My, that sounds like a tasks schedule chart, with assignments. Something that just might be considered part of a waterfall process. And you're modifying it!!! Oh noes!
Hmm, I need a method that's going to delete all objects of a given class in an application.
I'm guessing you'd be fine if I call the method "holocaust()"? What about "application.finalSolution()" and it implements the holocaust functionality.
I suspect a lot of people here would find that naming offensive or at least problematic,
I suspect you're wrong. Neither of your strawmen add any real meaning to the original "deleteAll" function, the obvious choice. Master/slave in computer systems express exactly what the roles of those components are. The master is the authority. The others naturally form slaves and are a copy of the master, which is where the entire anthropomorphism breaks down for those feigning offense. I suppose we could call all the copies "clones", but who would we offend when the clone armies arrive?
Well what are you going to think about peek, poke, and finger?
That said: EGADS! Master / Slave is the perfect terms for these relationships. Parent/Child is not nor is Worker - that's all fucking confusing as hell. Someone should fork that branch before they push that shit on it, and continue to maintain a nice clean and clear codebase.
And in fairness it *was* rather peculiar in that it departed greatly from the historical norm for slavery. Pretty much everywhere else the children of slaves were born free, and quite often had a clear route to citizenship as well. Quite often there was a generally accepted route for captured slaves to earn their freedom as well. The idea that someone could be born into lifelong slavery was fairly uncommon.
Ummm, no. I believe you're thinking of indentured servitude. Check your Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians for starters on slavery in the past. If you were born of a slave, you were a slave from birth. You might have a nice designation (Roman) but you were a slave. That some societies allowed some property, including money, to be "owned" by slaves and that they could sometimes buy their freedom in no way makes for a clear route to citizenship. In fact, citizenship was as exceptional to a freedman as freedmen were to slaves. In all these ways, American slavery was exactly like those others, going back through all of recorded history (minus roughly 1000 years from somewhere in the 400s through the early 1600s.
But what real value does crypto currency have, and why? Oh, it's propped up by the current owners of crypto? And anyone can create a new currency? At any time? Why does crypto currency A have more value than B when they're based off of the same core codebase?
There's no inherent value in owning a coin of any specific cryptocurrency. At least with tulip bulbs you can plant them and gain something.
I'll take the bait.:) Here are some studies and information that you can review and see that the conclusion is that 8 hours is even too long. But that's for normal people, and normal people don't code in 20+ hour marathon sessions, nor do normal people focus on a single thing for multiple hours at a time. Normal people also wouldn't be able to accomplish what some can because they can do such feats. Much like not everyone can read a defense and frustrate it like Tom Brady or regularly score like Messi or Ronaldo.
So you are the opposite data point to TFS - you're overqualified and overconfident, and go home nice and relaxed at the end of each day. Bored maybe, but not stressed.
First, I believe this is the first headline question that proves the lie to the answer is always "no". Dang, now I'm actually going to have to read those questions.
You missed a few main job requirements:
Be a logistics expert - you will have tons of moving parts that all need to come together at the right time
Be a project management expert with spot on estimation skills - because you're building something that's not even well defined and you have 6 months to make it happen
Be a legal expert - you have to know what every single 3rd party library's legal clauses mean for your company and whether you can use them
Yeah, by my count such a person should be worth at least six $60K people. Then top that off with being able to manage all those responsibilities in a cohesive and complimentary fashion, let's double that. So we're somewhere north of $720K by now, as far as value to the company. Add to that that such a person relieves a C level or VP of a lot of headaches and responsibilities, and why are we still talking about how underpaid such people are?
And in case you think I believe that there's a lot of underpaid developers out there, let's boldly state there's significantly less people in this category than C-levels making more than $500K in their total package.
I have, and it wasn't anything "Agile", at least not by the manifesto. Lots of pieces that Agile claims, in various guises, but since it was managed from the top down and not bottom up, was definitely not "Agile". My personal take is as soon as you hear "Agile workplace" raise your internal red flag and see if any of the following hold:
Daily SCRUM with more than 5 people
No project lead/PM given responsibility for a project
No real management ownership in projects
A chaotic workplace where developers have binders standing on end to block neighbors on shared tables and/or wear Bose or other noise canceling headphones to block out the life-sucking cacophony surrounding them. Bonus points for dual monitors shifted to block out views of all their neighbors.
Any 1 of those is cause for alarm, 2 or more is a bow out the door scenario.
Very true. I meant more that newer applications should be dark by default but everything somehow is now standardized to light colors with lots of light output when left on default settings. I'd have been completely fine to leave things in the old style.
You can 100% blame MS for that. When windows came out, they went WYSIWYG and since paper is white, text black, voila. Once Word and Excel had those themes, they just expanded them to every other app with no easy means of converting to the "dark" theme. Another one of MS's half-assed approaches to GUIs. I can't recall if Apple's GUIs were bright white or dark back then. I know SGI had configurability, as did Sun and DEC, because I wasn't blinded when using those.
1) you're a stubborn misinformed idiot that asserts lots of things without any backing
...
3) I can't think of any countries that have private insurance that work for the populations as a whole...
That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.
And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all. That was a last simple example to enable you to prove me wrong. You failed. Again.
1) you're a stubborn misinformed idiot that asserts lots of things without any backing.
2) you don't have a clue, and I seriously doubt you have dealt with health care in other countries. I have. 4.
