I'm sorry, but people are correct to claim censorship: according to the summary, pages have been removed, yes for spreading falsehoods and propaganda, but they're gone all the same. That is censorship on the part of Facebook.
Is that censorship justified? According to Facebook's TOS, sure, but it still strikes me as a worrisome strategy. Rather than remove the pages, I'd think it'd be more sensible to label them as known propaganda sources, and provide references that contradict detected falsehoods. Since the detection is supposedly done algorithmically, it should be relatively straightforward for Facebook to take that approach.
Instead of exposing fallacies to the light, Facebook instead opted for censorship, relying on rather opaque (to end users) processes. Facebook is essentially saying, "trust us, you shouldn't look at this stuff." Is it really any wonder that people are skeptical of Facebook's claims and motives? Even if Facebook is 100% correct to remove the pages that it has, it establishes a precedent for removal with little -- if any -- oversight... and the crowd here is cheering for that closed process.
This sort of process just begs for abuse, and as already shown, it leads others to suspect abuse -- even if entirely unwarranted -- leading such people to cling to conspiracies. I'd be surprised if the strategy ultimately has the effect people here seem to think it will have, but hey, this crowd already surprised me with their embrace of closed, censorious tactics of a mega-corporation. Anything to stick a thumb in the eye of "people who think that they can establish what's true based on faith and feelings," aka, "Republicans," though, right?
Why not just open news (or whatever) sites in a new tab, mute the tab (context menu on the tab -> mute tab), then view when ready? Videos don't start playing in a tab until it's activated, so you don't run the risk of hearing anything until you first give focus to the tab, offering plenty of time to mute it. You can always just unmute the tab if you want to hear a specific video (you can also stop/mute any other unwanted videos on the site before you unmute the tab at your leisure).
Really, this approach has worked really well for me, and it's very fine grained, which is something that this new feature doesn't seem to be (no need to always permit video on a site if you just want to hear one of their videos).
I mean, it doesn't sound like a bad feature or anything, just doesn't really seem that it adds all that much benefit over what was already available out of the box. Or maybe I'm just missing something.
Well, since the textile industry is a huge greenhouse-gas emitter already, and since they're just going to raise those emissions to meet the apparent increase in demand for new textiles, it seems they should just get taxed, right? I mean, slapping on a new textile tax will help decrease demand by denizens of the developing world by raising prices for new textiles out of their reach, thereby increasing demand for second-hand textiles again. Tax revenues could also be used to develop cleaner energy sources and mitigation techniques for greenhouse-gas emissions. It's a giant win, right?
Unless, of course, you happen to be one of those denizens... I'm sure that the prospect of helping the environment will fill them with warm fuzzies, though, even if they don't end up with particularly warm fuzzies to wear.
Much of a processor can be designed in RTL (the type of code you could open source), but there are critical components (as in, CPUs do not function without them -- at all) that require detailed knowledge of the underlying process. Any sort of clock distribution, selection, skewing, or balancing, for example, pretty much requires not only detailed knowledge of the types of gates available in process libraries, but also exhaustive simulations across all kinds of different timing scenarios to ensure that designs work as intended. Additionally, these types of circuits are not trivial to design, and they're often tightly integrated into the rest of a design in a way that isn't exactly modular (as in, even if there are separate clocking modules, design assumptions make removal or modifications of those clocking modules quite difficult).
Maybe you could get away with an open core on an FPGA, but if you do that, you're going to sacrifice a lot in terms of performance -- as in getting at best into the 100s of MHz range compared to GHz for an ASIC. Moreover, you're not going to squeeze multiple cores and huge caches onto a single FPGA, so you'll need some sort of stitching to get anything even remotely close to your most basic Intel off-the-shelf processor.
Basically the best you'll be able to say with a purely open source CPU is, "buy this for 10x the cost and at 1/10th the performance... but you can feel good that it's open source." At that point, all I can say is, "good luck with that."
Setting aside all other moral/practical considerations -- which, no, does not diminish them -- this is what stood out to me:
A lawyer for some of the men argues that Seattle's tech giants aren't conducting any training to increase employees' compassion for trafficked women in brothels.
