The Netherlands have a GNP per capita with the US. Amsterdam - and the Randstad region in general - is quite an economic powerhouse. Rotterdam is the largest or second largest port in Europe, too.
Also, the Netherlands score far higher on most measures of life expectancy and satisfaction. One important part is the livable cities.
As far as I have noticed, it's used derogatory about people that in many cases actually raise valid concerns about intentional and unintentional mistreatment of women (or - in many cases - other people of various sorts), derogatory language against HBTQ people, and how hard privilege can be to spot when you are the one enjoying privilege (a trap many of us can fall in)...
Of course there have been bugs. But software with a much smaller and well-defined scope (like only being an init system) tend to have less bugs. Also, software with better design choices and better QA tend to have less bugs.
Also, the dependencies on systemd instead of some independent standard with well-defined interfaces is unfortunate.
Yes, true cost != cost paid by the patient. The linked BBC article explains how the UK, interestingly, has a far lower total ("true") cost per capita, despite a larger share of citizens having access to high quality health care and subsidized drugs. The situation is similar in the Nordic countries and most other parts of Europe.
There are guarantees regarding maximal waiting times for phone consultation / doctor visit / hospital visit / operations. But except this, you generally make a doctor appointment by phone, and get some initial advice by the nurses answering. You describe your problem, and if it's minor (cosmetic, or a cold that probably will heal by itself) you get a longer waiting time than conditions that require more immediate care.
Citizen should be able to choose their diet without complaints from governments bodies. But we can do a lot more, like making active transport (walking, cycling and such) or semi-active (transit + walking) the most attractive mode of transportation in cities (which also has a lot of other benefits).
Sure. But 1. the European single-payer markets are still quite a large market 2. more income != more research spendings. Not necessarily. If you can increase prices in one market (like the US), you can increase profits instead.
Are you really sure? Take Sweden for example. 10 million inhabitants, but being the source of a high amount of medical innovation, and creating a nice home market for an disproportionately large amount of biotech companies. Also, the fact that higher education is free of charge (you only pay for books) plus significant public spending on medical research is probably contributing.
When it comes to incentives, it's interesting that leaving research completely to market forces creates little incentives for products or procedures that cures diseases, but much more for products that you have to use continuously all life.
That was not really an answer... I don't think US spending money on inefficient and unequally accessible health care help the security of other countries? Or do you think so?
As an outsider (living in Sweden, Europe) I am a bit curious, but mostly alarmed how the US have got such a seemingly malfunctioning health care system. Most other 1:st world countries (in Europe, Japan, South Korea...) have some variation on a single-payer system, where hospital visits and drugs are in most part paid by everyone via taxes, without what seems like the bureaucracy of private or employer-paid insurance.
In Sweden, a visit to a doctor, district nurse, psychologist or physiotherapist always cost $10-$20 (free for children below 18 years old and the elderly). A hospital visit is $20-$40, regardless of what procedures are administrated. (hospitals also seems to base the procedures applied based on medical need, rather than what can be billed). On top of that, there is a yearly cap so no citizen need paying more than $150 each year in hospital fees, and no more than $150 each year for prescription drugs.
And, to the point, the average EU citizen pay much less (including paid via taxes) for equal 1:st world class health care than the US citizen.
For example, the British spend around half the US amount on health care per capita, despite having by several measures higher quality: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42...
Journeys for most groups of society adds up to a rounding error.
But if more and more people start taking climate impact as a constraint as serious as the expenses budget things may change. At least because the attitude of people change, which actually may affect the courage of lawmakers.
The top government officials, at least in Sweden, usually go with regular flights to conferences and meetings. Some travel in 1:st or business class. There is a government jet also, operated by the Air Force (probably like the US Air force 1?) but it has a quite minor role. On the contrary, several ministers and European MEP:s actually take the train when possible, even internationally within Europe. For example, to the current climate summit in Katowice, Poland.
But yes. I know of several climate researchers that have stopped flying altogether - even when the purpose of the flight is worthwhile. Mostly because they realize how alarming the current situation is. Some system that forced everyone - and especially the richest - to cut down on their flying would be highly appreciated.
If you dig a tunnel, you have some excavated rocks to dump or transport somewhere. That may have some impact. New transportation links can affect traffic patterns in weird ways - even increasing motor traffic in some unrelated places.
And - a major point - making a hole in the ground can have major effects on ground water. It's possible Musk have some super-sure way to avoid that, but the normal way to assure this is with an environmental impact study.