3) I can't think of any countries that have private insurance that work for the populations as a whole.
4) US healthcare is better than most in the world. However, an increasing group of poor and sick were being dropped from the rolls and falling through the cracks of that wonderful free market health care you keep touting (btw, you never gave any evidence for anything that would indicate the free market wasn't in operation as recently as 2010)
5) I'm not sure what "alternatives" you're looking for. You have health insurance, health care co-operatives (HMOs) and self-insurance. There are no other alternatives, unless you're looking for things that don't cover you.
Finally, you are incapable of understanding that I don't support the way the US healthcare system as it runs, even today. Posted rates need to be law. Insurance needs to be out of the medical care decisions. They cover things, or they don't. There's a litany of other things I could say, but they'd be wasted on you.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costsstarted to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.
First, US healthcare costs were what they were because really only moderately healthy people were insured. Once you fell out of a job, you were done. That generally happened once you got sick. Very convenient. Also, for many of the currently expensive diseases to treat, there were no treatments then. It was hospice. You forget that open heart surgery didn't occur until the 50s, and certainly wasn't standardized for a decade, at least.
You are correct that they didn't switch to a free market system. But you glibly ignore the fact that up through the early to mid 70s, healthcare didn't really have a whole lot of options on care other than new medicines. New techniques only started being applied on a large scale in the late 60s early 70s, and those are when healthcare costs started going up, because those were "new" things that didn't have customary and regularly accepted prices attached to them.
Single payer does not necessarily mean nationalized health care, nor does it mean no private insurance industry.
Single payer means that there is a single payer, in contrast to the multipayer system we have right now. When Democrats and progressives talk about "single payer" they mean "Medicare for all" or a system like it.
Medicare is actually a perfect example. There is a single payer for Medicare. The doctors in the system are not privatized. There's also doctors that charge more, and patients pay more, or have supplemental insurance. That sounds a lot like free market on the provider side.
Single payer will work.
Based on what? Your irrational beliefs? People point to the UK and France, but those are single payer systems with nationalized health providers.
Based on the above.
I've also stated a fully privatized system won't work, and state that's largely what we have now. Fully privatized does not mean unregulated.
Correct, and that is the problem: we have a fully privatized system and the regulations are used as regulations usually are used: for massive cronyism. That's why we either need a free market system or a system like the UK or France. And you have yet to explain why you don't want a system like the UK or France.
You still don't get it - we have, or until recently had, a free market system. It failed, even when regulations tried to rein in the worst portions of the free market abuses. It wasn't working for anyone but the young and healthy. Until you understand that, you won't comprehend why the current US system is an utter and abject failure. Yelling "free market" isn't a real solution because it was the problem.
The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.
So you agree I'm right about ACA's goals. Great.
Now you're focusing on my AMA support of ACA statement. The only thing the AMA is concerned about is the general pay of their membership. They've seen that pay go down under the current insurance industry dominated care system that's developed over the past few decades. I would subscribe that that particular fact drove their change of heart more than anything else. It's also the reason I stated that their creation got away from them, since Blue Cross and Blue Shield were started by hospital groups and doctors, respectively. You'll have to provide proof of your assertions, because they're not borne out by the facts and understanding as currently stated.
And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures.
Really? When did we last have a free market in healthcare? No restrictions on where and how insurers can operate? No tax breaks for health insurance? No limits on the number or location of medical providers? No government prohibitions on medical drugs? We haven't had free market health care in the US for a century.
Amazingly, I can't find anything that prohibits real or even fake medical drugs prior to 1938's Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was limited in scope and only applied to purity and quality of items sold, and until 1912's amendment adding "false and fraudulent claims" to the definition of misbranded. Even so, the powers enabled by the Act were limited to after the fact, meaning that no one was prevented from producing and marketing anything to the people, only that after having done so and claims of fraud or other violations were made did anything happen. Much like liability law today. That continued until 1951's Durham-Humphrey amendment requiring efficacy testing. Even then, regulation was mostly after the fact until 1962's Kefauver-Harris Amendment.
For health insurance, the first time a law proposed anything in this area was for an optional universal coverage by Truman in 1949. Obviously it failed. Not until 1965's Medicaid and Medicare expansion of Social Security did anything happen on the federal front. So I submit that healthcare was unfettered until then, and was free to operate however they chose, with state laws affecting them like any other business.
I'm not aware of any limitations on the number or locations of medical providers. I consider this a red herring.
So we've had a completely free market in health care until at least 1938, and arguably not until 1962. Even then, nothing in the regulatory situation affects medical care in the way you imply. Providers are free to operate where they're licensed by state, and those licenses are not regulated by number. Insurance is free to operate as regulated by state laws, however, that doesn't stop someone in one state from buying insurance through another state's licensed organization, however your protections are limited by state. So in what way are providers and insurance not running in a free market? Oh, you want a national free market place. Well, for that you have to go against several centuries of states having the right to regulate businesses inside their borders and open a business to consumer protections across state borders (which is regulation that you apparently think is so unnecessary in free markets)
I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.
No, I made fun of your naivite.
First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026, not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.
First, that's 32 million additional uninsured, added to the current 28 million, and gee, I don't know, basic math comes out to 60M.
Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA and was actively working to deny coverage to an increasing percentage of people applying, what makes you think it would miraculously now start providing insurance for those people?
