That proves nothing. Private medicine is -outlawed-, nearly uniquely in western countries. People have no choice, so of course they'll be grateful for the snippets of rationed health care they might receive.
"in Canada pay an average of about half as much in taxes (scaled to their income)"
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but if you want a broad-based measure, consider the annual "tax freedom day": mid-june for Ontario, mid-april for New York. Doesn't look good for Canadian "half as much in taxes".
"no premiums"... except for the taxes, so mostly paid by the wealthy. You're welcome!
"no waivers, no limits"... except the various government rationing organs who determine what disorders and treatments are covered, how far to go to save someone's life - i.e., when to give up and give that scarce hospital bed resource to someone else.
You didn't think it really violates the natural laws of scarce resources?
I have been led to believe that it is theoretically possible for individuals to voluntarily pool their interests, buy mass-made products - even information products.
"Have you ever tried to get a choose-your-own-channels TV package? It's expensive..."
Boo hoo, first world problem. In this context, the only alternative you can conceive of are government-mandated bundles? I think the problem lies with your lack of imagination (and/or awareness of actual alternatives already available), and your quaint faith in the unfailing wisdom of our betters in government.
"Your position is that everybody should do all the checks individually"
Straw man. You do say checking should be done (& considered sufficient) by unaccountable government departments. The contrapositive is not everyone doing it from first principles. For example, one can delegate - voluntarily.
"Without public bailouts, most of the major banks in the western world would have folded because the risks they took"
You do realize that there is a possible causal link between the general existence and tradition of public bailouts and a potential-recipient taking on excess risk, right?
"a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention"
In case any of those were done by human co-drivers in automated vehicles, this does not exonerate the automation from some share of responsibility. For example, if the presence or habitual use of the automation makes it more likely for the co-driver to become inattentive, it's partly to blame.
"Not acceptance of everyone, but enforcement against everyone."... or perhaps it would result in enough outrage that laws that forbid harmless practices would be undone, resulting in enforcement against no-one.
"reduce the burden of due dilligence on the individual customer"
That's an interesting angle... "regulation is good because the emptor doesn't have to caveat".
It infantilizes people, especially in this day & age of easily available information, and the presence of free-market alternatives like UL, ISO, etc. Its trustworthiness is a lie, since it provides no proof that it hits any minimum of the cost/benefit curves of its mandates, and bears zero liability for its mistakes.
It's refreshing to see people starting to challenge the notion that naturally a government can regulate whatever it wants. Calling it out when nonsensical - putting the burden of proof of necessity/wisdom on those in power - that's simply awesome.
"Why is society seen as a ends, rather than a means by which we can enjoy higher productivity, safety and personal wealth."
Why, that is but one aspect of collectivism (or its fashionable synonyms). The state is your co-parent, the state is your provider, the state is what defines your contributions...
They offered no "data", only slurs that the work done by mainstream engineers is not as "relevant to societal needs", that "better engineering for all" is to be provided by female engineers.
So step 1, nationalize service industries by claiming the private (free) sector can't do it; step 2, penalize the (free) individuals requiring service claiming they're using too much.
It's hard to conclude that seeking power & control wasn't behind #1 and #2 all along.
No matter what this or that expert panel wishes were true about AI research, AI work can be done in the privacy of one's own top secret lair (bedroom), so bad guys will do with it what they want to. So might as well assume that will happen, and work out how to win the arms race.
Slashdot Mirror
"the system there is very popular"
That proves nothing. Private medicine is -outlawed-, nearly uniquely in western countries. People have no choice, so of course they'll be grateful for the snippets of rationed health care they might receive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"while people getting government insurance"
Government "insurance" is no such thing.
"in Canada pay an average of about half as much in taxes (scaled to their income)"
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but if you want a broad-based measure, consider the annual "tax freedom day": mid-june for Ontario, mid-april for New York. Doesn't look good for Canadian "half as much in taxes".
... because that is Very Important.
... a convenience, especially to a government that wishes to dip into people's savings and tax every transaction.
"If that "better way" doesn't make profit for the labels or the artists, then why exactly should they support it?"
Wait a minute, didn't you say "wealth is generated by society" and "money violates all natural laws" just an hour or two ago?