Or you tunneling methods may end up not just depleting, but actually fouling ground water. Like the Hallandsåsen tunnel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's possible the boring tunnels won't have that impact, but that's for a study to find out.
Yes, such rules are certainly useful too. Forgot the US had slashed them. We could improve them, too in Sweden and Europe.
Sweden also has a financial support for newspapers, in general for the papers that are not the largest one in a given city. For the same reasons of diversity. It is supposed to be re-worked to be more media neutral. We will how it pans out...
Subscriber funded media, more or less without ads? Minimizes dependency on single copy (or single article) sales, and minimizes the risk of not being able to criticize major advertisers. Also, a culture of investigativeness, correctness, high ethical standards and keeping opinions to the editorial page is useful.
Strong independent (important) public service media, with independently secured funding, is quite important too.
We have had some reform of public service financing in Sweden (a friend and colleague of mine is the member of parliament that drafted the proposal) with even more focus on stable financial independence (in this case, a fixed tax going directly to the TV / radio, bypassing the budget process) and on making it impossible for any administration to directly have any bit of influence on either public service leadership or content.
Should not be too hard making a good voting system?
Sweden (and many Europeans do it like this): Every citizen get sent a physical voting card to their home address (including information on where and how to vote). No need for registration, just being a citizen (national elections) or at least legal resident (local elections). Election places are all over towns, usually in schools of libraries. They are staffed by volunteer respected citizen.
On election day, you go to the election place, take some ballots and envelope, and put one ballot in one envelope per election. Then you show your card at the front desk (always staffed by several volunteers), and get ticket off in the electoral roll. If you have lost your card, you can use some ID. The envelopes are put in sealed boxes (one per election) under your supervision. (Oh, you can also hand in you vote in advance, at advance election places anywhere in the country (and at consulates). They will be sent to your election place, and used if you haven't voted physically)
The boxes are kept under supervision, and when election closes, counting starts. Everyone is welcome supervising the opening of boxes and envelopes, as well as the counting. Results are usually presented the same evening. The ballots are then handed in and re-counted once at a central location for each county just to be sure.
The system is easy to audit, and hard to cheat - especially on a systematic nation-wide level (which is much easier if there is a electronic system to attack)
Arsenic won't in itself biodegrade, it's a metal. It will spread in the environment. Probably not in dangerous doses just from wire insulation, but still no good idea. I would rather go with non-edible cables in the first place...
Cryptographic keys, information on other processes (making other attacks feasible), perhaps random number generator seeds and status, for example... And the principle in general that there could be information the process is not supposed to reach.
Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles (but not motor vehicles), and should use normal traffic lanes on the street if no separate bicycle lane is available. Some local laws may allow cycling on the sidewalk, sometimes for minors only. It may also be allowed if the sidewalk is explicitly marked as a multi-use path, or is provided with a marked sidewalk-level bike lane. But normally bicycles are supposed to use the road.
In 10-20 years in some European cities (like Oslo or Freiburg) fossil fuel powered cars could be almost if not completely obsolete. Possibly internal combustion in general. Unrealistic? Possibly. But who would bet in 1940, that in 20 years almost no trains would be steam powered?
ICE cars could go the same route. Several EU countries already have serious political proposals made on banning fossil fuel powered cars, starting in 2025 or 2030. This would mean making EV:s default for new car sales quite a while ahead of the deadline. Several cities are also making bold changes to reduce car usage in favor of transit and cycling (some even propose city wide zones free from car traffic without a special permit); and low-emission zones grow in number.
I put about 20-30 kg of stuff in my bike panniers. Or you could perhaps get an cargo bike. I know a grandmother here in town who got one to transport her grandkids. 30 kg for 10 km isn't much; you could get an electric one if the distance or hills are an issue. Probably beats a owning a car in most ways if you don't driver longer than that daily. I live in Uppsala, 60 degrees north in Sweden, Europe (and manage a pool with 25 vehicles; both bikes and bike trailers). But people seems to start using cargo bikes in the US too.
(there are legitimate reasons sometime for using a heavier vehicle like a car, but people claiming "I have to save a few minutes more of commuting" in many cases actually don't save that much time - if you take in account the cost of driving. Also, putting breathable air at risk for some convenience if you actually can go bike bike or transit seems a bit selfish...)
Slashdot Mirror
The Netherlands have a GNP per capita with the US. Amsterdam - and the Randstad region in general - is quite an economic powerhouse. Rotterdam is the largest or second largest port in Europe, too.
Also, the Netherlands score far higher on most measures of life expectancy and satisfaction. One important part is the livable cities.