What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. In later years, the falling enrollment will cause insurers to withdraw from the market, which exposes the fiscal irresponsibility of the ACA and the unjust burden it imposes on healthy people. The only rational solution for pre-existing conditions is for government to pick up the tab one way or another.
People not being insured under the ACA doesn't mean they become "uninsured". There are already alternatives for medical coverage and services, and with a repeal of the coverage mandate, there would be a huge market for people like me for alternative forms of coverage.
You have bought the anti ACA arguments hook line and sinker. And yes, not being insured under ACA means they're "uninsured". You are counted as being insured if you're covered by, wait for it, "insurance". There is no alternative form of coverage.
No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all.
Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.
Look in the mirror. Repeat what you just said. The 3 goals of ACA. Looks to me like it was primarily... oh no, a vehicle to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. I was potentially incorrect i stating it wasn't to lower costs of insured folks, because there is a clause that it will "support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally" which would include insured folks, but not specifically.
The US has not had a free market (3) in healthcare in about a century.
Interesting, because the first real attempt at US laws on any form of healthcare were in the 1930s with the New Deal, and the AMA forced the removal of universal health care.
What we have had was an attempt at (2) but it failed again and again, with the ACA just being the latest instance of that failure. So, (1) and (3) are the only options; good luck selling voters and the AMA on (1).
The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.
Well, you certainly give an excellent example of the kind of beliefs and vitriol that are so common on the left these days. And that's why people like me (classical liberal, gay immigrant) have left the Democratic party and the progressive movement, and we won't be coming back.
I'm actually a classical fiscal conservative and I have no party because of that. I'm certainly not left, although I hold some opinions in common with them. I also hold some opinions in common with the current right. Being a realist and seeing what's happening in the world today and where it's going in the near future, I see that our past course is no longer sustainable and that different things need to be tried here.
And, no, you don't live in the real world, you live in an economic fantasy world that inevitably will come crashing down around you; the question is only whether it's a little sooner or a little later.
And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures. What do we call that when you keep doing the same thing over and over looking for a different result?
You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in?
True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
He was arguably good as a senator. He was a terrible candidate in 2008, especially after 8 years of W and other Republican BS. Had he chosen Lieberman as his running mate instead of Palin, things would have been different, then and today. Palin indicated the bad side of the conservative movement, and I believe he regretted it as evidenced by the fact that he excluded her from his memorial.
Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more
Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to turn the US into a Russian client state, it would seem like that's not something you actually need to lose much sleep over!
I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.
The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (as you put it) the uninsured and insurance company profits.
No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all. It did purport to lower health care costs, which neither of us has data to confirm or deny. We're just complaining that it is still too high, although my data shows that it has only gone up relatively in step with other costs. You'll have to provide data showing that it has gone up more than it did prior to ACA. It shouldn't be hard if it's rampantly out of control as you claim. (In fact, I think you'll find that exercise pretty interesting, provided your mind isn't closed to facts)
There are three ways of controlling costs in a healthcare system: (1) you nationalize (like the UK or France), (2) you impose strict cost controls on a universal plan, or (3) through free markets.
You do understand that 1 & 2 are effectively the same thing, and that we had 3 which is the cause of the current problems? So 3 is a proven failure.
Note that I'm not defending the Republicans. The Republicans have the virtue of giving lip service to one of the three feasible solutions (3), but they are as impotent and unwilling as Democrats to actually make it happen. Fortunately, McCain is finally gone, so maybe they'll be able to pass some real reform after November, in particular if more jerks like McCain get the boot from voters.
You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in? Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more. There'd be a whole bunch of people tossed out based on "prior conditions", like pregnancy (one of many ridiculous "prior conditions" you could be denied coverage for). The non-resigning/retiring remainder of the Republican sycophant cesspool club are only likely to make the pharma and insurance companies even richer, given the only legislative "success" they've had, the tax plan, as a roadmap. And guess who'll be paying for that? It'll make you long for ACA like you long for W.
I wish for a veto proof non-republican majority in both houses that would be able to actually push through some responsible legislation. But that's merely a wish. much like my wish for an additional 2 or 3 active parties. At this point I also wish the Republicans would just complete their swing to the right, expose themselves as fascist nationalistic xenophobic racist aristocrats they are and marginalizing themselves to less than 5% of the population so the rest of us move on with reality.
if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.
I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.
"if you had a law which said innocent people are going to pay in and guilty people get money, it would not have passed."
And yet we have car insurance, theft insurance, jails, courts, etc
Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance?
Yes, the costs have gone up. Go look it up.
Just about everything has gone up. The question is has the real rate gone up more than the average inflation costs? And in that, I'm not sure I can definitively say it has. And that's based on costs I've seen across multiple bills from various hospitals.
Now, I carry "good" insurance. The kind that covers you when bad shit happens and doesn't leave you bankrupt and in debt and needing bailing out by the taxpayer like your *cheap* insurance plan
How nice for you. And I now have much worse insurance, as does everybody at the company I work for. So, we got screwed so that you can have better insurance. But in the long run, we're all screwed because the ACA is not sustainable and not fixable.
