That $9 per month (up from $8 recently)—paid by 50 million subscribers!—pays for some of the most impressive engineering efforts on the 'net. It is not some cheap slacker service, it's best in class. Considering their global distribution, it would be absolutely shocking if they do not have full 24/7 coverage.
But he got a 'half way to universal healthcare measure' through congress
No, he didn't. Since ACA, uninsured rates have dropped ~25%.
where a universal healthcare measure would not get through
There's a lot to unpack in this bit of wisdom. First of all, there were other alternatives. Second, they weren't considered. It had been over a decade since a serious universal coverage proposal was discussed, and it was just discarded without discussion.
Putting that aside, a majority of Americans support a single-payer system. The fact that Congress can't "get through" policies with "wide support" is a clear sign that Congress is corrupt and insulated from accountability. While that's a political reality to contend with, it's also a self-reinforcing psychological barrier.
Keep in mind that there are policies which have broad popular support and political support and still "can't get through", such as campaign finance reform. There is near unanimous support, and yet... Amusingly, unfucking campaign finance would almost certainly go a long way toward opening doors for other sweeping changes that have broad support.
With luck the next administration will get though the 'single payer' option
I sincerely doubt this. ACA took all the political capital for healthcare reform for the next decade or two.
I'll take an pragmatic incrementer over someone calling for a revolution that will never happen.
You have to define "revolution" here. I know Sanders has been using the term, so it's kind of colored by recent events, but there is nothing revolutionary about instituting policies which are mainstream and successful in huge swaths of the world with a variety of economic, social and political conditions.
Among other more complicated things, the principle that anyone should be able to determine for themselves what they experience, and how they'd prefer to be treated by others. Unless you are a target of a set of epithets, you are not entitled to determine how people who are targets are expected to feel.
Keep in mind that "can do" or "allowed" are social preferences, not law. Violating those preferences makes you an asshole, not a criminal (and conversely, choosing to honor those expectations even if they aren't your own is empathy). So if you're comfortable being an asshole, by all means interject yourself into how others feel about their treatment which has nothing to do with you.
The fuck it is. Industrial society behaves fundamentally differently from non-industrial society. Same goes for fire, levers and computers. Technology is transformative, and that's not neutral.
So are Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Socialism is fundamentally rooted in capitalism, and Marx was not shy about this. It's actually an embarrassment for the left. The US might do better with socialism because conditions are significantly different from the countries you named. But socialism is a band aid at best, and proven to be problematic at worst.
The US would frankly do better burning its institutions down than not. It's hardly fair to pick on socialism in that context.
Salt Lake City, liberal for Utah but not exactly a leftist utopia, proved a solution that nearly ended chronic homelessness in their city. The solution is simple and cost-effective, when compared with basically every other city's approach: give homeless people homes. While chronic homelessness is basically a fact of life in major urban areas, SLC saw reductions of 91%. And they did it with lower costs than any other program.
The sad fact for Seattle is that we actually pioneered the program, as Housing First, before we abandoned it for programs that are far more expensive and far less effective. It was a small pilot program, but in its scope saw similar success. But Seattle, despite having a fairly left-leaning population, is not administered with the same leanings. One of the tent cities you mention was specifically named after mayor Greg Nickels whose policies on homelessness were to undermine programs designed (albeit poorly) to help, and to send cops out to slash up people's tents and confiscate property of the inhabitants. He explicitly called for shipping homeless people *out* of the city, hardly a sanctuary.
Like you, Nickels complained of "handouts". As if taking the only remaining resources away from people will promote their success. The effect is predictable: people who have nothing left to depend on find alternatives. This is the "criminal/drug activity" you speak of. You can't expect people with the fewest resources in society to thrive as you kneecap them. And you can't make them go away.
What you can do is do the fiscally conservative thing: choose a solution that works, costs the least of all existing programs, and eliminates huge swaths of bureaucracy and corruption. Give homeless people houses.
By the way, Sawant is hardly representative of the city council. The fact that you have trouble distinguishing her from the rest of the city leadership, despite distinguishing her from Sanders, shows how little you understand about how this city operates.
I doubt it would affect sales at all. Organic producers would explain reality to their customers, where gigantic food factory corporations apparently are incapable of discussing facts with their customers.
Because I'm not a Puritan. People should be allowed to destroy or cultivate their own lives as they see fit. And they can't do that when the conditions they care about are hidden from them.
Now I want to write a library that determines if a given Internet comment is written by someone who is obviously butthurt about having lots of privilege but experiencing the reality that people with less privilege aren't entirely silent and therefore not 100% avoidable.
Yeah us white men folks have it so bad. It sure is a shame to be among the best paid and most over-represented group in a prosperous economic segment that's mostly immune to market pressures.
Quit whining that you don't have literally everything.
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Good. Discrimination of race, sex or gender identity is each respective thing. Privileging the "default" group for each of those to create a "reverse" is inherently racist, sexist or transphobic (respectively). If you feel like you're being treated unfairly because you're white (racism), male (sexism) or born with the genitals that match your gender identity (uh... cisphobia), address those the same way a person of color, a woman, or a trans person would. If it turns out you are actually being treated unfairly, nothing about "we will not act on complaints regarding reverse-isms" precludes a reasonable outcome. It just precludes creating a special class of each just because you as a supposed victim happen to be in the dominant group in one of those dimensions.