When did even "SJW" become an accepted term?
As far as I have noticed, it's used derogatory about people that in many cases actually raise valid concerns about intentional and unintentional mistreatment of women (or - in many cases - other people of various sorts), derogatory language against HBTQ people, and how hard privilege can be to spot when you are the one enjoying privilege (a trap many of us can fall in) ...
Of course there have been bugs. But software with a much smaller and well-defined scope (like only being an init system) tend to have less bugs. Also, software with better design choices and better QA tend to have less bugs.
Also, the dependencies on systemd instead of some independent standard with well-defined interfaces is unfortunate.
Yes, true cost != cost paid by the patient. The linked BBC article explains how the UK, interestingly, has a far lower total ("true") cost per capita, despite a larger share of citizens having access to high quality health care and subsidized drugs. The situation is similar in the Nordic countries and most other parts of Europe.
Well, why would you, if you are healthy?
There are guarantees regarding maximal waiting times for phone consultation / doctor visit / hospital visit / operations.
But except this, you generally make a doctor appointment by phone, and get some initial advice by the nurses answering. You describe your problem, and if it's minor (cosmetic, or a cold that probably will heal by itself) you get a longer waiting time than conditions that require more immediate care.
Not really, but close. It not a US-only problem.
https://www.thelocal.se/201704...
Citizen should be able to choose their diet without complaints from governments bodies. But we can do a lot more, like making active transport (walking, cycling and such) or semi-active (transit + walking) the most attractive mode of transportation in cities (which also has a lot of other benefits).
Sure. But
1. the European single-payer markets are still quite a large market
2. more income != more research spendings. Not necessarily. If you can increase prices in one market (like the US), you can increase profits instead.
Are you really sure? Take Sweden for example. 10 million inhabitants, but being the source of a high amount of medical innovation, and creating a nice home market for an disproportionately large amount of biotech companies. Also, the fact that higher education is free of charge (you only pay for books) plus significant public spending on medical research is probably contributing.
When it comes to incentives, it's interesting that leaving research completely to market forces creates little incentives for products or procedures that cures diseases, but much more for products that you have to use continuously all life.
https://www.lif.se/en/about-li...
That was not really an answer ...
I don't think US spending money on inefficient and unequally accessible health care help the security of other countries? Or do you think so?
As an outsider (living in Sweden, Europe) I am a bit curious, but mostly alarmed how the US have got such a seemingly malfunctioning health care system. Most other 1:st world countries (in Europe, Japan, South Korea ...) have some variation on a single-payer system, where hospital visits and drugs are in most part paid by everyone via taxes, without what seems like the bureaucracy of private or employer-paid insurance.
In Sweden, a visit to a doctor, district nurse, psychologist or physiotherapist always cost $10-$20 (free for children below 18 years old and the elderly). A hospital visit is $20-$40, regardless of what procedures are administrated. (hospitals also seems to base the procedures applied based on medical need, rather than what can be billed). On top of that, there is a yearly cap so no citizen need paying more than $150 each year in hospital fees, and no more than $150 each year for prescription drugs.
And, to the point, the average EU citizen pay much less (including paid via taxes) for equal 1:st world class health care than the US citizen.
For example, the British spend around half the US amount on health care per capita, despite having by several measures higher quality:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42...
Journeys for most groups of society adds up to a rounding error.
But if more and more people start taking climate impact as a constraint as serious as the expenses budget things may change. At least because the attitude of people change, which actually may affect the courage of lawmakers.
The top government officials, at least in Sweden, usually go with regular flights to conferences and meetings. Some travel in 1:st or business class.
There is a government jet also, operated by the Air Force (probably like the US Air force 1?) but it has a quite minor role. On the contrary, several ministers and European MEP:s actually take the train when possible, even internationally within Europe. For example, to the current climate summit in Katowice, Poland.
But yes. I know of several climate researchers that have stopped flying altogether - even when the purpose of the flight is worthwhile. Mostly because they realize how alarming the current situation is. Some system that forced everyone - and especially the richest - to cut down on their flying would be highly appreciated.
No.
If you dig a tunnel, you have some excavated rocks to dump or transport somewhere. That may have some impact. New transportation links can affect traffic patterns in weird ways - even increasing motor traffic in some unrelated places.
And - a major point - making a hole in the ground can have major effects on ground water. It's possible Musk have some super-sure way to avoid that, but the normal way to assure this is with an environmental impact study.