You really do have reading comprehension issues. I'm paying for my insurance out of pocket, so no, you're not being screwed so I can have better insurance. Yes, that means I'm paying that ridiculous $9K or so / person per year price, meaning I'm likely subsidizing your insurance. If anyone should be bitching about costs here, it's me. So kindly fuck off. Oh, and I've been paying out of pocket for about 5 years so I'm well aware of how much things have gone up.
It's not ACA that's the problem, but the insurance industry itself. Lay the blame where it belongs. Base universal health care coverage and posted rates will remove 90% of the current problems with the industry, including ACA. ACA is the easy poster boy to blame, because it made it obvious how badly you were being screwed previously, but it was hidden. Ever wonder why your wages haven't kept up with inflation? If you had health insurance, there's your answer. And no, that's not just since 2010, but all the way back to the mid 90s. This cost issue predated ACA by a long shot, and actually was the reason ACA came into being. Something was needed, or you'd be back to 1800s style coverage. You know, when America was great.
Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map.
I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama.
First, while not quoted, Gruber did state what I said above. Second, here's the full context of what Gruber really said in your quote:
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.
Note that all insurance is taking money from those that don't need insurance and passing it to those that do. That is what insurance does. He doesn't say it elegantly, but in true context, that's how it works. Now that we have the full context, does that change what he said? It does as far as I'm concerned.
It decreased the number of uninsured greatly.
You said that it achieved its objectives. Clearly, it did not achieve two of its three objectives. I think it also failed at the third objective ("more coverage"), but it's pointless to discuss that in light of the abject failure on the other two objectives.
Based on another site I came across, there's been a large benefit from ACA in the amount of money spent by taxpayers covering those uninsured people - something to the tune of many billions. But, of course, no one wants to talk about that.
Even if that were true, if overall costs have gone up, it's irrelevant to the stated objectives of the ACA.
Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance? Looking back at my bills, they've been relatively high all the way back to 2000. I just didn't see the cost 99% of the time. The increase since then for the coverage I have has increased little by little, but not large leaps and bounds like some complain about. Now, I carry "good" insurance. The kind that covers you when bad shit happens and doesn't leave you bankrupt and in debt and needing bailing out by the taxpayer like your *cheap* insurance plan that will refuse to pay your first incident, and then drop you leaving you on the hook for everything as you'll then be uninsurable.
Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.
So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.
Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map. Gruber said lots and lots of things. Secondary confirmation is required since many of those things are contradictory.
It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided
It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, but decreased coverage for many people).
It decreased the number of uninsured greatly. It lowered their costs for insurance. It basically forced effective insurance, so those "lower cost" plans that didn't cover anything were no longer legal. Complaining about those going away is like complaining that snake oil is no longer legal. And you can't argue that people that are covered now don't get better care than before they were covered. Based on another site I came across, there's been a large benefit from ACA in the amount of money spent by taxpayers covering those uninsured people - something to the tune of many billions. But, of course, no one wants to talk about that.
What, did you sleep through the entire ACA discussion?
Gruber: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” (admitting misrepresentation retroactively)
Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” (he knew it was false)
There are plenty more.
Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.
I kept my doctor. You can too. No one said it would be at the same coverage as previously. Note there's no surety any more than any year to year change of plans. So I'd say it was true, as much as it would be true for any specific Dr. in a specific plan. One of the ones I used changed plan sponsorship the year before ACA came into play. I had to choose to use out of network for him.
The question isn’t whether it “does some good” but whether it “does more good than harm” and whether it achieves its objectives.
It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.
And regardless of the statistics on the ACA, it certainly wrecked my insurance coverage. I went from a simple, everything covered plan to a worthless high deductible plan with a lot of paperwork that likely would be useless even if I got seriously sick. So did many other people. So the fact that some poor person can get “free” health insurance was bought by taking my health insurance away, taxing me for it, and to add insult to injury, I’m still nominally counted as insured.
I hear you - I paid a significant sum for health insurance each year over the past 3 years. I'm paying a little less now, for slightly less coverage. It's ridiculously high, IMNSHO. And yes, I'm covering more than myself.
As you are discovering, pass a shitty law now and then amend it later is not a viable strategy because governments change.
There you go again, assuming things. I was merely observing that a) the law had its intended effect, and b) the assumption that other pieces could be fixed later continued to be foiled by the other party.
Well, I still blame Democrats, and I and other former Democrats will work hard to remind people what a bunch of authoritarian jerks have taken over the Democratic party, and how dysfunctional their policies are.
I already knew you had an idealistic chip on your shoulder, but thanks for admitting it. I'm neither dem nor rep. I think for myself. And when it comes to authoritarian jerks, have you checked who's in control of the country lately? I'm guessing you wear a MAGA hat proudly, not understanding what it really means.
You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?
You miss the fact that war is the action of taking control of land, generally by killing people when they oppose you. My point was that the people complaining about targeted killing fail to understand what "war" itself is and that yes, we're really in one. I gave an alternative of how to quickly "win" (take over) a region using strategies used previously.
Slashdot Mirror
My, that sounds like a tasks schedule chart, with assignments. Something that just might be considered part of a waterfall process. And you're modifying it!!! Oh noes!
Hmm, I need a method that's going to delete all objects of a given class in an application.
I'm guessing you'd be fine if I call the method "holocaust()"? What about "application.finalSolution()" and it implements the holocaust functionality.