Seeing that, all I could think was, "oh great, now my company's going to add yet another 'hey, don't be bad' training session."
Do all these mandatory sessions actually accomplish anything? That is, aside from *wanting to believe* that they make a difference in behavior, do they actually make a measurable difference? Or is their sole purpose to provide a company with a due diligence out in case some asshole lawyer tries to blame a company for the fuck-ups of individual employees?
Lots of debt... don't forget that Broadcom was actually bigger than Avago when Avago made that purchase.
Even with a lot of debt, though, Broadcom (Avago) is actually really good at repayment following acquisitions: they basically slice up what they acquire in order to pick off the business units they really want, and sell off the rest. That means that they recoup a lot of the expense of an acquisition pretty much immediately. Obviously it's not great if you happen to work for one of those less desirable business units, but, hey, it's not much better if you're part of one of the desired units either: Broadcom is also highly aggressive about improving profitability of business units; their m.o. is basically cut until it bleeds.
Still, from an investment bank perspective, Broadcom has traditionally been a pretty good lending opportunity.
Pretty sure people not buying stuff was the point of the article: if people aren't buying your stuff (because you don't offer anything compelling) you, as a business, will cease to exist. Hence, the "Tech Industry's Existential Crisis".
I don't see why leveraging client CPU cycles for cryptocurrencies obviates traditional ad income; they're not mutually exclusive, after all. Sure, some websites may initially declare that they're crypto-only, but once it becomes evident that people will tolerate ads as well as lending their CPUs toward mining, the ads will come rolling back. Just like subscription services inevitably pursue advertising (ex. cable/satellite/etc.), websites with distributed client-side mining will too.
I'd have made several of your points if you hadn't already done so... I mean, MGTOW, 4chan, and "new media?" You can have genuine, meaningful disagreements with those groups, but they're clearly not all alt-Right, drawing instead from several backgrounds that aren't identity based.
When it comes down to it, figureheads of the alt-Right -- as in those vocally advertising their membership -- all advocate, at the very least, White identity. Other right-leaning -- even far right -- groups do not (ex. the so-called alt-Lite).
The irony is that AmiMoJo's remark proves the whole point the alt-Right was making in their "unite the Right" rally: namely, those to the right, regardless of whether they embrace White identity or not, will be lumped in with those who do, so such people may as well relent (to pressures pushing -- and pulling -- them to the alt-Right). The more readily people are dismissed and coarsely grouped as some evil other, the more readily they will actually embrace that other identity. The only thing misguided labeling strategies accomplish is the production of more people actually deserving of such labels.
I thought that a central tenet of the Alt-right ideology was White identity. While not technically identical to White supremacy (the thinking isn't that Whites are superior per se, but rather that racial homogeneity -- Whiteness in this case -- is necessary for functional society), identitarianism is closely related. Given that neither identitarians or supremacists are going to find much mainstream support, do you really think they're going to split hairs on the supremacy point when they're ideologically so close, and hurting for allies?
Remember kids, keep your harmful* opinions to yourself.
*The threshold for harmful opinion is subject to change. Google reserves the right to declare any idea, and the expression thereof, as harmful at any time, and will not tolerate employment or use of Google services by those expressing such ideas.
By personal preference, I meant the personal preferences of people seeking entry into a field. Guess it didn't occur to you that women and men might actually enjoy slightly different pursuits. Anything to get to 50/50, right?
Keep tossing around the bigotry label, though. It's certainly evident how morally upright you are. You big 'ol saint, you.
I've read your response. It is well thought out (considering its goal) and sourced (though sources aren't used, but there are a number of baseless assertions), and very cleverly written, but the ideas it expresses are not reasonable or novel.
The response is meticulously written to keep one's SJW radar close to background noise level. The effort put into this response's stealth is admirable. There are only a few sentences that should send it into yellow alert.
But under this response's matte black, angled surface, it carries a rather primitive payload of authoritative shaming and public posturing. and blanket opposition to the concept of personal preferences. The author makes his argument by attempting to dress these concepts as the lesser evils and the more meritocratic and logical options. It's a great work of underhanded political writing hiding a rather crude and unremarkable argument.
