I actually don't think this is a bad thing for a transition stage. You put the human in the backup position, and they save the plane 3/4 times, but fuck it up once. Upgrade the computer systems, now they are 50/50 or worse. At that point, I think the outcry is to remove the human. A backup human doesn't seem to me to be the ideal final stage, but I can definitely see them filling a transition role, until it's proven that they are worse than 50/50 when trying to fill the backup role.
Some research has been done on the loading/unloading issue, and it's possible to really get the loading time down to just a few minutes. The problem is that it involves staggered entry of rows and filling from the windows out, and that is problematic for people traveling together, especially if they are assisting someone. So like always, it's kids and old people ruining it for the rest of us. And first class/loyalty program members.
While it's possible to do it better, the airlines seem to be resistant to a more complicated loading process, with exceptions for people who need assistance and the customers in their loyalty programs.
I live in the US and I have a hard time getting my head around the amount Americans drive. I have co-workers who commute 1.5 hrs each way. 80 miles/130km EACH WAY, EVERY DAY!!! How do you even live your life when 3 hours of every day is spent driving to/from work? I have a 30 minute commute and feel like even that sucks a little too much out of my day. Two more lost hours, and I would accomplish nothing useful outside of work!
we can't fix dependence on fossil fuels just by convincing everyone to use LEDs and power-saver modes.
Are you so sure about that? It's actually amazing how efficient some things can be, if required. We've not cared about inefficiencies in devices for a long time, and there is a LOT of low-hanging fruit there.
One good example actually happens to be LEDs. I've got fancy, programmable, color-changing LED bulbs in half my house now. They mimic sunrise and sunset at the same time every day, regardless of season. I find it really helps me get through dark winters. But those bulbs are 7W bulbs, and they are replacing 60W bulbs. And as they dim, they often aren't even pulling the full 7W. The lights in my house now use an order of magnitude less energy than the ones they replaced. I replaced 240W of incandescent bulbs with about 24W of LEDs. Back of the envelope, if they are on 5 hours per day the incandescent would rack up 438kWh over the course of a year. Ballpark $0.15 per kWh, and that's $65. I swapped that out for about 44kWh of LEDs over the year clocking in at $6.50.
No, LEDs alone won't fix our dependence on fossil fuels, but if we can knock an order of magnitude of power use out of the rest of our appliances, that would go a long way. As LEDs have shown, when you actually focus on energy efficiency, there's a lot you can accomplish to reduce power use. And as an aside, the payback time on my expensive programmable LED bulbs is 2 years. For bulbs that might be good for 10, that's one hell of a deal. And I could gone cheaper just buying normal, single-color, non-programmable LEDs.
Yeah, you don't very publicly make your company and the CEO look bad without seriously risking your job. It doesn't matter how valid your complaints are. Unless what they're doing is illegal enough to merit whistle-blower status, work internally to fix the issues, or leave.
Women are physically weaker than men. This puts them at a disadvantage in jobs like police officer and soldier.
Only if you assume that all police officers and soldiers do is get into physical fights with other men.
This may come as a surprise to you, but police officers and soldiers do a lot of other things. Having people with diverse sets of skills on your team is usually an advantage. Sure, there are times when you need a giant burly guy to kick some ass. But there are other times when you need mom skills to de-escalate a situation or provide comfort in the face of trauma. Big testosterone-filled burly guys generally aren't quite as good at those things.
Hilarious, AC. Spoken like someone who has never left suburbia or the city and spent time in one of the many small dying towns in the US. Love my family, and I love going back to visit, but it's a choice between managing a small business at $25k/year with no benefits vs actually having a solid retirement fund, money to travel, the ability to own a home, and knowledge that if my employer dries up, I'll have plenty of jobs to choose from. Out in the sticks, when you lose your job it's devastating, and you might not get another one for a long time. Around here it's an inconvenience to have to evaluate potential employers to figure out which one will be best to work at.
When I go back and see the family houses that have fallen into disrepair, with trailers parked out front, it makes me a little sick. But that's what the average family is able to scrape together who live there. And if I was living there, I'd likely be doing something similar too. There's just no money to be made in large parts of the US.
if you live in an impoverished area and are not willing to move to where jobs are, you're relegating yourself to a pretty poor life, in general.
