming.
Using terms which intuitively match the statistical numbers provides a means for a broader audience to get a rough handle on the predicted likelihood of certain occurrences. It lacks some precision, but the precision is there under the covers.
I completely agree. I think whistle-blowers play an important role, but I am failing to see the 'whistle-blowing' in this particular revelation. If he isn't just releasing material for fame and grandstanding (and if he is, most of his releases have been in the public interest anyway) then it is valuable to provide the context in which releasing this kind of information is for the public good.
I should also point out that the people operating MRIs are not nurses.
As you're probably aware, MRI != ECG
An MRI requires a huge amount of power to run, because it needs to power an electromagnet capable of magnetically aligning atoms in the body. For one mobile scanner, this requirement is 200 amps at 480V on three-phase power. That doesn't specify actual consumption, true, but the magnet needs to be repeatedly used throughout a scan, which can be 20+ minutes.
According to a friend of mine (who a imaging researcher at an Australian hospital) a decent scanner will have a purchase cost of >$1m.
What I got out of the article was not that 'scans could allow early detection and diagnosis', because deploying brain-scans on children to 'detect' a disorder like this is ludicrous (due to the low base rate and high cost of imaging). What I got was that there are 'pre-reading tests' which are apparently useful to detect dyslexia - otherwise you couldn't correlate the brain imaging results with the results of those pre-reading tests, and then call the imaging a 'dyslexia test' right?
Hell, maybe the researchers could develop a battery of pre-reading tests and then look at the correlation of the tests to the smaller arcuate fasciculus to choose good diagnostic tests. Assuming that the smaller arcuate fasciculus is actually causal in dyslexia, of course.
(Note: I am broadly cynical about correlational brain imaging research such as this. It can be good. It is almost invariably overstated.)
Obvious troll is obvious.
Texas Instruments seems good, based on their history with the Galaxy Nexus.
Samsung isn't necessarily friendly to AOSP, but they do make their own SoC (Exynos) so at least Samsung isn't hamstrung by another manufacturer when making drivers. They also have a pretty good history for long-term updates.
It is worth noting that Qualcomm also makes the SoC for the Nexus 4, which has been updated to 4.3. Still, they hung the HTC One S out to dry, and there is this example too.
Not to encourage crime or anything but it would be awesome if the drivers source for some Qualcomm devices was leaked. Or if Google (and other manufacturers) actually created adequate legal contracts with the hardware providers for their Nexus devices so this shit didn't happen.
If it has greater overuse clogging issues, then private companies can lay out their own infrastructure to compete. Hell, some of these areas are already serviced by HFC so they can sell their services on that.
Having a large government-owned infrastructure doesn't mean competition cannot occur if the government-owned infrastructure really does perform poorly.
As pointed out by others, this 'problem' is nonsense because the random number is generated by the client's browser. A government could lean on browser providers, but that puts the 'attack code' client-side and waiting to be noticed.
Trust of keys from providers is a real problem. In order to be certain that a connection is actually secure from listening you have to trust that what you are getting is the real certificate from the service provider, and not an 'attack' certificate generated by some dodgy CA (e.g. DigiNotar and the Iranian google snooping, and others). This can be reduced in some (limited) cases by using certificate pinning, or by using something like EFF's SSL Observatory.
Even if you actually are getting the 'real' certificate, you need to trust that the service provider hasn't already handed that certificate over to government. This isn't just a problem for the current certificate trust model - obviously if the other person is giving away their keys then you're pretty screwed regardless of the encryption system.
Finally, even if the communication is encrypted and the spying group doesn't have the keys, you still have to trust the service provider to not just hand over the unencrypted network traffic or your content anyway.
That's a lot of trust being spread around.
In the case of something like gmail, the solution is more encryption - it is encryption of the content end-to-end rather than just in transit, and with keys only you and the recipient have. That could be personally exchanged self-signed x509 keys/certs or OpenPGP keys, or even preshared symmetric keys. If you're a bit more trusting, it could be keys signed by a trusted other (a genuinely trusted other, not a large company).
So the solution is more encryption - in part at least. Just not more TLS.