----------
Wow, it's amazing how your critique can work to dismiss pretty much anything, isn't it?
I've been to Seattle several times -- in the past couple years -- and my experience is far more in line with the GP's than yours. I've never seen it anywhere close to empty and, while I've seen worse traffic congestion, to imply that there's little traffic (both auto and foot) is a flat-out lie.
When's the last time you were actually there? Or were you perhaps comparing it unreasonably against ultra-crowded cities?
I wondered this too. Moreover, I would suspect pretty strong selection bias, given that this considers men, over 40, seeking procreation -- with much younger women -- via IVF. There's probably only a fairly specific subset of men that those conditions apply to, and I wouldn't be shocked to learn that that subset has depressed reproductive capabilities to begin with.
This article suggests a correlation, as you said, but hasn't shown that those men, for whom a biological clock is assumed to be ticking, ever even had a good clock.
Yes, but it's much easier to just say Trump is an evil idiot than to actually read through a 62 page budget proposal.
The sad thing for me, personally, is that I am highly skeptical of Trump's budget claims, and am inclined to believe that there are some significant errors/misrepresentations in his budget proposal, but I've come to distrust the Washington Post (especially op-eds, regardless of the editorialist's credentials) even more. Moreover, just looking at the discussion here, it's abundantly clear that exceedingly few posters have bothered to actually determine whether the claimed error is genuine or not, opting instead to bash Trump on irrelevant, even if possibly true, charges. And they're moderated insightful, somehow.
Anyway, a bit of a rant, I know, but it'd have been really great if the article, or even other posters, specifically indicated where the error occurred in the proposed budget rather than just asserting it. Guess I'm stuck spending time reviewing something that I don't have time to actually review.
I'm glad to see someone mention this. "Emoluments" has become a bit of a mantra among some, and it's pretty evident that they're overstating the scope of those clauses to claim that Trump is violating the Constitution. As you implied, Trump may be violating the Constitution with some as yet undisclosed dealings, but I've yet to see anything disclosed that clearly, actually violates the Emoluments clauses referenced.
How is this considered insightful? The only way to accurately gauge interest is via engagement. You know... actually interacting with subject matter in a way that can enable growth, and makes any interest evident to other people -- who are ultimately the people who count (sorry solipsists).
Also...
Did you try to recruit them for another tech activity when the play was over?
Stop. Just stop.
Part of learning anything of any use is that, actually, the world doesn't revolve around your desires, and not everything is going to work according to your whims. If plays and coding are mutually exclusive given the scheduling available, sorry, you need to prioritize one or the other. Incidentally, it sounds like that's exactly what the girls did; they just prioritized something that you and you in particular take issue with.
What about when they *demand* that you work for them on *your* time? "Aggressive" scheduling often requires working at odd hours to correspond with outside groups half a world away, and you'd better believe they expect you to be responsive. Given that they expect work off hours, is it really a violation of any employer/employee understanding to bring some of the personal work you would have done in those off hours to the physical office during standard 8-5 hours (especially if nothing much happens to be going on during those standard hours)?
If the contention is that renewable energy sources, like solar, are now truly cheaper than coal, then it doesn't really matter what Trump decides to do with coal regulations; market demand will move past coal regardless of political motivations to keep it. So why complain about deregulation of something that's going away anyway... unless pricing and fungibility of those renewable sources isn't quite as compelling as you're trying to claim?
This isn't to defend bad doctors -- of which there are many -- or anything, but you are not a doctor, you don't possess medical expertise which even generalists have, and to be frank, your "lived experience," while not totally worthless, is more than likely not nearly as good an indicator for medical diagnoses as you seem to think it is. Much of the time, your recollection of what you lived is going to be incomplete, biased, or straight-up counterfactual (note that I didn't imply lying... you can be quite wrong without intending it) when compared against what actually occurred. That's why objective tests are used so often instead, something that most older patients, who recall more physical examinations and discussions, will often describe as a disconcerting shift in medical practices. To be certain, physicals are still conducted, but I'd suspect that, unless your doctor is quite a bit more seasoned, they're probably ordering more tests than you give them credit for.
