jatone

for starters, what you're describing is a load balancer. those already exist and are trivial to setup.

1. software is a VERY new discipline. its also one of the most malleable. I doubt we'll ever stop seeing churn in this space.

2. we don't reinvent the how we build houses each year. you can safely ignore all this new fangled web things if you want.

3. churn is also domain specific. we've more or less stopped inventing drastically new APIs at the OS/system level.

4. software for UIs have never been great. we are still learning how to build them. most of the major players in UI software still exist, windows, java, macosx (cocoa?), QT, GTK, Enlightment, and HTML/CSS/javascript.

finally software will continue to evolve as base layers add the ability for higher layers to do things differently. for example as CPU get more and more vector operations that can dramatically change how we write code.

this churn is a positive not a negative on the industry.

If your network firewall is preventing the tunneling process, then that's on you. and if its not on you and its a company decision then its VERY unlikely they'd be okay with cloudflare's publicly exposed ports.

please note: no one gives a shit if your antivax on a flight. its you're fucking behavior that's the problem. Thats what puts the scarlet letter on your forehead not your moronic views on vaccinations.

you clearly don't understand how hospitals work. getting opinions costs money. just visiting and taking their time costs money.

you can get a hospital to quote you the cost of a procedure. but to actually get a doctor to diagnose you takes time, resources, and tests. this costs money. and without doing said work you have no idea what procedures to get a quote for.

and frankly the only reason to get multiple opinions is if the current doctor has failed to resolve your problem.

no one jumps doctor to doctor unless there is something wrong with the current one like a lack of progress on resolving the issue.

> You're the one constantly conjuring some vague sense of morality as opposed to discussing which models may work better than others.

without understanding the moral outcomes of an economic system makes any such discussion meaningless. You should checkout Albert Hirschman https://www.ias.edu/press-releases/albert-o-hirschman-1915%E...

they're good for sandboxing one site from others but the way many people want to use profiles is to entirely separate their windows by profiles.

lets say for example I have two gmail accounts one for corporate and one for personal use. switching between them isn't fluid in firefox because containers are site based. and profiles are completely hidden.

firefox doesn't make this easy. I can't whole switch a window from one profile to another when I want to switch from personal -> work contexts.

while firefox's concept is more powerful its also harder to use appropriately.

> You're not going to walk into the first hospital you find and say "I'll pay anything you ask just fix me."

these two statements are functionally equivalent. by running around paying every hospital for opinions you're literally saying 'I'll pay anything you ask just fix me'. It also tracks with my statement that medical pricing isn't influenced by rational markets which are what is required for a capitalist free market to 'work'. people need to be able to say 'this is unnecessary' which never happens in health care.

In healthcare you have two modes: 1. I can afford the care, price is fairly immaterial make me better. 2. I can't afford the care, doesn't matter what the price is.

> that backs my point, right? Those hospitals aren't funded by emergency care either, which means the point about costs being a one sided negotiation while the other party is dying is still inaccurate.

not sure how you get to this idea. the point is you're hung up on the dying aspect which is basically immaterial. I can torture you and get you to say anything I want. medical care is basically the same thought process for those who need care. The only thing that prevents people from paying any price is literally not being able to afford it. Otherwise people will 100% bankrupt themselves to make pain go away.

Given that the majority of bankruptcies in the US are due to health care just proves this point.

There is no way to make this kind of market work in a 'free' market system.

> I don't see any reason why taxpayers should pay so a small mountain town

we already do. you can argue whatever you want but as a society we've already mandated this level of access. for the same reason we've mandate fire and police coverage. its a public safety issue and a tax payer in bum fuck no where have the same right to have their taxes ensure they're covered as joe shmoe in NYC.

There are MANY reasons why this is economically a good thing via 2nd/3rd order effects that more than pays for itself.

> I don't think recognizing the limits of a given resource is cruel or immoral, it's reality.

every country with universal coverage disagrees with you. I'm not going to belabor this point further. Reality has proven otherwise. The US system is just completely dysfunctional. and thinking otherwise DOES make you cruel and immoral. If you want to discuss how to make a healthcare system that works, fine, but I'm not going to moralize with you on a clearly disgusting world view.

sadly its not. you're in pain? you need to visit a medical facility to figure out whats wrong. without knowing how serious it is it can lead to a life long issue. again you don't really have choices here. pay the healthcare tax or risk long term issues.

there is a reason preventative medicine is cheaper (overall) than delaying care until a condition has progressed.

the capitalists idea of a market simply doesn't apply to healthcare.

> If a hospital exists because people routinely visit the doctor.

this isn't true. we fund hospitals in rural areas because there literally isnt enough people to keep one operating via patient care.

you're also asserting that if the populace can't sustain the healthcare system then it shouldn't be available to people. which is fairly cruel and immoral.

that's before even getting into pharma. which can charge millions of dollars for life saving/changing drugs for single course treatments. hell take a look at what happened with epipens. there is no protection against profiteering via nebulous 'markets' when your choices are 'purchase or die'.

once you actually have a position that can be discussed. show me evidence of your position and I'll stop calling it a bat shit insane conspiracy theory.

right now all you've done is assert complete bullshit. I can link to articles with hospitals stating how many of their staff they've fired due to anti-vax behaviors. I doubt you can find a single instance of a hospital shortage due directly to the few thousand works in the entire country who were fired for their anti-vax beliefs.

even if you did find a hospital in that position, the issue certainly isn't wide spread enough to even merit a footnote when it comes to health policy.

if your going to make shit up at least make up believable bullshit.

incorrect its based on likely hood of survival. no point in wasting resources on a soon to be dead individual when you can save someone who actually has a chance.

nor do mask or vax mandates limit this concept of 'roaming' in any way.

We also charge smokers more for health care due to the burden they put on the system, yet another form of discrimination.

You're also making the naive mistake of relating a stable system (smokers with health issues) with an unstable system (covid patients). These two types of systems have VERY different impacts on the medical infrastructure.

QED: no one is opening any flood gates. we've had this shit in place for over a century. we use to let you just die at home when you caught the plague.

I wish firefox would focus on getting the browser up to snuff for daily usability things like basic profile switching and better defaults for privacy.

but c'est la vie.