I suspect a lot of people here would find that naming offensive or at least problematic,
I suspect you're wrong. Neither of your strawmen add any real meaning to the original "deleteAll" function, the obvious choice. Master/slave in computer systems express exactly what the roles of those components are. The master is the authority. The others naturally form slaves and are a copy of the master, which is where the entire anthropomorphism breaks down for those feigning offense. I suppose we could call all the copies "clones", but who would we offend when the clone armies arrive?
Oh My God! /usr/bin/touch promotes sexual assult.
Well what are you going to think about peek, poke, and finger?
That said: EGADS! Master / Slave is the perfect terms for these relationships. Parent/Child is not nor is Worker - that's all fucking confusing as hell. Someone should fork that branch before they push that shit on it, and continue to maintain a nice clean and clear codebase.
The list is long, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, English, French, etc etc etc all kept as slaves at least some of those they conquered.
And in fairness it *was* rather peculiar in that it departed greatly from the historical norm for slavery. Pretty much everywhere else the children of slaves were born free, and quite often had a clear route to citizenship as well. Quite often there was a generally accepted route for captured slaves to earn their freedom as well. The idea that someone could be born into lifelong slavery was fairly uncommon.
Ummm, no. I believe you're thinking of indentured servitude. Check your Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians for starters on slavery in the past. If you were born of a slave, you were a slave from birth. You might have a nice designation (Roman) but you were a slave. That some societies allowed some property, including money, to be "owned" by slaves and that they could sometimes buy their freedom in no way makes for a clear route to citizenship. In fact, citizenship was as exceptional to a freedman as freedmen were to slaves. In all these ways, American slavery was exactly like those others, going back through all of recorded history (minus roughly 1000 years from somewhere in the 400s through the early 1600s.
But what real value does crypto currency have, and why? Oh, it's propped up by the current owners of crypto? And anyone can create a new currency? At any time? Why does crypto currency A have more value than B when they're based off of the same core codebase?
There's no inherent value in owning a coin of any specific cryptocurrency. At least with tulip bulbs you can plant them and gain something.
Think of the cheap laptops and tablets that come with 32GB or 64GB eMMC as main storage. 32GB is filled by Windows itself, if you look funny at it.
Perhaps you shouldn't buy a Chevy Spark and try to pull a 5 ton trailer with it, with square wheels and a fifth wheel hitch no less (Win 10)
I'll take the bait. :) Here are some studies and information that you can review and see that the conclusion is that 8 hours is even too long. But that's for normal people, and normal people don't code in 20+ hour marathon sessions, nor do normal people focus on a single thing for multiple hours at a time. Normal people also wouldn't be able to accomplish what some can because they can do such feats. Much like not everyone can read a defense and frustrate it like Tom Brady or regularly score like Messi or Ronaldo.
So you are the opposite data point to TFS - you're overqualified and overconfident, and go home nice and relaxed at the end of each day. Bored maybe, but not stressed.
First, I believe this is the first headline question that proves the lie to the answer is always "no". Dang, now I'm actually going to have to read those questions.
You missed a few main job requirements:
Be a logistics expert - you will have tons of moving parts that all need to come together at the right time
Be a project management expert with spot on estimation skills - because you're building something that's not even well defined and you have 6 months to make it happen
Be a legal expert - you have to know what every single 3rd party library's legal clauses mean for your company and whether you can use them
Yeah, by my count such a person should be worth at least six $60K people. Then top that off with being able to manage all those responsibilities in a cohesive and complimentary fashion, let's double that. So we're somewhere north of $720K by now, as far as value to the company. Add to that that such a person relieves a C level or VP of a lot of headaches and responsibilities, and why are we still talking about how underpaid such people are?
And in case you think I believe that there's a lot of underpaid developers out there, let's boldly state there's significantly less people in this category than C-levels making more than $500K in their total package.
Any 1 of those is cause for alarm, 2 or more is a bow out the door scenario.
Very true. I meant more that newer applications should be dark by default but everything somehow is now standardized to light colors with lots of light output when left on default settings. I'd have been completely fine to leave things in the old style.
You can 100% blame MS for that. When windows came out, they went WYSIWYG and since paper is white, text black, voila. Once Word and Excel had those themes, they just expanded them to every other app with no easy means of converting to the "dark" theme. Another one of MS's half-assed approaches to GUIs. I can't recall if Apple's GUIs were bright white or dark back then. I know SGI had configurability, as did Sun and DEC, because I wasn't blinded when using those.
That pretty much describes you. I would add that you're rude and a liar.
And yet you couldn't be bothered (or able) to list a single country where private insurance covered them all. That was a last simple example to enable you to prove me wrong. You failed. Again.
Bye
Finally, you are incapable of understanding that I don't support the way the US healthcare system as it runs, even today. Posted rates need to be law. Insurance needs to be out of the medical care decisions. They cover things, or they don't. There's a litany of other things I could say, but they'd be wasted on you.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear: US healthcare costs started to diverge from Europe in the late 1970's That is, until the late 1970's, the US healthcare system provided excellent care at similar cost to Europe. So your theory that it was the free market that caused health care costs to shoot up so much higher than in Europe is false, because the US certainly did not switch to a free market in the late 1970's.
First, US healthcare costs were what they were because really only moderately healthy people were insured. Once you fell out of a job, you were done. That generally happened once you got sick. Very convenient. Also, for many of the currently expensive diseases to treat, there were no treatments then. It was hospice. You forget that open heart surgery didn't occur until the 50s, and certainly wasn't standardized for a decade, at least.