So how about those tests?
Well, every test carries with it a false positive (and false negative) rate... I know of no non-trivial diagnostic test that is 100% accurate. Let's say that you test positive for some horrible disease, though. Naturally, you'd get a 2nd opinion (independent, likely different test). What's the chance that the 2nd test will produce a different result? Veritasium recently went over a pretty good explanation of exactly this scenario: if your initial test accurately diagnosed people as having a disease 99% of the time, you'd actually have only a ~9% chance of actually having the disease, given a positive initial test result, so a 2nd, independent test would likely suggest a different outcome. This doesn't mean that the initial test is worthless or bad; it just means that a test useful for screening diseases is still limited in what it can actually say. It also doesn't mean that a differing 2nd opinion is an indication of ineptitude of the first lab, though that is a possibility; again, it means that tests are limited in what they can actually say.
It certainly doesn't mean that you should disregard medical expertise for your own idea of what you think is going on. By all means, though, if that's the fire you want to play with, play with it to your heart's content. Just don't complain when you get burned.
Classifying Norway as socialist is a bit like classifying the USA as capitalist. Neither nation is fully socialist or capitalist -- they both have significant elements of capitalism and socialism -- but they differ in the amount by which they embrace, for example, socialism. Actually, I would argue that, while Norway is more socialist than the USA, it is nonetheless more capitalist than it is socialist.
Also, why is it that every time some nation tries to completely (or predominately) adopt socialism or it's more extreme cousin, communism, people always claim that it wasn't actually, really socialist (or communist) when that nation fails?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but people are correct to claim censorship: according to the summary, pages have been removed, yes for spreading falsehoods and propaganda, but they're gone all the same. That is censorship on the part of Facebook.
Is that censorship justified? According to Facebook's TOS, sure, but it still strikes me as a worrisome strategy. Rather than remove the pages, I'd think it'd be more sensible to label them as known propaganda sources, and provide references that contradict detected falsehoods. Since the detection is supposedly done algorithmically, it should be relatively straightforward for Facebook to take that approach.
Instead of exposing fallacies to the light, Facebook instead opted for censorship, relying on rather opaque (to end users) processes. Facebook is essentially saying, "trust us, you shouldn't look at this stuff." Is it really any wonder that people are skeptical of Facebook's claims and motives? Even if Facebook is 100% correct to remove the pages that it has, it establishes a precedent for removal with little -- if any -- oversight... and the crowd here is cheering for that closed process.
This sort of process just begs for abuse, and as already shown, it leads others to suspect abuse -- even if entirely unwarranted -- leading such people to cling to conspiracies. I'd be surprised if the strategy ultimately has the effect people here seem to think it will have, but hey, this crowd already surprised me with their embrace of closed, censorious tactics of a mega-corporation. Anything to stick a thumb in the eye of "people who think that they can establish what's true based on faith and feelings," aka, "Republicans," though, right?
Why not just open news (or whatever) sites in a new tab, mute the tab (context menu on the tab -> mute tab), then view when ready? Videos don't start playing in a tab until it's activated, so you don't run the risk of hearing anything until you first give focus to the tab, offering plenty of time to mute it. You can always just unmute the tab if you want to hear a specific video (you can also stop/mute any other unwanted videos on the site before you unmute the tab at your leisure).
Really, this approach has worked really well for me, and it's very fine grained, which is something that this new feature doesn't seem to be (no need to always permit video on a site if you just want to hear one of their videos).
I mean, it doesn't sound like a bad feature or anything, just doesn't really seem that it adds all that much benefit over what was already available out of the box. Or maybe I'm just missing something.
Well, since the textile industry is a huge greenhouse-gas emitter already, and since they're just going to raise those emissions to meet the apparent increase in demand for new textiles, it seems they should just get taxed, right? I mean, slapping on a new textile tax will help decrease demand by denizens of the developing world by raising prices for new textiles out of their reach, thereby increasing demand for second-hand textiles again. Tax revenues could also be used to develop cleaner energy sources and mitigation techniques for greenhouse-gas emissions. It's a giant win, right?
