Klinky

Is the actual point of the bet to prove billionaires have too much money?

I don't think the policy actually explains its purpose (i.e. why banning these links is necessary), only its application. It discusses the "what", not the "why". This omission is probably also intentional.

I don't think it takes too much brain effort to figure out the problematic nature of the policy given the context of Twitter. If someone cannot, I am not really here to coddle them, or try to convince them otherwise. The only person who can actually answer these questions & clarify the policy is Musk, and I doubt he has any genuine interest in doing so.

Is the policy not from a place of bad intentions? It's clearly a ploy to try to trap users on Twitter, preventing them from promoting their presence on alternative platforms.

Is it not vague and poorly worded in a fashion that could give the impression that sharing links to other platforms might be prohibited? Is this ambiguity perhaps a feature and not a bug?

I find faux-free-speech supporters rely on ambiguity to mask their actual intentions. I would much rather people focus on asking more explicit questions and requesting explicit answers.

I don't think it's a fallacious argument when the terms "prohibited sites" & "prohibited platforms" are used instead of "prohibited promotion" & what they deem to be cross-posting is not defined. We could assume best intentions, but given that the policy seems to be from a place of bad intentions, I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt.

>It does make sense for a paid-speech platform, though.

What is a "paid-speech platform" exactly? Twitter is just going to be for press releases and advertisers now?

It would also be absurd for a node that claims to implement free-speech absolutism to defederate from any particular node. It would also be absurd to stay federated with nodes that you claim are prohibited while telling people on your node to still cross-post content from these nodes.

"any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above" sounds like doublethink.

"Crossposting from prohibited sites is allowed."

One could argue a clear definition of "cross posting" should be provided before assuming it'd be allowed. A policy like this is going to have a chilling effect regardless, due to the ambiguity. It's also a quite absurd for a free-speech platform to even have such a policy in the first place, even if it's attempting to reign in "direct promotion" rather than sharing content across platforms.

> At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL.

The fact that the first explanatory paragraph calls these other platforms "prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms" is confusing at best.

He lied because it's way more noble to be a "champion of free speech" than a champion of hate speech and far-right rhetoric. Much of the base that buys into this rhetoric hates complexity or nuance. "Unrestrained freedom" is an easy concept to promote, yet impractical to apply rationally, something that those who fully buy into the concept fail to comprehend, as they only subscribe to a surface-level understanding.

It's not reasonable for someone claiming free speech absolutism & unbiased moderation. You do make a good point by pointing out Musk could have just built his own social media platform instead of crying about the moderation and blowing $44B on Twitter, only to fail to make good on his promise of free speech.

Why would anyone believe it was ever about "free speech". You would need to be pretty oblivious to buy that line of reasoning. He will moderate & censor those voices he disagrees with, as he sees fit. It'd just make him less of a hypocrite if he dropped the whole "free speech" charade.

I think it's realist, not defeatist. More information can be good, but this doesn't mean it brings with it lower costs. It will require significant investment in aggregating & analyzing the data to make it useful. I think it is useful, but for professionals who understand the system. Alternatively it will put even more burden on the patient to coordinate their care, which is already a challenge. I assure you that you can still be incapacitated by pain or discomfort while conscious, and going line by line through medical bills to haggle over price is just not patient friendly.

Even if you get an idea of the price ahead of time, the price when you arrive might end up different because of your unique circumstances or maybe even just shady behavior. Yes, maybe the pricing transparency gives the patient more ammo to haggle with, but relying on sick patients to become market watchdogs just seems like the wrong horse to hitch our wagon too.

We have grocery stores with 200% markup on some goods, yet they're still in business. Price being posted doesn't mean it's affordable. Then you add in sales, coupons, rebates, discount clubs, "add to cart" pricing, SKU variations, "convenience" fees, etc... And the price listed is now no longer "the price listed". It gets even more complicated with medical systems.

OPEC holds huge power over global oil markets, and is not "barely held together". Com'on. Competition colluding or conglomerating is not uncommon. Much of brand competition is actually various arms of the same parent company. The illusion of competition.

My point was the free market you lauded for Lasik is a mixed bag with some potentially good value for money, but also deceptive salesmen muddying the waters for consumers to make valid comparisons on price & quality. It's no panacea.

The private insurer is 2x the cost. You don't think people travel outside the US to receive care? Medical tourism is alive and well in the US due to the cost burdens for-profit healthcare requires.

I think your attempts to be profound come off as incredibly naive with regards to the realities of a traumatic upbringing. These relationships impact your whole life.

You do not get to choose your parents. Your parents should choose a good time & place to have children & not cave to pressure from foolish people waxing poetic about finding meaning by living through their children.

I absolutely will blame my abusers, and I will blame their abusers too. I don't see how "earth families" will improve without accountability. We certainly don't need people telling victims to stop asking for it.

Why wouldn't a free market collude and monopolize to maximize profit? Idealized free markets require perfect information. Most consumers of healthcare are woefully ill informed on healthcare matters. The problem with free markets is summed up with phrases like: "caveat emptor", "a fool & his money are easily parted", "there's a sucker born every minute", "penny wise, pound foolish".

Discount laser eye surgery has its own issues with deceptive advertising, misleading pricing, patients being rushed & not fully informed of potential side effects or receiving poor post-op care. People really need to research thoroughly before using a coupon for their laser eye surgery. No one should expect the market to just provide a quality product. That's foolish thinking.

Do you have years of medical & diagnostic coding experience along with medical training to properly interpret pricing data for a multitude of procedures with wide ranging scenarios? You're not going to Target to buy Cheerios here.

Pricing transparency is a band-aid on the gaping wound that is US healthcare. More numbers to consider that may or may not apply based on your insurance policy & other factors. Let's also add some middle-men to aggregate and "find the best price".