You are correct that they didn't switch to a free market system. But you glibly ignore the fact that up through the early to mid 70s, healthcare didn't really have a whole lot of options on care other than new medicines. New techniques only started being applied on a large scale in the late 60s early 70s, and those are when healthcare costs started going up, because those were "new" things that didn't have customary and regularly accepted prices attached to them.
Single payer means that there is a single payer, in contrast to the multipayer system we have right now. When Democrats and progressives talk about "single payer" they mean "Medicare for all" or a system like it.
Medicare is actually a perfect example. There is a single payer for Medicare. The doctors in the system are not privatized. There's also doctors that charge more, and patients pay more, or have supplemental insurance. That sounds a lot like free market on the provider side.
Based on what? Your irrational beliefs? People point to the UK and France, but those are single payer systems with nationalized health providers.
Based on the above.
Correct, and that is the problem: we have a fully privatized system and the regulations are used as regulations usually are used: for massive cronyism. That's why we either need a free market system or a system like the UK or France. And you have yet to explain why you don't want a system like the UK or France.
You still don't get it - we have, or until recently had, a free market system. It failed, even when regulations tried to rein in the worst portions of the free market abuses. It wasn't working for anyone but the young and healthy. Until you understand that, you won't comprehend why the current US system is an utter and abject failure. Yelling "free market" isn't a real solution because it was the problem.
The AMA back then wanted what the AMA wants now: private corporations providing services with government-guaranteed price floors, monopolies, and purchasing mandates. And in Obama, they finally found their crony to give it to them.
So you agree I'm right about ACA's goals. Great.
Now you're focusing on my AMA support of ACA statement. The only thing the AMA is concerned about is the general pay of their membership. They've seen that pay go down under the current insurance industry dominated care system that's developed over the past few decades. I would subscribe that that particular fact drove their change of heart more than anything else. It's also the reason I stated that their creation got away from them, since Blue Cross and Blue Shield were started by hospital groups and doctors, respectively. You'll have to provide proof of your assertions, because they're not borne out by the facts and understanding as currently stated.
Really? When did we last have a free market in healthcare? No restrictions on where and how insurers can operate? No tax breaks for health insurance? No limits on the number or location of medical providers? No government prohibitions on medical drugs? We haven't had free market health care in the US for a century.
Amazingly, I can't find anything that prohibits real or even fake medical drugs prior to 1938's Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was limited in scope and only applied to purity and quality of items sold, and until 1912's amendment adding "false and fraudulent claims" to the definition of misbranded. Even so, the powers enabled by the Act were limited to after the fact, meaning that no one was prevented from producing and marketing anything to the people, only that after having done so and claims of fraud or other violations were made did anything happen. Much like liability law today. That continued until 1951's Durham-Humphrey amendment requiring efficacy testing. Even then, regulation was mostly after the fact until 1962's Kefauver-Harris Amendment.
For health insurance, the first time a law proposed anything in this area was for an optional universal coverage by Truman in 1949. Obviously it failed. Not until 1965's Medicaid and Medicare expansion of Social Security did anything happen on the federal front. So I submit that healthcare was unfettered until then, and was free to operate however they chose, with state laws affecting them like any other business.
I'm not aware of any limitations on the number or locations of medical providers. I consider this a red herring.
So we've had a completely free market in health care until at least 1938, and arguably not until 1962. Even then, nothing in the regulatory situation affects medical care in the way you imply. Providers are free to operate where they're licensed by state, and those licenses are not regulated by number. Insurance is free to operate as regulated by state laws, however, that doesn't stop someone in one state from buying insurance through another state's licensed organization, however your protections are limited by state. So in what way are providers and insurance not running in a free market? Oh, you want a national free market place. Well, for that you have to go against several centuries of states having the right to regulate businesses inside their borders and open a business to consumer protections across state borders (which is regulation that you apparently think is so unnecessary in free markets)
No, I made fun of your naivite.
First, note that the CBO scored 26 million or 32 million in 2026, not 60 million, and only under the assumption that the market will not provide insurance for those people.
First, that's 32 million additional uninsured, added to the current 28 million, and gee, I don't know, basic math comes out to 60M.
Since the market didn't provide them insurance before ACA and was actively working to deny coverage to an increasing percentage of people applying, what makes you think it would miraculously now start providing insurance for those people?
What the CBO actually is saying is that 18 million people would choose not to get health insurance through ACA in 2018. Democrats are up in arms about it because it exposes how many people are actually being screwed by the ACA. In later years, the falling enrollment will cause insurers to withdraw from the market, which exposes the fiscal irresponsibility of the ACA and the unjust burden it imposes on healthy people. The only rational solution for pre-existing conditions is for government to pick up the tab one way or another.
People not being insured under the ACA doesn't mean they become "uninsured". There are already alternatives for medical coverage and services, and with a repeal of the coverage mandate, there would be a huge market for people like me for alternative forms of coverage.
You have bought the anti ACA arguments hook line and sinker. And yes, not being insured under ACA means they're "uninsured". You are counted as being insured if you're covered by, wait for it, "insurance". There is no alternative form of coverage.
Look, I gave you the three objectives of the ACA according to the US government. You're entitled to your own opinions, self-serving as they may be, but not to your own facts.