Unless, of course, you happen to be one of those denizens... I'm sure that the prospect of helping the environment will fill them with warm fuzzies, though, even if they don't end up with particularly warm fuzzies to wear.
Yeah, no. That's very, very wrong.
Much of a processor can be designed in RTL (the type of code you could open source), but there are critical components (as in, CPUs do not function without them -- at all) that require detailed knowledge of the underlying process. Any sort of clock distribution, selection, skewing, or balancing, for example, pretty much requires not only detailed knowledge of the types of gates available in process libraries, but also exhaustive simulations across all kinds of different timing scenarios to ensure that designs work as intended. Additionally, these types of circuits are not trivial to design, and they're often tightly integrated into the rest of a design in a way that isn't exactly modular (as in, even if there are separate clocking modules, design assumptions make removal or modifications of those clocking modules quite difficult).
Maybe you could get away with an open core on an FPGA, but if you do that, you're going to sacrifice a lot in terms of performance -- as in getting at best into the 100s of MHz range compared to GHz for an ASIC. Moreover, you're not going to squeeze multiple cores and huge caches onto a single FPGA, so you'll need some sort of stitching to get anything even remotely close to your most basic Intel off-the-shelf processor.
Basically the best you'll be able to say with a purely open source CPU is, "buy this for 10x the cost and at 1/10th the performance... but you can feel good that it's open source." At that point, all I can say is, "good luck with that."
Setting aside all other moral/practical considerations -- which, no, does not diminish them -- this is what stood out to me:
A lawyer for some of the men argues that Seattle's tech giants aren't conducting any training to increase employees' compassion for trafficked women in brothels.
Seeing that, all I could think was, "oh great, now my company's going to add yet another 'hey, don't be bad' training session."
Do all these mandatory sessions actually accomplish anything? That is, aside from *wanting to believe* that they make a difference in behavior, do they actually make a measurable difference? Or is their sole purpose to provide a company with a due diligence out in case some asshole lawyer tries to blame a company for the fuck-ups of individual employees?
Lots of debt... don't forget that Broadcom was actually bigger than Avago when Avago made that purchase.
Even with a lot of debt, though, Broadcom (Avago) is actually really good at repayment following acquisitions: they basically slice up what they acquire in order to pick off the business units they really want, and sell off the rest. That means that they recoup a lot of the expense of an acquisition pretty much immediately. Obviously it's not great if you happen to work for one of those less desirable business units, but, hey, it's not much better if you're part of one of the desired units either: Broadcom is also highly aggressive about improving profitability of business units; their m.o. is basically cut until it bleeds.
Still, from an investment bank perspective, Broadcom has traditionally been a pretty good lending opportunity.
Pretty sure people not buying stuff was the point of the article: if people aren't buying your stuff (because you don't offer anything compelling) you, as a business, will cease to exist. Hence, the "Tech Industry's Existential Crisis".
I don't see why leveraging client CPU cycles for cryptocurrencies obviates traditional ad income; they're not mutually exclusive, after all. Sure, some websites may initially declare that they're crypto-only, but once it becomes evident that people will tolerate ads as well as lending their CPUs toward mining, the ads will come rolling back. Just like subscription services inevitably pursue advertising (ex. cable/satellite/etc.), websites with distributed client-side mining will too.
This post really needs to be seen.
I'd have made several of your points if you hadn't already done so... I mean, MGTOW, 4chan, and "new media?" You can have genuine, meaningful disagreements with those groups, but they're clearly not all alt-Right, drawing instead from several backgrounds that aren't identity based.
When it comes down to it, figureheads of the alt-Right -- as in those vocally advertising their membership -- all advocate, at the very least, White identity. Other right-leaning -- even far right -- groups do not (ex. the so-called alt-Lite).