I am not sure you understand how often for-profit insurance just says "no".

"despite a six-year span of growing literature and updated policies, nearly 1 in 5 patients diagnosed with FAI would still potentially be denied coverage. This highlights a continued divide between surgeons and insurance companies."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8259176/

US insurance will also make you wait, mandating less costly treatments first, or have you go through a lengthy & convoluted appeals process to finally get covered.

I didn't say Canada's health system doesn't have delays or rationing of care, only that the US health system is not superior, suffering from exactly the same concerns you bring up about Canada's health system, yet costing the US like 200% more, while chaining people to their employer.

I've faced long waits for care in the US. I've had my "high quality" for-profit insurance deny coverage or second guess my doctors. Any negative concern you have about Canada's system also exists in the US.

Certain procedures are expensive & complicated regardless. Someone having a heart attack, stroke or severe COVID, would require extensive care. If you're okay letting such patients just die due to lack of funds, then this concept might work. Ethically & morally deplorable perhaps, but honest towards the goals of brutalistic capitalism.

Simply put "Couldn't afford the care? Should've shopped around!". It feels like a non-solution solution to access to healthcare. In theory it's great to have transparency, but in reality this is just pushing responsibility & complexity onto patients, all to continue a facade that market-based economic models work well for patient care & will magically drive down costs.

I don't really think the make or break is from a $100 spread on wellness visits. It's going to be the acute illnesses and injury that you do not have time to plan for that are the killer. Also chronic illness often can be difficult to manage, with acute flare-ups requiring unexpected hospitalizations. If you're on immuno/biologic therapy, more of the cost is in your drugs than in the doctor or facility.

As GP pointed out there are a myriad of medical/diagnostic codes, and variety of scenarios that could turn something like a baby delivery from a $5,000 affair into a $500,000 affair. Do we really expect that patient to accurately compare all the medical/diagnostic codes between providers to determine if they're getting gouged or not? Would it even be ethical to take a baby out of a NICU to try to save $50,000? We need to stop acting like healthcare is like buying a car or buying Fruity Pebbles from the store.

People aren't going bankrupt because they spent an extra $100 on a wellness visit. They're going bankrupt because of needed care that was very expensive, and even cutting the price in half or by 2/3rds would've still resulted in them going bankrupt. I guess with pricing transparency they can more confidently find out they can't afford it anywhere.

Relying on the patient to gauge what is fair pricing & what is gouging, then haggle when they get the bill seems like trying to solve the problem from the wrong end. Free marketeers will say a fair price is what someone is willing to pay. Trying to make price decisions when your health is in the balance seems like it will lead to either poor decisions on price or on health.

These attempts at pricing transparency seem like another way to put blame on the patient for making "poor choices" when really the system needs to be less complex for the patient. Let auditors & regulators handle pricing and gouging, ideally within a single-payer/public option system.

I think it would be erroneous to try to apply concepts of micro-level phenomena to macro-level societal events. The levels of abstraction between the two likely turns that low-level ambiguity into background noise.

For example, someone could never logically claim the photons they perceived indicted someone wasn't in front of their gun when they pulled the trigger, while everyone else in the vicinity states they clearly saw the person in front of the gun. There is not enough uncertainty around the behavior of photons for us to consider their explanation as truth.

I could see the concern, though a car is basically always going to require you to drive around with a potentially lethal amount of energy regardless of the storage medium. Also a battery failure does not mean all energy is released simultaneously. A denser battery could result in a smaller battery that could be better protected from damage.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but that sounds almost like a calculation that applies to a vacuum, not a pressurized atmosphere with plenty of "free" oxygen? Perhaps that's the same for the TNT & battery, so maybe none of these calculations are directly applicable to real-world scenarios?

How are you calculating the volumetric energy density and the energy content of a liter of gasoline? 12kJ/L seems low.

As a product of generational trauma, I find the "no perfect time, just have kids" mentality disgusting. Perhaps these old people's regrets about not doing enough for their children are because they didn't prepare properly to actually have children. Children being used to prop up your own self image strips both you and your child of their individuality. People should want more in life than to "have children" and need to give the decision to have children the proper weight it deserves. If someone does not feel satisfied in their own self or their relationship, they should avoid having children hoping to fill a void. People should not assume or default to their purpose in life being to simply have children.

I assure you that just hoping the poorness goes away after 20 years doesn't magically result in it happening, nor does time effortlessly unwind the trauma or mend the damage done by generations of people who were ill prepared to take care of children.

It would still be good to call out the exact processor model, as the lowest end i5-1240P has half the L3 cache as the highest i7-1280P.

Also I don't think it was clear you were running "sysctl vm.drop_caches=3" between benchmarking runs of your optimizations. Your table seemed to indicate those were generic initial read/write benchmarks from either dd or hardparm. The site you linked to also had comments on it stating dd is not very good for benchmarking, suggesting fio & a different site[1].

1. https://linuxreviews.org/HOWTO_Test_Disk_I/O_Performance

I agree, I think there is often a faulty assumption by many developers doing benchmarking that their underlying environment doesn't matter. Often I see performance results posted with little mention of the details of the environment. At least here they posted they were using a high-end SSD, but note they just say they're on a "Dell XPS 13", as if there aren't multiple variants of that model produced every year for the last 5 or 6 years.

You're probably also right their multiple test runs resulted in the OS caching data, and a lot of the test runs may have just been testing in-memory performance instead of raw storage I/O performance.

The Samsung PM9A1 is the OEM version of the 980 Pro, a top-tier PCIe 4.0 NVME SSD. What about an older SATA SSD(one without DRAM buffer or HMB), or a 5400RPM hard drive? Also as others have pointed out, random I/O will tank perf, especially simultaneous r/w operations to the same media.