Or you tunneling methods may end up not just depleting, but actually fouling ground water. Like the Hallandsåsen tunnel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's possible the boring tunnels won't have that impact, but that's for a study to find out.
Yes, such rules are certainly useful too. Forgot the US had slashed them.
We could improve them, too in Sweden and Europe.
Sweden also has a financial support for newspapers, in general for the papers that are not the largest one in a given city. For the same reasons of diversity. It is supposed to be re-worked to be more media neutral. We will how it pans out ...
No.
Subscriber funded media, more or less without ads? Minimizes dependency on single copy (or single article) sales, and minimizes the risk of not being able to criticize major advertisers. Also, a culture of investigativeness, correctness, high ethical standards and keeping opinions to the editorial page is useful.
Strong independent (important) public service media, with independently secured funding, is quite important too.
We have had some reform of public service financing in Sweden (a friend and colleague of mine is the member of parliament that drafted the proposal) with even more focus on stable financial independence (in this case, a fixed tax going directly to the TV / radio, bypassing the budget process) and on making it impossible for any administration to directly have any bit of influence on either public service leadership or content.
Should not be too hard making a good voting system?
Sweden (and many Europeans do it like this): Every citizen get sent a physical voting card to their home address (including information on where and how to vote). No need for registration, just being a citizen (national elections) or at least legal resident (local elections). Election places are all over towns, usually in schools of libraries. They are staffed by volunteer respected citizen.
On election day, you go to the election place, take some ballots and envelope, and put one ballot in one envelope per election. Then you show your card at the front desk (always staffed by several volunteers), and get ticket off in the electoral roll. If you have lost your card, you can use some ID. The envelopes are put in sealed boxes (one per election) under your supervision. (Oh, you can also hand in you vote in advance, at advance election places anywhere in the country (and at consulates). They will be sent to your election place, and used if you haven't voted physically)
The boxes are kept under supervision, and when election closes, counting starts. Everyone is welcome supervising the opening of boxes and envelopes, as well as the counting. Results are usually presented the same evening. The ballots are then handed in and re-counted once at a central location for each county just to be sure.
The system is easy to audit, and hard to cheat - especially on a systematic nation-wide level (which is much easier if there is a electronic system to attack)
That's already quite possible with human drivers.
Arsenic won't in itself biodegrade, it's a metal. It will spread in the environment. Probably not in dangerous doses just from wire insulation, but still no good idea. I would rather go with non-edible cables in the first place ...
Cryptographic keys, information on other processes (making other attacks feasible), perhaps random number generator seeds and status, for example ...
And the principle in general that there could be information the process is not supposed to reach.
Bicycles are legally classified as vehicles (but not motor vehicles), and should use normal traffic lanes on the street if no separate bicycle lane is available. Some local laws may allow cycling on the sidewalk, sometimes for minors only. It may also be allowed if the sidewalk is explicitly marked as a multi-use path, or is provided with a marked sidewalk-level bike lane. But normally bicycles are supposed to use the road.
In 10-20 years in some European cities (like Oslo or Freiburg) fossil fuel powered cars could be almost if not completely obsolete. Possibly internal combustion in general. Unrealistic? Possibly. But who would bet in 1940, that in 20 years almost no trains would be steam powered?
ICE cars could go the same route. Several EU countries already have serious political proposals made on banning fossil fuel powered cars, starting in 2025 or 2030. This would mean making EV:s default for new car sales quite a while ahead of the deadline. Several cities are also making bold changes to reduce car usage in favor of transit and cycling (some even propose city wide zones free from car traffic without a special permit); and low-emission zones grow in number.
I put about 20-30 kg of stuff in my bike panniers. Or you could perhaps get an cargo bike. I know a grandmother here in town who got one to transport her grandkids. 30 kg for 10 km isn't much; you could get an electric one if the distance or hills are an issue. Probably beats a owning a car in most ways if you don't driver longer than that daily. I live in Uppsala, 60 degrees north in Sweden, Europe (and manage a pool with 25 vehicles; both bikes and bike trailers). But people seems to start using cargo bikes in the US too.
(there are legitimate reasons sometime for using a heavier vehicle like a car, but people claiming "I have to save a few minutes more of commuting" in many cases actually don't save that much time - if you take in account the cost of driving. Also, putting breathable air at risk for some convenience if you actually can go bike bike or transit seems a bit selfish ...)
so far they've pursued their irresponsible dreams responsibly, that could change at any time
Mostly, from our point, yes. But probably many in in occupied Tibet or of the Uyghurs (and many other ethnical minorities) beg to differ.