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
Good. Fuck you if you disagree. Seriously. Unless you are actively enforcing a law and have good cause to be doing so, you have no right to expect another person to engage you at all. Even if you are enforcing a law, most of the law is in favor of people being able to refuse to speak. That this is even being questioned is fucking appalling. If someone says any of those things, walk away and calm the fuck down.
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Addressed above. No one is actually required to explain anything to you, at all, ever. This is minutiae.
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
The above is instructive. If you don't feel respected, end the conversation. If you aren't honored in doing so, you have a valid complaint. End of discussion.
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
Here there may be a valid complaint, because it's limited. Criticizing anything should be acceptable, and it implicitly suggests that certain criticism is more protected than other. But while it's not comprehensive, it's certainly not objectionable in its limited scope. No action should be taken to prevent criticism; therefore, no action should be taken to prevent criticism of racism, sexism, transphobia, or any oppressive behavior or assumptions. That's just tautological.
The relative privilege of whiteness exceeds the relative privilege of maleness. The consequent relative advancement of white women exceeds that of other under-represented groups, and the relative culture of privilege of white women broadly undermines solidarity in broader advancement: the success profile of white women in business today more closely resembles that of white men than it does those of people of color, whether men or women; this alignment creates a set of incentives to prefer existing power structures over those which favor more equity for people who are represented or rewarded less.
Why is this hard to grasp? It literally requires understanding the word "relative".
If the former scenario is true, it suggests a sort of paradox wherein the advantage in intuition turns out to lead to choices that effectively negate the intuitive advantage. This is the hilarious kind of crap that gets fun to think about while you're stoned, but it would have no impact on the study results and thus has no bearing on science (apart from modern physics, where making up really interesting but untestable ideas to explain stuff is pretty much the state of the art).
If the latter scenario is true, the study results would likely be different, as the suggested deleterious effects of the drug would impact testing performance. But that isn't the case, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
That $9 per month (up from $8 recently)—paid by 50 million subscribers!—pays for some of the most impressive engineering efforts on the 'net. It is not some cheap slacker service, it's best in class. Considering their global distribution, it would be absolutely shocking if they do not have full 24/7 coverage.
Are you at every party? That must be exhausting.
But he got a 'half way to universal healthcare measure' through congress
No, he didn't. Since ACA, uninsured rates have dropped ~25%.
where a universal healthcare measure would not get through
There's a lot to unpack in this bit of wisdom. First of all, there were other alternatives. Second, they weren't considered. It had been over a decade since a serious universal coverage proposal was discussed, and it was just discarded without discussion.
Putting that aside, a majority of Americans support a single-payer system. The fact that Congress can't "get through" policies with "wide support" is a clear sign that Congress is corrupt and insulated from accountability. While that's a political reality to contend with, it's also a self-reinforcing psychological barrier.
Keep in mind that there are policies which have broad popular support and political support and still "can't get through", such as campaign finance reform. There is near unanimous support, and yet... Amusingly, unfucking campaign finance would almost certainly go a long way toward opening doors for other sweeping changes that have broad support.
With luck the next administration will get though the 'single payer' option
I sincerely doubt this. ACA took all the political capital for healthcare reform for the next decade or two.
I'll take an pragmatic incrementer over someone calling for a revolution that will never happen.
You have to define "revolution" here. I know Sanders has been using the term, so it's kind of colored by recent events, but there is nothing revolutionary about instituting policies which are mainstream and successful in huge swaths of the world with a variety of economic, social and political conditions.
Yet chipping away at bad laws a bit at a time has proven much more effective in the long term.
Hence all the clamoring to bring back alcohol prohibition?
And as long as they have broad powers to influence how and what information is accessed.
https://developer.apple.com/li...
Safari’s IndexedDB implementation now fully supports the recommended standard.
But all the major browsers implement EME, so Netflix shouldn't need a plugin anymore.
Only if you never use a line break for a comma
like you did above
... calling me a sexist racist ... I didn't force young black males into gangs and prison.
Wow.
Among other more complicated things, the principle that anyone should be able to determine for themselves what they experience, and how they'd prefer to be treated by others. Unless you are a target of a set of epithets, you are not entitled to determine how people who are targets are expected to feel.
Keep in mind that "can do" or "allowed" are social preferences, not law. Violating those preferences makes you an asshole, not a criminal (and conversely, choosing to honor those expectations even if they aren't your own is empathy). So if you're comfortable being an asshole, by all means interject yourself into how others feel about their treatment which has nothing to do with you.
Technology in itself is neutral.
The fuck it is. Industrial society behaves fundamentally differently from non-industrial society. Same goes for fire, levers and computers. Technology is transformative, and that's not neutral.
So are Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Socialism is fundamentally rooted in capitalism, and Marx was not shy about this. It's actually an embarrassment for the left. The US might do better with socialism because conditions are significantly different from the countries you named. But socialism is a band aid at best, and proven to be problematic at worst.