Our families are still unhappy that my wife and I moved far from them, but we make tons more than them, even taking into account cost of living. During the last recession jobs in our respective fields bumped all the way up to 4% unemployment in our area. We're back down to critical shortages of people in our fields now, where both of us could have another job within a month or so, should we find we need to change.
Jobs that don't exist where we grew up are paying us piles of money and we have an embarrassing number to choose from. I have no idea what we'd be doing back where we grew up, but it would probably suck, not pay a lot, and not come with meaningful benefits. A lot of people are amazed that we just left our families behind and moved, but I can't seeing not doing that, if there is so much opportunity elsewhere. We love our families, but if they want to live in the middle of nowhere in dying small towns, they're going to have to live there without us. Life is too short to spend it making bad choices because you're sentimental about your childhood.
A second major issue is buried deeper in the article: It may be physically much larger than the second largest radio telescope, but technical limitations due to the angle of observation (if you want to look anywhere other than straight up) means that it's not as powerful as its physical dimensions may make it seem. Add to this having to relocate to the middle of nowhere, China, and I can see them having a very hard time finding anyone for the post. More than likely, they'll have to grow their own.
I suspect that, should a hyperloop actually ever be created, the scheduling would likely be done electronically in a somewhat uber-like fashion. It would be easy to set up an algorithm where the users indicate when they want to leave, and they get scheduled at a time that's convenient for the most users for each pod. Perhaps charging more if nobody else wants to go, and less if you're packing the pod to capacity.
It's as much of a lost cause as "drone", "hacker", and dozens of other words. The media steals appropriate language and abuses it like a red-headed step-child.
As I posted above, an electric, self-driving car that my wife and I share would be faster and cheaper than mass transit for me. Gas and parking are the two main cost drivers of commuting by car, which is why I take mass transit. A self-driving electric car gets rid of those costs, and kills a lot of the maintenance costs as well. It would likely cost me $1-$2 per round trip to have my electric self-driving car drop me off at work. Mass transit costs way more than that, and adds time to my commute. Now, when everyone is doing this the time might come out the same, but at that point, mass transit is also going to be impacted as well, as we don't have any underground mass transport here.
I think the GP is correct. I can definitely see plenty of assholes having their car circle while they shop, or sending it home to avoid parking fees. Even just sending it to a cheaper lot that's a bit further away. In my city, downtown parking costs money, but drive out of downtown a little, and you can find street parking for free.
I can also see people using the automatic driving to function like a second car. Right now I take mass transit, because it's far cheaper than parking and gas, which would be the bulk of the cost, and it only ads on 10-15 min to my commute. But if I could call our car from my wife's work to come take me to work, that would be tempting. An electric self-driving car would probably end up being cheaper and faster than mass transit for me, provided I sent it home or to her work for free parking. No need for two cars then, really. Multiply that by a lot of people, and I can see the congestion staying the same or getting worse, despite the ability of self-driving cars to pack closer together.
...something which I doubt is happening with MMO developers.
If the MMO is even paying developers any more, and if they have some bug reporting mechanism. Lots are largely abandonware, with a small core of players religiously still playing, trying to reach whatever goal they've set for themselves. Doesn't mean that those players wouldn't be willing to shell out some $$ to achieve that goal. And even if there are active developers, there's a good chance that they're being asked to develop more DLC/microtransaction stuff ahead of bug-fixes, because that's where the money is.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
-Socrates
If men learn this [writing], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks....and it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.
I get that we all want the cheapest stuff, but it's seeming more and more obvious that there's a real need for hardwired LEDs adjacent to the recording devices on things. Hack all you want, but if power to the mic means power to the light, there is an indicator that it's being used. And while it's possible for a spy organization to crack a device open, wire the light up differently, and embed system hooks to turn it on only when legitimate programs are open and not their spy stuff, that's a very heavy lift compared to the current requirements.