The irony is that AmiMoJo's remark proves the whole point the alt-Right was making in their "unite the Right" rally: namely, those to the right, regardless of whether they embrace White identity or not, will be lumped in with those who do, so such people may as well relent (to pressures pushing -- and pulling -- them to the alt-Right). The more readily people are dismissed and coarsely grouped as some evil other, the more readily they will actually embrace that other identity. The only thing misguided labeling strategies accomplish is the production of more people actually deserving of such labels.
Guess I should dig in for another term of Trump
I thought that a central tenet of the Alt-right ideology was White identity. While not technically identical to White supremacy (the thinking isn't that Whites are superior per se, but rather that racial homogeneity -- Whiteness in this case -- is necessary for functional society), identitarianism is closely related. Given that neither identitarians or supremacists are going to find much mainstream support, do you really think they're going to split hairs on the supremacy point when they're ideologically so close, and hurting for allies?
Aaaaannd he's gone. Utterly shocking, I know.
Remember kids, keep your harmful* opinions to yourself.
*The threshold for harmful opinion is subject to change. Google reserves the right to declare any idea, and the expression thereof, as harmful at any time, and will not tolerate employment or use of Google services by those expressing such ideas.
By personal preference, I meant the personal preferences of people seeking entry into a field. Guess it didn't occur to you that women and men might actually enjoy slightly different pursuits. Anything to get to 50/50, right?
Keep tossing around the bigotry label, though. It's certainly evident how morally upright you are. You big 'ol saint, you.
I've read your response. It is well thought out (considering its goal) and sourced (though sources aren't used, but there are a number of baseless assertions), and very cleverly written, but the ideas it expresses are not reasonable or novel.
The response is meticulously written to keep one's SJW radar close to background noise level. The effort put into this response's stealth is admirable. There are only a few sentences that should send it into yellow alert.
But under this response's matte black, angled surface, it carries a rather primitive payload of authoritative shaming and public posturing. and blanket opposition to the concept of personal preferences. The author makes his argument by attempting to dress these concepts as the lesser evils and the more meritocratic and logical options. It's a great work of underhanded political writing hiding a rather crude and unremarkable argument.
----------
Wow, it's amazing how your critique can work to dismiss pretty much anything, isn't it?
Hey, it worked just fine for the mods... The GP is very insightful, don't you know?
I've been to Seattle several times -- in the past couple years -- and my experience is far more in line with the GP's than yours. I've never seen it anywhere close to empty and, while I've seen worse traffic congestion, to imply that there's little traffic (both auto and foot) is a flat-out lie.
When's the last time you were actually there? Or were you perhaps comparing it unreasonably against ultra-crowded cities?
I don't see rich people fleeing Chicago
The average annual income of taxpayers leaving Illinois was $77,000 while the average income of people entering Illinois was $57,000 in 2014; the vast majority of the outflow hailing from the Chicagoland area. So yeah, it's pretty much exactly "rich" people fleeing Chicago.
I wondered this too. Moreover, I would suspect pretty strong selection bias, given that this considers men, over 40, seeking procreation -- with much younger women -- via IVF. There's probably only a fairly specific subset of men that those conditions apply to, and I wouldn't be shocked to learn that that subset has depressed reproductive capabilities to begin with.
This article suggests a correlation, as you said, but hasn't shown that those men, for whom a biological clock is assumed to be ticking, ever even had a good clock.
Yes, but it's much easier to just say Trump is an evil idiot than to actually read through a 62 page budget proposal.
The sad thing for me, personally, is that I am highly skeptical of Trump's budget claims, and am inclined to believe that there are some significant errors/misrepresentations in his budget proposal, but I've come to distrust the Washington Post (especially op-eds, regardless of the editorialist's credentials) even more. Moreover, just looking at the discussion here, it's abundantly clear that exceedingly few posters have bothered to actually determine whether the claimed error is genuine or not, opting instead to bash Trump on irrelevant, even if possibly true, charges. And they're moderated insightful, somehow.
Anyway, a bit of a rant, I know, but it'd have been really great if the article, or even other posters, specifically indicated where the error occurred in the proposed budget rather than just asserting it. Guess I'm stuck spending time reviewing something that I don't have time to actually review.