... it better be massively parallel if it is to have an advantage over a software emulation of same.
"Wealth is generated by society. ... Money violates all natural laws."
Haha ok, well at least you're out of the marxist type of closet.
"Like for example for my niece, born last night"
Congratulations!
"paid for out of general taxation"
IOW, "someone else pays".
"no premiums" ... except for the taxes, so mostly paid by the wealthy. You're welcome!
"no waivers, no limits" ... except the various government rationing organs who determine what disorders and treatments are covered, how far to go to save someone's life - i.e., when to give up and give that scarce hospital bed resource to someone else.
You didn't think it really violates the natural laws of scarce resources?
"I am not saying regulation is the only option, I'm saying it's the best option."
Well, nice to see evolution in action, but your new position requires if anything even more elaborate argumentation/evidence than that.
"... healthcare ... pool ..."
You really don't want to go there. (Hint: apprx. all "insurance" programs provided by governments aren't insurance.)
I have been led to believe that it is theoretically possible for individuals to voluntarily pool their interests, buy mass-made products - even information products.
"Have you ever tried to get a choose-your-own-channels TV package? It's expensive ..."
Boo hoo, first world problem. In this context, the only alternative you can conceive of are government-mandated bundles? I think the problem lies with your lack of imagination (and/or awareness of actual alternatives already available), and your quaint faith in the unfailing wisdom of our betters in government.
"Your position is that everybody should do all the checks individually"
Straw man. You do say checking should be done (& considered sufficient) by unaccountable government departments. The contrapositive is not everyone doing it from first principles. For example, one can delegate - voluntarily.
This is getting really off topic, but ...
"Without public bailouts, most of the major banks in the western world would have folded because the risks they took"
You do realize that there is a possible causal link between the general existence and tradition of public bailouts and a potential-recipient taking on excess risk, right?
"You might as well suggest ..."
No, that is such a bad analogy.
"a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention"
In case any of those were done by human co-drivers in automated vehicles, this does not exonerate the automation from some share of responsibility. For example, if the presence or habitual use of the automation makes it more likely for the co-driver to become inattentive, it's partly to blame.
"Not acceptance of everyone, but enforcement against everyone." ... or perhaps it would result in enough outrage that laws that forbid harmless practices would be undone, resulting in enforcement against no-one.
A good scary deterrent is part of prevention.
"reduce the burden of due dilligence on the individual customer"
That's an interesting angle ... "regulation is good because the emptor doesn't have to caveat".
It infantilizes people, especially in this day & age of easily available information, and the presence of free-market alternatives like UL, ISO, etc. Its trustworthiness is a lie, since it provides no proof that it hits any minimum of the cost/benefit curves of its mandates, and bears zero liability for its mistakes.
It's refreshing to see people starting to challenge the notion that naturally a government can regulate whatever it wants. Calling it out when nonsensical - putting the burden of proof of necessity/wisdom on those in power - that's simply awesome.
"Your phone carrier MUST know"
Yes, but that's not the same as saying the _police_ should know.
"Worse, it threatens to poison a nascent willingness"
[citation needed]
"Why is society seen as a ends, rather than a means by which we can enjoy higher productivity, safety and personal wealth."
Why, that is but one aspect of collectivism (or its fashionable synonyms). The state is your co-parent, the state is your provider, the state is what defines your contributions...
Madness.
They offered no "data", only slurs that the work done by mainstream engineers is not as "relevant to societal needs", that "better engineering for all" is to be provided by female engineers.
A delicious double entendre indeed - and if you read closely the bio of the writer, you see something similar too. Noun phrase or gerund?
"Lina Nilsson is the innovation director at the Blum Center for Developing Economies at the University of California, Berkeley."
So step 1, nationalize service industries by claiming the private (free) sector can't do it; step 2, penalize the (free) individuals requiring service claiming they're using too much.
It's hard to conclude that seeking power & control wasn't behind #1 and #2 all along.
No matter what this or that expert panel wishes were true about AI research, AI work can be done in the privacy of one's own top secret lair (bedroom), so bad guys will do with it what they want to. So might as well assume that will happen, and work out how to win the arms race.