Look in the mirror. Repeat what you just said. The 3 goals of ACA. Looks to me like it was primarily... oh no, a vehicle to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. I was potentially incorrect i stating it wasn't to lower costs of insured folks, because there is a clause that it will "support innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally" which would include insured folks, but not specifically.
The US has not had a free market (3) in healthcare in about a century.
Interesting, because the first real attempt at US laws on any form of healthcare were in the 1930s with the New Deal, and the AMA forced the removal of universal health care.
What we have had was an attempt at (2) but it failed again and again, with the ACA just being the latest instance of that failure. So, (1) and (3) are the only options; good luck selling voters and the AMA on (1).
The AMA is actually in favor of universal healthcare. Like any other unchecked rampant capital enterprise, the AMA was all for no gov interference in health care until their own creation got away from them, and they had a total change of heart as evidenced by AMA's support of universal health care in 2009.
Well, you certainly give an excellent example of the kind of beliefs and vitriol that are so common on the left these days. And that's why people like me (classical liberal, gay immigrant) have left the Democratic party and the progressive movement, and we won't be coming back.
I'm actually a classical fiscal conservative and I have no party because of that. I'm certainly not left, although I hold some opinions in common with them. I also hold some opinions in common with the current right. Being a realist and seeing what's happening in the world today and where it's going in the near future, I see that our past course is no longer sustainable and that different things need to be tried here.
And, no, you don't live in the real world, you live in an economic fantasy world that inevitably will come crashing down around you; the question is only whether it's a little sooner or a little later.
And yet you keep wanting to go back to things that have been proven failures. What do we call that when you keep doing the same thing over and over looking for a different result?
True. And what did he believe in? He was an authoritarian who believed in bombing people into the stone age, spying on Americans, and sending money to his cronies. That's why people (including me) overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
He was arguably good as a senator. He was a terrible candidate in 2008, especially after 8 years of W and other Republican BS. Had he chosen Lieberman as his running mate instead of Palin, things would have been different, then and today. Palin indicated the bad side of the conservative movement, and I believe he regretted it as evidenced by the fact that he excluded her from his memorial.
Well, given that Trump is going to destroy all life on earth and simultaneously going to turn the US into a Russian client state, it would seem like that's not something you actually need to lose much sleep over!
I like how you totally skip over the stated fact of how many would be uninsured.
The ACA was sold on the idea that high US healthcare costs are due (as you put it) the uninsured and insurance company profits.
No. ACA was sold as a way to reduce uninsured and healthcare costs for those people. It wasn't sold on the basis of reducing costs to insured people at all. It did purport to lower health care costs, which neither of us has data to confirm or deny. We're just complaining that it is still too high, although my data shows that it has only gone up relatively in step with other costs. You'll have to provide data showing that it has gone up more than it did prior to ACA. It shouldn't be hard if it's rampantly out of control as you claim. (In fact, I think you'll find that exercise pretty interesting, provided your mind isn't closed to facts)
There are three ways of controlling costs in a healthcare system: (1) you nationalize (like the UK or France), (2) you impose strict cost controls on a universal plan, or (3) through free markets.
You do understand that 1 & 2 are effectively the same thing, and that we had 3 which is the cause of the current problems? So 3 is a proven failure.
Note that I'm not defending the Republicans. The Republicans have the virtue of giving lip service to one of the three feasible solutions (3), but they are as impotent and unwilling as Democrats to actually make it happen. Fortunately, McCain is finally gone, so maybe they'll be able to pass some real reform after November, in particular if more jerks like McCain get the boot from voters.
You realize McCain was the one reputable guy that stood for what he believed in? Had he not thumbs downed the vote, there'd be no health insurance for an estimated (CBO) 60M people, and likely more. There'd be a whole bunch of people tossed out based on "prior conditions", like pregnancy (one of many ridiculous "prior conditions" you could be denied coverage for). The non-resigning/retiring remainder of the Republican sycophant cesspool club are only likely to make the pharma and insurance companies even richer, given the only legislative "success" they've had, the tax plan, as a roadmap. And guess who'll be paying for that? It'll make you long for ACA like you long for W.
I wish for a veto proof non-republican majority in both houses that would be able to actually push through some responsible legislation. But that's merely a wish. much like my wish for an additional 2 or 3 active parties. At this point I also wish the Republicans would just complete their swing to the right, expose themselves as fascist nationalistic xenophobic racist aristocrats they are and marginalizing themselves to less than 5% of the population so the rest of us move on with reality.
I.e. Democrats lied about the intent and function of the bill in order to get it to pass, because they knew full well that Americans would reject this kind of economic policy.
"if you had a law which said innocent people are going to pay in and guilty people get money, it would not have passed."
And yet we have car insurance, theft insurance, jails, courts, etc
Yes, the costs have gone up. Go look it up.
Just about everything has gone up. The question is has the real rate gone up more than the average inflation costs? And in that, I'm not sure I can definitively say it has. And that's based on costs I've seen across multiple bills from various hospitals.
How nice for you. And I now have much worse insurance, as does everybody at the company I work for. So, we got screwed so that you can have better insurance. But in the long run, we're all screwed because the ACA is not sustainable and not fixable.