I'm glad to see someone mention this. "Emoluments" has become a bit of a mantra among some, and it's pretty evident that they're overstating the scope of those clauses to claim that Trump is violating the Constitution. As you implied, Trump may be violating the Constitution with some as yet undisclosed dealings, but I've yet to see anything disclosed that clearly, actually violates the Emoluments clauses referenced.
How is this considered insightful? The only way to accurately gauge interest is via engagement. You know... actually interacting with subject matter in a way that can enable growth, and makes any interest evident to other people -- who are ultimately the people who count (sorry solipsists).
Also...
Did you try to recruit them for another tech activity when the play was over?
Stop. Just stop.
Part of learning anything of any use is that, actually, the world doesn't revolve around your desires, and not everything is going to work according to your whims. If plays and coding are mutually exclusive given the scheduling available, sorry, you need to prioritize one or the other. Incidentally, it sounds like that's exactly what the girls did; they just prioritized something that you and you in particular take issue with.
What about when they *demand* that you work for them on *your* time? "Aggressive" scheduling often requires working at odd hours to correspond with outside groups half a world away, and you'd better believe they expect you to be responsive. Given that they expect work off hours, is it really a violation of any employer/employee understanding to bring some of the personal work you would have done in those off hours to the physical office during standard 8-5 hours (especially if nothing much happens to be going on during those standard hours)?
If the contention is that renewable energy sources, like solar, are now truly cheaper than coal, then it doesn't really matter what Trump decides to do with coal regulations; market demand will move past coal regardless of political motivations to keep it. So why complain about deregulation of something that's going away anyway... unless pricing and fungibility of those renewable sources isn't quite as compelling as you're trying to claim?
This isn't to defend bad doctors -- of which there are many -- or anything, but you are not a doctor, you don't possess medical expertise which even generalists have, and to be frank, your "lived experience," while not totally worthless, is more than likely not nearly as good an indicator for medical diagnoses as you seem to think it is. Much of the time, your recollection of what you lived is going to be incomplete, biased, or straight-up counterfactual (note that I didn't imply lying... you can be quite wrong without intending it) when compared against what actually occurred. That's why objective tests are used so often instead, something that most older patients, who recall more physical examinations and discussions, will often describe as a disconcerting shift in medical practices. To be certain, physicals are still conducted, but I'd suspect that, unless your doctor is quite a bit more seasoned, they're probably ordering more tests than you give them credit for.
So how about those tests?
Well, every test carries with it a false positive (and false negative) rate... I know of no non-trivial diagnostic test that is 100% accurate. Let's say that you test positive for some horrible disease, though. Naturally, you'd get a 2nd opinion (independent, likely different test). What's the chance that the 2nd test will produce a different result? Veritasium recently went over a pretty good explanation of exactly this scenario: if your initial test accurately diagnosed people as having a disease 99% of the time, you'd actually have only a ~9% chance of actually having the disease, given a positive initial test result, so a 2nd, independent test would likely suggest a different outcome. This doesn't mean that the initial test is worthless or bad; it just means that a test useful for screening diseases is still limited in what it can actually say. It also doesn't mean that a differing 2nd opinion is an indication of ineptitude of the first lab, though that is a possibility; again, it means that tests are limited in what they can actually say.
It certainly doesn't mean that you should disregard medical expertise for your own idea of what you think is going on. By all means, though, if that's the fire you want to play with, play with it to your heart's content. Just don't complain when you get burned.
But I really want the proposal in and of itself to accomplish something... like, really bad. Why oh why won't reality just play along?!
Classifying Norway as socialist is a bit like classifying the USA as capitalist. Neither nation is fully socialist or capitalist -- they both have significant elements of capitalism and socialism -- but they differ in the amount by which they embrace, for example, socialism. Actually, I would argue that, while Norway is more socialist than the USA, it is nonetheless more capitalist than it is socialist.
Also, why is it that every time some nation tries to completely (or predominately) adopt socialism or it's more extreme cousin, communism, people always claim that it wasn't actually, really socialist (or communist) when that nation fails?