I get what you're saying, but like your friend, most people can't resist the lure of the clicky firehose. I definitely had some decent family members who posted insightful, interesting things. A friend who is an astronomer posting amazing pictures and research findings. But the sheer amount of effort to curate the good stuff and aim the firehose elsewhere was exhausting. Combined with facebook's love of changing the interface and underlying functionality regularly and randomly, I just found that the effort wasn't worth it.
No offense, but unless you're a stunning writer with great comedic ability, what you describe blogging about are exactly the things that I'd consider part of the firehose of stupid. (Higher quality, I'd assume, based on how you write here, but still part of it.) We all have our irritations in life, our pets, family, and hobbies. In general, I'm really not interested in hearing about others'. I'm well aware that I'm in a minority here, someone who finds little interest in the mundane things in life, and not being interested in spending time exploring them. I'm not a pop culture person, I don't get the appeal of most sitcoms or memes, and that makes most of social media pretty worthless to me. I still appreciate/., however, as there are still a fair number of decent, thoughtful people, (thank you, personally) and it doesn't attempt to hook people on pavlovian responses to rapid and repeated stimuli. (Aka the firehose of stupid.)
Yes, you need new friends. Also, I think my IQ went up significantly when I ditched facebook years ago. It's a firehose of stupid, even if you have decent friends. Unless you somehow have the same sense of humor and interests as your friends and family, you get a lot of stupid crap to wade through that they think is hilarious or fascinating. I'm much happier spending that time and brainpower curating my RSS feeds. While I don't get anywhere near the variety of content, any site that queues up stupid for me gets ditched, which means the quality is vastly higher. And now that I have an RSS reader with facebook support, I can even follow a handful of people/businesses that I'm interested in, without facebook curating a "newsfeed" for me consisting of stupid shit.
In addition to the point of the AC here, a second reason that nuclear power is not carbon-free is the massive amount of concrete used to build nuclear plants, far exceeding that of any other power generation save hydro. Cement production is a giant CO2 emitter, roughly the second largest CO2 source mankind has. And while not a lot of the annual concrete production goes into nuclear power plants, when it does, the amount is not negligible. Just doing a quick google, 200,000 tons of concrete for a nuclear plant at 180 kg CO2/ton is 36 million kg of CO2, That's ballpark 40,000 tons of CO2, and while a coal plant might dump out 100x that much annually and natural gas 50x, saying nuclear is carbon-free is very much wrong.
In addition to this, there's a lot of soil disruption in mining for both cement materials and uranium, and that also releases CO2. Combined with run-off from these activities, which generally isn't well controlled, you get even more CO2 released.
Nuclear is definitely better than any fossil fuel use, but not better than solar or wind in terms of CO2 generation.
"The Builders". How many of us do you think there are? Probably 99%+ of sales are people going to Dell.com or BestBuy and picking something off the shelf. (Well, these days the Apple store, I guess, which further negates processor choice.) I doubt that very many people know the difference between Intel or AMD, other than the fact that Intel advertises, so the name might be vaguely familiar. FFS, I bet not many people actually understand the difference between Intel and IBM for that matter. "They're both computer companies."
And "the builders" are probably dropping in number pretty quickly, as well. I used to upgrade a machine every year or so for about two decades, but I haven't done that in the last 3 years. 3 year old hardware is good enough for just about everything these days. The days of exponential progress every year seem long over. My primary machine is also a laptop, and they're just not worth the hassle to try and build. The massive time-sink to build a laptop isn't worth the upcharge for having someone build it for me.
What? Who is losing? What are they losing? Researchers tried to quantify the impact of pet ownership on climate change and published their findings, and thus someone is losing? Who are you, Trump?
Well, not as malicious as the anti-vaxers, that's for sure. Not getting your embryo's down-syndrome fixed hurts you and your kid. Not getting vaccinated for measles can kill people who even got vaccinated.
But I agree with universal health care. That would likely take the most expensive and debilitating hereditary diseases and cure them first, then work on the more common random ones and the less debilitating but still awful ones. Would be nice to gradually move towards a population without crippling genetic diseases.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually don't think this is a bad thing for a transition stage. You put the human in the backup position, and they save the plane 3/4 times, but fuck it up once. Upgrade the computer systems, now they are 50/50 or worse. At that point, I think the outcry is to remove the human. A backup human doesn't seem to me to be the ideal final stage, but I can definitely see them filling a transition role, until it's proven that they are worse than 50/50 when trying to fill the backup role.