You really do have reading comprehension issues. I'm paying for my insurance out of pocket, so no, you're not being screwed so I can have better insurance. Yes, that means I'm paying that ridiculous $9K or so / person per year price, meaning I'm likely subsidizing your insurance. If anyone should be bitching about costs here, it's me. So kindly fuck off. Oh, and I've been paying out of pocket for about 5 years so I'm well aware of how much things have gone up.
It's not ACA that's the problem, but the insurance industry itself. Lay the blame where it belongs. Base universal health care coverage and posted rates will remove 90% of the current problems with the industry, including ACA. ACA is the easy poster boy to blame, because it made it obvious how badly you were being screwed previously, but it was hidden. Ever wonder why your wages haven't kept up with inflation? If you had health insurance, there's your answer. And no, that's not just since 2010, but all the way back to the mid 90s. This cost issue predated ACA by a long shot, and actually was the reason ACA came into being. Something was needed, or you'd be back to 1800s style coverage. You know, when America was great.
I have provided two quotes, you have provided zero. In addition, these quotes are not in dispute as representing the intent of either Gruber or Obama.
First, while not quoted, Gruber did state what I said above. Second, here's the full context of what Gruber really said in your quote:
Note that all insurance is taking money from those that don't need insurance and passing it to those that do. That is what insurance does. He doesn't say it elegantly, but in true context, that's how it works. Now that we have the full context, does that change what he said? It does as far as I'm concerned.
You said that it achieved its objectives. Clearly, it did not achieve two of its three objectives. I think it also failed at the third objective ("more coverage"), but it's pointless to discuss that in light of the abject failure on the other two objectives.
Even if that were true, if overall costs have gone up, it's irrelevant to the stated objectives of the ACA.
Actually - have overall costs gone up, or are more people shouldering the true cost of health insurance? Looking back at my bills, they've been relatively high all the way back to 2000. I just didn't see the cost 99% of the time. The increase since then for the coverage I have has increased little by little, but not large leaps and bounds like some complain about. Now, I carry "good" insurance. The kind that covers you when bad shit happens and doesn't leave you bankrupt and in debt and needing bailing out by the taxpayer like your *cheap* insurance plan that will refuse to pay your first incident, and then drop you leaving you on the hook for everything as you'll then be uninsurable.
So you admit that they lied and misrepresented the plan, you simply think it's OK.
Since I have to spell it out for you, you have to do more than cherry pick your quotes from someone that was all over the map. Gruber said lots and lots of things. Secondary confirmation is required since many of those things are contradictory.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has three primary, overarching objectives: increase health insurance coverage, reduce rising healthcare costs, and improve the quality of care provided
It certainly didn't accomplish (2) or (3), and arguably didn't even accomplish (1) (it expanded number of people covered, but decreased coverage for many people).
It decreased the number of uninsured greatly. It lowered their costs for insurance. It basically forced effective insurance, so those "lower cost" plans that didn't cover anything were no longer legal. Complaining about those going away is like complaining that snake oil is no longer legal. And you can't argue that people that are covered now don't get better care than before they were covered. Based on another site I came across, there's been a large benefit from ACA in the amount of money spent by taxpayers covering those uninsured people - something to the tune of many billions. But, of course, no one wants to talk about that.
What, did you sleep through the entire ACA discussion?
Gruber: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” (admitting misrepresentation retroactively)
Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” (he knew it was false)
There are plenty more.
Gruber also said political realities forced the approach used.
I kept my doctor. You can too. No one said it would be at the same coverage as previously. Note there's no surety any more than any year to year change of plans. So I'd say it was true, as much as it would be true for any specific Dr. in a specific plan. One of the ones I used changed plan sponsorship the year before ACA came into play. I had to choose to use out of network for him.
The question isn’t whether it “does some good” but whether it “does more good than harm” and whether it achieves its objectives.
It's objectives were to lower the uninsured rate. It succeeded.
And regardless of the statistics on the ACA, it certainly wrecked my insurance coverage. I went from a simple, everything covered plan to a worthless high deductible plan with a lot of paperwork that likely would be useless even if I got seriously sick. So did many other people. So the fact that some poor person can get “free” health insurance was bought by taking my health insurance away, taxing me for it, and to add insult to injury, I’m still nominally counted as insured.
I hear you - I paid a significant sum for health insurance each year over the past 3 years. I'm paying a little less now, for slightly less coverage. It's ridiculously high, IMNSHO. And yes, I'm covering more than myself.
As you are discovering, pass a shitty law now and then amend it later is not a viable strategy because governments change.
There you go again, assuming things. I was merely observing that a) the law had its intended effect, and b) the assumption that other pieces could be fixed later continued to be foiled by the other party.
Well, I still blame Democrats, and I and other former Democrats will work hard to remind people what a bunch of authoritarian jerks have taken over the Democratic party, and how dysfunctional their policies are.
I already knew you had an idealistic chip on your shoulder, but thanks for admitting it. I'm neither dem nor rep. I think for myself. And when it comes to authoritarian jerks, have you checked who's in control of the country lately? I'm guessing you wear a MAGA hat proudly, not understanding what it really means.
You said that these older conflicts were all out war, and that the more recent ones were regular war. How does this excuse the bad things that happened more recently?
You miss the fact that war is the action of taking control of land, generally by killing people when they oppose you. My point was that the people complaining about targeted killing fail to understand what "war" itself is and that yes, we're really in one. I gave an alternative of how to quickly "win" (take over) a region using strategies used previously.