jmye

That you think leading the EU is remotely similar to the role Trump or Xi have suggests that maybe this isn't a topic you should be having an opinion about at all. Maybe it would be better to not talk, and listen for a bit?

I get that's anathema to social-media addicted folks (who are emotionally equivalent to teenagers) on the internet, these days, though.

Or, you know, some people like their fucking jobs. Not everything needs to be some min-max'ed income thing - sometimes people do what they love, as utterly mind-blowing and completely incomprehensible as that apparently is to the folks raised on social media.

> Because it's either plainly stupid virtue signalling aimed at the current strawman

This seems reductive. Do you think that code-hosting sites should be unable to determine their own standards and the projects they host, solely because they make you feel bad (that "you" presumably neither wrote nor understand a single line of code in your project)? Do you think a lack of clarity on copyright rules is actually "tragic"?

Or is the real "virtue signaling" always in the whiny comments because someone's rules on their own site hypothetically affected "you", for once?

> Providers are arming up with AI to listen in on provider-patient sessions to prove the billing codes are legit

This is not a decrease in quality of care - this is your provider having actual evidence of the care needs they discussed with you when they close their note, hours or days after seeing you.

Similarly, I think anything we can do to help take the burden off the mundane parts of the job has helped clinicians focus on the actual hard parts. Where we get... bristling, is when there's any suggestion of "legislating" (operationally, not like, governmentally) care patterns and telling clinicians how to care for their patients.

Which is great, because anyone suggesting AI should replace clinical judgment and work is an idiot.

> (or widen your claim to 'almost all IPOs are scams')

In a world where retail basically has no access to true IPO pricing, I don't think this is untrue for the majority of investors.

Jamming SpaceX directly into a bunch of indexes just because Musk wanted it (and everyone is a coward or complicit) stunk of "scam" in a very different way, though.

> Wouldn't a strict interpretation of your opinion imply speed governors?

Shouldn't we have them, if we generally agree that speed limits are good? If not, why have speed limits at all?

Would it not be better to physically limit your speed to 20mph in school zones, for instance? What "freedom" is being limited, in that case?

(Let's ignore stupid edge cases: sure you could need to get to the hospital - in that case you should call an ambulance. The availability and expense of that service is irrelevant to the question, here.)

I’ve started trying to guess how many top-level comments will be from people who don’t know anything about the study but have read a lot of erowid or whatever, acting like study experts and thinking “correlation is not causation” is an impressive thing to say. It’s like guessing jelly beans in a jar.

All noise, zero signal, anytime pot (especially) or other drugs are mentioned.

I did not say they “made it their life’s mission” - you made that up. I said they devoted their life to it - given the numbers I hear about working hours at Meta, they literally do just that.

I think your final statement outright negates the prior one. You cannot devote your working life to making teenage girls depressed and teenage boys angry and not be evil.

You just think they wear nice masks when they’re at home.

> Since Reddit itself is entirely text-based, it remains accessible and efficient, and appending site:reddit.com is still the best way to make Google search queries return anything approaching useful.

This is nonsense, trivially proven by looking up literally anything you actually understand. Everything is tired, stupid memes, outright incorrect information, or 16 year olds pretending to authoritatively give recommendations on things they don’t know anything about.

The only people who still think Reddit has particularly useful information or the people still most susceptible to not understanding misinformation in the first place.

And that’s to say nothing about the clear prevalence of bots and AI on any sub with more than 20 people.

[flagged]

> If AI was beneficial, no one would profitize it

What? How does that follow?

> And no, there's no simple solution to this problem. The notion that something like "Medicare for All" would solve the problem is a total fantasy, disconnected from actual US healthcare economics. Any real solution will have to work on multiple angles including preventive care, PBMs, provider wages, rationing, drug prices, fraud, malpractice insurance, interoperability technology, etc.

I have been saying this for years. I'm so tired of social media memes turning into sage wisdom for an entire generation who can barely spell healthcare, let alone have any vague understanding of it.

I'm and-then'ing, not disagreeing, but the big healthcare cost fix, IMO, still centers around education cost reform, and fixing the supply of mid-levels+ across the country.

> As successful as Obamacare has been it didn't really do much to lower the cost of healthcare

It dramatically lowered the cost to consumers. Further, conflating overall healthcare spend with the portion of spend tied to a significantly lower-cost population is apples and oranges at best and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of healthcare cost in general. It's ok to not have opinions about things you know you don't understand.

> the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment.

This is absolute nonsense. We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other. You don't get to just handwave baldly incorrect statements as "well maybe he just has a different personal definition" without basically rendering literally all conversation moot and pointless.

"Yeah, I know he said 2+2 is 5, but you don't know he defines 5" is just as patently silly.

> You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent

So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?

> and medical expenses in retirement

You're saying I'm in poverty because I understand and intend to use Medicare?

These are trivially poor definitions.

What specific point are you trying to make, here? Do you think a news organization should not be acquiring tech tools? Do you think that state-funded journalism matters, in this context, or do you just think those are good bogeyman words?

