3,423 karma · joined August 4, 2015
Back in school it wasn't a problem, people knew "Loren" was male, "Lauren" was female. Now, an awful lot of people don't. It's an uncommon enough name that even if you were around back when that's how it worked you very well might not have known it.
As an adult I routinely get misgendered, but it's a so-what to me.
In borderline cases it can tip the scale to prescribe statin rather than not. But telling you what has happened to your heart doesn't prevent heart attacks.
And they're too aggressive about duplicates. My question shared almost nothing with the duplicate I was pointed to--yes, the answer was correct, but that's not a lack of research on my part as I never would have recognized the question as relevant.
Many years ago I did a search for my name and turned up a LOT of things I did not actually write. This wasn't LLMs, this was scrapers doing a poor job of scarfing up old content--comparing what I saw vs my recall of the discussions there was a lot of stuff that lost the quoting, words were attributed to me that were actually quotes I was responding to.
Local. Because of all the stops buses average 25 mph. Long runs, this adds up considerably. It can't be fixed without a lot more buses and a lot fewer stops.
Shanghai. Buses stop much less frequently. More walking, but a bus is not that much slower than a car. And the subway doesn't have traffic jams, long runs you'll almost always get there faster with walking/subway than by car. There is also a climate factor--they get more rain but much fewer extreme days.
I'll applaud ignoring the open air drug market. It's a symptom, not a cause. The drug *war* is the biggest crime problem in the country.
An innocent verdict would mean the defendant had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not do the act and would put the state on the hook for all costs. A jury that hung between not guilty and innocent would be considered to be not guilty, no retrial. Reality works better when misdeeds carry costs for those who commit them.
Just because it didn't go big doesn't mean it didn't have the potential to.
Employers have become very good at finding means of screening out older workers without exposing them to charges of discrimination.
This is pretty clearly identity theft, but to admit it would throw egg on somebody's face.
It's not like this is a new thing, my mother had a run-in with the IRS over not reporting "income" from a place she had never worked and couldn't even find them. (IRS: if you believe it's wrong contact your employer. No, we will not provide contact information for them.) That was 40 years ago. The attempt to make things traceable probably deters some misdeeds but in most cases it just means they leave a false trail, only of use in causing trouble for innocents.
And until we control for the proxy it's meaningless anyway. UPFs have a big problem in that people tend to consume too much (the expected endpoint of companies engineering for what people buy) and that causes a whole host of health problems. I haven't seen anything meaningful that differentiates UPF from overconsumption.
The problem is in the old days we had a fake "insurance". This wasn't a problem with cheapskates, but with how the industry worked. Companies would offer a plan for a little while, only let healthy people in, premiums were reasonable. Then they would offer something a tiny bit different, give it a new name. As time went on the people on the old plan would develop health problems, premiums were calculated based on what THAT PLAN had to pay out, so premiums went up. Healthy, jump ship to the new one. Not healthy, you can't. The old plan would soon go into a death spiral and you would be uninsured.
Thus anyone with a chronic health problem was stuck.
And they're trying to bring back the old days. Allow other health insurance to be sold, the healthy people will jump to it and the ACA will death spiral.
We did get the unexpected result of exposing the large number of people with "insurance" that was basically a scam. A lot of people didn't know they had policies that had insanely low limits or the like. I'm thinking of a post from back then, a student health plan that had gone up like 10x, "where's the difference?" And a bunch of people who couldn't understand even when I pointed out how the cheap version was effectively worthless for anything that needed more than a doctor's visit.
However, specialty eggs sold to consumers rather than businesses will be much more elastic, and thus there will be much less price change with supply changes.
If I were engaged in anything hostile to Israel I utterly would not trust Israeli stuff. But Israel is normally quite careful about target selection, if I was not engaged in anything hostile to Israel I would expect anything they slip in to be secure and to not do any harm beyond it's existence. A scene from Lebanon not too long ago makes it very clear: A whole bunch of people milling about, setting up for selfies and the like--then we see the building behind destroyed by an airstrike. Clearly all those people around knew the building was going to be destroyed and they trusted Israeli accuracy enough to be standing not too far from where the bomb would land.
China, though, I would utterly not trust target selection or security against misuse.