I'm one of the minority of facts over feelings people in the world. Show me the data, and I'll pick the safer one. If it's the computer, so be it.
Some research has been done on the loading/unloading issue, and it's possible to really get the loading time down to just a few minutes. The problem is that it involves staggered entry of rows and filling from the windows out, and that is problematic for people traveling together, especially if they are assisting someone. So like always, it's kids and old people ruining it for the rest of us. And first class/loyalty program members.
While it's possible to do it better, the airlines seem to be resistant to a more complicated loading process, with exceptions for people who need assistance and the customers in their loyalty programs.
I live in the US and I have a hard time getting my head around the amount Americans drive. I have co-workers who commute 1.5 hrs each way. 80 miles/130km EACH WAY, EVERY DAY!!! How do you even live your life when 3 hours of every day is spent driving to/from work? I have a 30 minute commute and feel like even that sucks a little too much out of my day. Two more lost hours, and I would accomplish nothing useful outside of work!
we can't fix dependence on fossil fuels just by convincing everyone to use LEDs and power-saver modes.
Are you so sure about that? It's actually amazing how efficient some things can be, if required. We've not cared about inefficiencies in devices for a long time, and there is a LOT of low-hanging fruit there.
One good example actually happens to be LEDs. I've got fancy, programmable, color-changing LED bulbs in half my house now. They mimic sunrise and sunset at the same time every day, regardless of season. I find it really helps me get through dark winters. But those bulbs are 7W bulbs, and they are replacing 60W bulbs. And as they dim, they often aren't even pulling the full 7W. The lights in my house now use an order of magnitude less energy than the ones they replaced. I replaced 240W of incandescent bulbs with about 24W of LEDs. Back of the envelope, if they are on 5 hours per day the incandescent would rack up 438kWh over the course of a year. Ballpark $0.15 per kWh, and that's $65. I swapped that out for about 44kWh of LEDs over the year clocking in at $6.50.
No, LEDs alone won't fix our dependence on fossil fuels, but if we can knock an order of magnitude of power use out of the rest of our appliances, that would go a long way. As LEDs have shown, when you actually focus on energy efficiency, there's a lot you can accomplish to reduce power use. And as an aside, the payback time on my expensive programmable LED bulbs is 2 years. For bulbs that might be good for 10, that's one hell of a deal. And I could gone cheaper just buying normal, single-color, non-programmable LEDs.
Yeah, you don't very publicly make your company and the CEO look bad without seriously risking your job. It doesn't matter how valid your complaints are. Unless what they're doing is illegal enough to merit whistle-blower status, work internally to fix the issues, or leave.
Women are physically weaker than men. This puts them at a disadvantage in jobs like police officer and soldier.
Only if you assume that all police officers and soldiers do is get into physical fights with other men.
This may come as a surprise to you, but police officers and soldiers do a lot of other things. Having people with diverse sets of skills on your team is usually an advantage. Sure, there are times when you need a giant burly guy to kick some ass. But there are other times when you need mom skills to de-escalate a situation or provide comfort in the face of trauma. Big testosterone-filled burly guys generally aren't quite as good at those things.
Hilarious, AC. Spoken like someone who has never left suburbia or the city and spent time in one of the many small dying towns in the US. Love my family, and I love going back to visit, but it's a choice between managing a small business at $25k/year with no benefits vs actually having a solid retirement fund, money to travel, the ability to own a home, and knowledge that if my employer dries up, I'll have plenty of jobs to choose from. Out in the sticks, when you lose your job it's devastating, and you might not get another one for a long time. Around here it's an inconvenience to have to evaluate potential employers to figure out which one will be best to work at.
When I go back and see the family houses that have fallen into disrepair, with trailers parked out front, it makes me a little sick. But that's what the average family is able to scrape together who live there. And if I was living there, I'd likely be doing something similar too. There's just no money to be made in large parts of the US.
if you live in an impoverished area and are not willing to move to where jobs are, you're relegating yourself to a pretty poor life, in general.