The US would frankly do better burning its institutions down than not. It's hardly fair to pick on socialism in that context.
Basically you've described imperialism.
No, it's not.
Salt Lake City, liberal for Utah but not exactly a leftist utopia, proved a solution that nearly ended chronic homelessness in their city. The solution is simple and cost-effective, when compared with basically every other city's approach: give homeless people homes. While chronic homelessness is basically a fact of life in major urban areas, SLC saw reductions of 91%. And they did it with lower costs than any other program.
The sad fact for Seattle is that we actually pioneered the program, as Housing First, before we abandoned it for programs that are far more expensive and far less effective. It was a small pilot program, but in its scope saw similar success. But Seattle, despite having a fairly left-leaning population, is not administered with the same leanings. One of the tent cities you mention was specifically named after mayor Greg Nickels whose policies on homelessness were to undermine programs designed (albeit poorly) to help, and to send cops out to slash up people's tents and confiscate property of the inhabitants. He explicitly called for shipping homeless people *out* of the city, hardly a sanctuary.
Like you, Nickels complained of "handouts". As if taking the only remaining resources away from people will promote their success. The effect is predictable: people who have nothing left to depend on find alternatives. This is the "criminal/drug activity" you speak of. You can't expect people with the fewest resources in society to thrive as you kneecap them. And you can't make them go away.
What you can do is do the fiscally conservative thing: choose a solution that works, costs the least of all existing programs, and eliminates huge swaths of bureaucracy and corruption. Give homeless people houses.
By the way, Sawant is hardly representative of the city council. The fact that you have trouble distinguishing her from the rest of the city leadership, despite distinguishing her from Sanders, shows how little you understand about how this city operates.
Not in any meaningful way.
I doubt it would affect sales at all. Organic producers would explain reality to their customers, where gigantic food factory corporations apparently are incapable of discussing facts with their customers.
Because I'm not a Puritan. People should be allowed to destroy or cultivate their own lives as they see fit. And they can't do that when the conditions they care about are hidden from them.
Now I want to write a library that determines if a given Internet comment is written by someone who is obviously butthurt about having lots of privilege but experiencing the reality that people with less privilege aren't entirely silent and therefore not 100% avoidable.
Yeah us white men folks have it so bad. It sure is a shame to be among the best paid and most over-represented group in a prosperous economic segment that's mostly immune to market pressures.
Quit whining that you don't have literally everything.
We will not act on complaints regarding
... responses to each below...
‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
Good. Discrimination of race, sex or gender identity is each respective thing. Privileging the "default" group for each of those to create a "reverse" is inherently racist, sexist or transphobic (respectively). If you feel like you're being treated unfairly because you're white (racism), male (sexism) or born with the genitals that match your gender identity (uh... cisphobia), address those the same way a person of color, a woman, or a trans person would. If it turns out you are actually being treated unfairly, nothing about "we will not act on complaints regarding reverse-isms" precludes a reasonable outcome. It just precludes creating a special class of each just because you as a supposed victim happen to be in the dominant group in one of those dimensions.
Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
Good. Fuck you if you disagree. Seriously. Unless you are actively enforcing a law and have good cause to be doing so, you have no right to expect another person to engage you at all. Even if you are enforcing a law, most of the law is in favor of people being able to refuse to speak. That this is even being questioned is fucking appalling. If someone says any of those things, walk away and calm the fuck down.
Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
Addressed above. No one is actually required to explain anything to you, at all, ever. This is minutiae.
Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
The above is instructive. If you don't feel respected, end the conversation. If you aren't honored in doing so, you have a valid complaint. End of discussion.
Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions
Here there may be a valid complaint, because it's limited. Criticizing anything should be acceptable, and it implicitly suggests that certain criticism is more protected than other. But while it's not comprehensive, it's certainly not objectionable in its limited scope. No action should be taken to prevent criticism; therefore, no action should be taken to prevent criticism of racism, sexism, transphobia, or any oppressive behavior or assumptions. That's just tautological.
You can't possibly be that stupid.
The relative privilege of whiteness exceeds the relative privilege of maleness. The consequent relative advancement of white women exceeds that of other under-represented groups, and the relative culture of privilege of white women broadly undermines solidarity in broader advancement: the success profile of white women in business today more closely resembles that of white men than it does those of people of color, whether men or women; this alignment creates a set of incentives to prefer existing power structures over those which favor more equity for people who are represented or rewarded less.
Why is this hard to grasp? It literally requires understanding the word "relative".
They promise security
No they don't.
If the former scenario is true, it suggests a sort of paradox wherein the advantage in intuition turns out to lead to choices that effectively negate the intuitive advantage. This is the hilarious kind of crap that gets fun to think about while you're stoned, but it would have no impact on the study results and thus has no bearing on science (apart from modern physics, where making up really interesting but untestable ideas to explain stuff is pretty much the state of the art).
If the latter scenario is true, the study results would likely be different, as the suggested deleterious effects of the drug would impact testing performance. But that isn't the case, is it?