Come on, be proud of your opinions. Don't hide behind scare quotes and insinuations. Don't be a coward.

"I'm going to take this box razor and make some really deep cuts around the middle of my face because my tech sector is too good and that's actually a bad thing because $foreigners."

What does "free" have to do with anything?

How many “average C-levels” have you talked to? What, specifically, do you think that actually means? Do you think the average CMO and CTO are identical, and have identical profiles in this case?

Or are you just blathering about things you’ve never experienced because you met the “CEO” of a five person company once? I find grand proclamations by people who speak in TikTok absolutely laughable memeing.

Eh, it’s less hysterical than the ever-pervasive belief among junior devs that they are the smartest people in the room and that all managers everywhere are dumb.

Though I understand that gets social validation from other people with no actual experience.

> The assumption that I'm just being contrarian is inaccurate and a bit rude.

If it's not the case, then I would have expected like, some actual thought behind anything you posted, instead of just a random list of silly, nonsensical objections.

> Printing is no longer as easy as it once was. I bought an ink jet printer a few weeks back because my wife needs to print. Setting it up took an hour, and it had streaks out of the box. I spent fifteen minutes figuring out how to clean the print heads, we'll see if that worked.

I'm not clear what you think you're saying here. If my business depended on a printer, do you think I'd maybe buy one before I opened it, and ensure I had menus printed? Do you think they're printing menus as they need them? Do you have any idea how a restaurant functions?

> I don't understand your comment on searching. It is literally true there is no "search" for physical menus -- only human scanning. And browsers do have a search function. If it's unintuitive, that's a universal problem that can be improved.

Of course there isn't a "search", but what on earth do you think "human scanning actually is"? What a bizarre interpretation of reality. But that's also why, as I said, they've laid out the bloody menu in an intuitive way, so that you can find the pancakes in the breakfast section. Again, this is the kind of thing you only say when you're trying to be a contrarian, and not when you're trying to raise any actual objections or counter arguments.

> I didn't say splitting the bill is not easier for the customer. I said it's not easier, because I was including the server's effort.

And given that you've clearly never used a restaurant POS system, this is another blindingly silly, childisih bit of contrarian nonsense.

If you were trying to raise real objections, it might behoove you to like... think about them in the future. You clearly did not, here.

Given the utter paucity of wolf attacks on humans (vastly, incomprehensibly lower than the rates of Lyme disease), this is a deeply silly thing to worry about.

It’s really clear, sometimes, who hasn’t seen a place that isn’t paved.

These are absurd positions, invented solely for the purpose of being contrarian and not because any of them make any sense or add any value to the conversation. I'm so tired of this thoughtless, tired crap passing as legitimate discussion.

> physical menus are hard to update

It is not hard to print a few sheets of paper off a word document.

> physical menus are often too simple, requiring asking the server questions they've answered a dozen times before already, hurting their efficiency, or they are book-sized and hard to navigate.

None of this is solved in an online menu, and no one is concerned about server "efficiency", whatever that means. Have you ever eaten out?

> physical menus aren't cleaned between uses, so you're touching everything the server touched, and the three people before you.

They are often wiped down, but it's interesting you think your phone is cleaner.

> physical menus don't scale: if the restaurant is busy, you might have to share.

Of course they do. You just... print more.

> physical menus require more human time for the host/server to provide them to you.

What? In a normal restaurant, someone is seating you, anyways. Putting 4 menus on the table is not adding time. If they are not seating you, you are ordering at a counter. If neither of those are true, leave a handful of menus with the napkins.

> physical menus aren't searchable.

The browser patten for finding things on my cell phone is so deeply unintuitive that this is as silly as pretending that a menu isn't literally designed to help you find what you want. Do you think menus are just a bunch of ingredients printed at random on the page? Do you think you are the only person who's ever considered UI?

> Does the author really think getting the server to split the bill is easier?

It is vastly easier for the user/customer. How is this a question?

Anyone who “fears” vaccines because the government said they were a good idea (with provable statistics instead of whatever nonsense you read on Facebook) is a fucking doorknob. Full stop.

Some of you need to realize that writing some React pages doesn’t actually make you a polymath.

> but flu vaccines are extremely ineffective

Sorry, this is absolutely bullshit. They’re wildly effective in the easiest population to look at - MA Seniors, who are highly incentivized to get them because of their efficacy.

Sometimes, it’s best to stop talking when you know you don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.

> You agree with essentially a life sentence for moving pamphlets around?

That was the question you were asked. It was a short comment with very few big words. Why are you talking about whether it’s a crime? Why the rank dishonesty?

Is it too hard a question for you to figure out how to answer?

Hardly seems a mockery of Texas. This is pretty on brand for the kind of state and the kind of people that keep re-electing Paxton.

Ah, you're one of those - any disagreement and all you can do is complain about the other person's emotional state. Did you think you were saying something to add value, here? Did you think this was a cutting, insightful comment?

Come on, make your buddies proud, "umadbro" me, next.