Our families are still unhappy that my wife and I moved far from them, but we make tons more than them, even taking into account cost of living. During the last recession jobs in our respective fields bumped all the way up to 4% unemployment in our area. We're back down to critical shortages of people in our fields now, where both of us could have another job within a month or so, should we find we need to change.
Jobs that don't exist where we grew up are paying us piles of money and we have an embarrassing number to choose from. I have no idea what we'd be doing back where we grew up, but it would probably suck, not pay a lot, and not come with meaningful benefits. A lot of people are amazed that we just left our families behind and moved, but I can't seeing not doing that, if there is so much opportunity elsewhere. We love our families, but if they want to live in the middle of nowhere in dying small towns, they're going to have to live there without us. Life is too short to spend it making bad choices because you're sentimental about your childhood.
A second major issue is buried deeper in the article: It may be physically much larger than the second largest radio telescope, but technical limitations due to the angle of observation (if you want to look anywhere other than straight up) means that it's not as powerful as its physical dimensions may make it seem. Add to this having to relocate to the middle of nowhere, China, and I can see them having a very hard time finding anyone for the post. More than likely, they'll have to grow their own.
Someone like the Boring Company, perhaps?
I suspect that, should a hyperloop actually ever be created, the scheduling would likely be done electronically in a somewhat uber-like fashion. It would be easy to set up an algorithm where the users indicate when they want to leave, and they get scheduled at a time that's convenient for the most users for each pod. Perhaps charging more if nobody else wants to go, and less if you're packing the pod to capacity.
It's as much of a lost cause as "drone", "hacker", and dozens of other words. The media steals appropriate language and abuses it like a red-headed step-child.
As I posted above, an electric, self-driving car that my wife and I share would be faster and cheaper than mass transit for me. Gas and parking are the two main cost drivers of commuting by car, which is why I take mass transit. A self-driving electric car gets rid of those costs, and kills a lot of the maintenance costs as well. It would likely cost me $1-$2 per round trip to have my electric self-driving car drop me off at work. Mass transit costs way more than that, and adds time to my commute. Now, when everyone is doing this the time might come out the same, but at that point, mass transit is also going to be impacted as well, as we don't have any underground mass transport here.
I think the GP is correct. I can definitely see plenty of assholes having their car circle while they shop, or sending it home to avoid parking fees. Even just sending it to a cheaper lot that's a bit further away. In my city, downtown parking costs money, but drive out of downtown a little, and you can find street parking for free.
I can also see people using the automatic driving to function like a second car. Right now I take mass transit, because it's far cheaper than parking and gas, which would be the bulk of the cost, and it only ads on 10-15 min to my commute. But if I could call our car from my wife's work to come take me to work, that would be tempting. An electric self-driving car would probably end up being cheaper and faster than mass transit for me, provided I sent it home or to her work for free parking. No need for two cars then, really. Multiply that by a lot of people, and I can see the congestion staying the same or getting worse, despite the ability of self-driving cars to pack closer together.
...something which I doubt is happening with MMO developers.
If the MMO is even paying developers any more, and if they have some bug reporting mechanism. Lots are largely abandonware, with a small core of players religiously still playing, trying to reach whatever goal they've set for themselves. Doesn't mean that those players wouldn't be willing to shell out some $$ to achieve that goal. And even if there are active developers, there's a good chance that they're being asked to develop more DLC/microtransaction stuff ahead of bug-fixes, because that's where the money is.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
-Socrates
If men learn this [writing], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. ...and it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.
-Plato
I get that we all want the cheapest stuff, but it's seeming more and more obvious that there's a real need for hardwired LEDs adjacent to the recording devices on things. Hack all you want, but if power to the mic means power to the light, there is an indicator that it's being used. And while it's possible for a spy organization to crack a device open, wire the light up differently, and embed system hooks to turn it on only when legitimate programs are open and not their spy stuff, that's a very heavy lift compared to the current requirements.
I get what you're saying, but like your friend, most people can't resist the lure of the clicky firehose. I definitely had some decent family members who posted insightful, interesting things. A friend who is an astronomer posting amazing pictures and research findings. But the sheer amount of effort to curate the good stuff and aim the firehose elsewhere was exhausting. Combined with facebook's love of changing the interface and underlying functionality regularly and randomly, I just found that the effort wasn't worth it.
/., however, as there are still a fair number of decent, thoughtful people, (thank you, personally) and it doesn't attempt to hook people on pavlovian responses to rapid and repeated stimuli. (Aka the firehose of stupid.)
No offense, but unless you're a stunning writer with great comedic ability, what you describe blogging about are exactly the things that I'd consider part of the firehose of stupid. (Higher quality, I'd assume, based on how you write here, but still part of it.) We all have our irritations in life, our pets, family, and hobbies. In general, I'm really not interested in hearing about others'. I'm well aware that I'm in a minority here, someone who finds little interest in the mundane things in life, and not being interested in spending time exploring them. I'm not a pop culture person, I don't get the appeal of most sitcoms or memes, and that makes most of social media pretty worthless to me. I still appreciate
A vast portion of people aged 30-60, unfortunately. That's why this is a problem.
Yes, you need new friends. Also, I think my IQ went up significantly when I ditched facebook years ago. It's a firehose of stupid, even if you have decent friends. Unless you somehow have the same sense of humor and interests as your friends and family, you get a lot of stupid crap to wade through that they think is hilarious or fascinating. I'm much happier spending that time and brainpower curating my RSS feeds. While I don't get anywhere near the variety of content, any site that queues up stupid for me gets ditched, which means the quality is vastly higher. And now that I have an RSS reader with facebook support, I can even follow a handful of people/businesses that I'm interested in, without facebook curating a "newsfeed" for me consisting of stupid shit.
Done SAFELY, nuclear is essentially carbon-free.
In addition to the point of the AC here, a second reason that nuclear power is not carbon-free is the massive amount of concrete used to build nuclear plants, far exceeding that of any other power generation save hydro. Cement production is a giant CO2 emitter, roughly the second largest CO2 source mankind has. And while not a lot of the annual concrete production goes into nuclear power plants, when it does, the amount is not negligible. Just doing a quick google, 200,000 tons of concrete for a nuclear plant at 180 kg CO2/ton is 36 million kg of CO2, That's ballpark 40,000 tons of CO2, and while a coal plant might dump out 100x that much annually and natural gas 50x, saying nuclear is carbon-free is very much wrong.
In addition to this, there's a lot of soil disruption in mining for both cement materials and uranium, and that also releases CO2. Combined with run-off from these activities, which generally isn't well controlled, you get even more CO2 released.
Nuclear is definitely better than any fossil fuel use, but not better than solar or wind in terms of CO2 generation.
"The Builders". How many of us do you think there are? Probably 99%+ of sales are people going to Dell.com or BestBuy and picking something off the shelf. (Well, these days the Apple store, I guess, which further negates processor choice.) I doubt that very many people know the difference between Intel or AMD, other than the fact that Intel advertises, so the name might be vaguely familiar. FFS, I bet not many people actually understand the difference between Intel and IBM for that matter. "They're both computer companies."
And "the builders" are probably dropping in number pretty quickly, as well. I used to upgrade a machine every year or so for about two decades, but I haven't done that in the last 3 years. 3 year old hardware is good enough for just about everything these days. The days of exponential progress every year seem long over. My primary machine is also a laptop, and they're just not worth the hassle to try and build. The massive time-sink to build a laptop isn't worth the upcharge for having someone build it for me.
What? Who is losing? What are they losing? Researchers tried to quantify the impact of pet ownership on climate change and published their findings, and thus someone is losing? Who are you, Trump?
Well, not as malicious as the anti-vaxers, that's for sure. Not getting your embryo's down-syndrome fixed hurts you and your kid. Not getting vaccinated for measles can kill people who even got vaccinated.
But I agree with universal health care. That would likely take the most expensive and debilitating hereditary diseases and cure them first, then work on the more common random ones and the less debilitating but still awful ones. Would be nice to gradually move towards a population without crippling genetic diseases.