sambe

Oh come on, it's always fashionable to blame the current government. The Guardian's view (which has shifted further left and become more "us vs them" divisive in the last couple of years) of an already unpopular Conservative government is not the first source I'd used.

Personally, I've seen these reports come up from time to time, and having experienced some of the other countries listed find it very hard to believe. It sounds like a lot of the data is collected from patient surveys. My claim that citizens have a positive-skewed view of the system is relevant (I recently read a survey result where UK citizens considered the NHS a greater achievement than defeating the Nazis and the abolition of slavery).

I didn't claim otherwise - is there a need for that tone? What have private GPs got to do with it?

I don't doubt that the NHS would treat me reasonably quickly and probably quite well if I had stage 2 cancer. People in the UK have been trained to herald such as a result as heroics from the NHS, as if the alternative was third-world level service. I do expect - based on a lifetime of anecdotal data from myself, friends and family - that the whole process would reveal repeated mistakes, bureaucracy and time and money wasted. False dichotomy often prevails in NHS discussions.

I have never seen such a bureaucratic/inefficiently operated institution - and there are plenty to choose from in the UK. My electricity company replaced all Vs with Ks in letters to us for 7 months. The NHS is much worse (try even getting a letter to arrive within a month - to the right address - let alone receive any medical treatment).

I have not dealt with US healthcare but having experienced other countries' I'd strongly suggest not following the UK system - other European countries certainly come to mind as working substantially better. Of course, there's a huge "Save Our NHS" push due to the number of people it employs, unions, misplaced national pride etc.

Do you think newspapers should not be called out on misleading information? It seems to me that not highlighting the good vs bad articles/papers is a net loss for public discourse.

My interpretation: “no big deal, not scummy, better than average by a distance”. And: please buy userflowpro.

Sure, I'll take your $10K diamond ring for my $1K gun. Or did you want to chop off the corner?

(more seriously: I think people are going for a substantial reduction in practical feasibility more than anything. The inefficiency of barter is unlikely to affect that.)

First sentences: "The Arctic Ocean once froze reliably every year. Those days are over.". Climate aside, there are still seasons - it's not surprising to see time-lapse videos of this happening.

You can see the seasonal chart later in the article, across several decades. The concern is the long-term trend. The strong El Nino effect of the last few years appears to go unmentioned, which would be my only concern.

The title should be changed. It’s not universal, and it’s not £10,000 per year.

per year (with some adjustment for the changing success rate).

What of the story that there was later a good team who turned it all around (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-s...). It just one article, but I had heard something about the team also working successfully on other government projects. Doesn't rule out mistakes/lack of incentives going forward, but I'm certainly left with a good impression of them.

Most people's primary experience of lithium-ion batteries is in their mobile phone. From that point of view, they were already cheap and commonplace at ~the turn of the millennium. Most people's perception is that in the last 18 years they've got substantially worse. Obviously, the power and capability of the phone has gone up dramatically, but it's pretty obvious where the perception has come from.

I'd think the secondary experience is in laptop batteries, and I'd hazard a guess that there's a similar but less extreme story: perception is similar battery life (perhaps because most life extensions come from low-power modes, so anyone actually using their laptop doesn't reach the claimed numbers for modern laptops?).

Of course, a third major factor is that people tend not to notice incremental improvements as much as step changes, and tend not to "upgrade their battery" in a comparable way.

All told, in relative terms there's probably some truth to it; other technology has progressed faster. But I wholeheartedly agree things have got better.

The last few times I've used it in Europa it's given me the wrong location for an address or missing places. I agree that seems better than it was originally, but it just can't compete in a lot of locations.

I feel the true danger is in the "uncanny valley" of automation - it's good enough that you don't need to pay attention 98% of the time. People underestimate tail risk, ignore the manual etc.

My guess is that you're right: level 5 will take about as long as it takes to get to photorealistic rendering - never quite there.

The article explicitly states that at least Volvo has a similar warning in their manual.

Well, I'm not into forcing things on others, so I can't agree with your perfect world. However, I'm more interested in what "socialized" actually means: it seems like just another phrase like "treated as public utility" that doesn't mean much to me on its own. Is this about the government taking control of the company?

Almost every public utility I've dealt with is completely dysfunctional, so I'm not sure I'd advocate that unless my real aim was to destory them (which it seems to be for some).

It's never clear to me what people even mean by this - it seems like a fashionable phrase to throw around. So I second your question - what practically speaking would happen under this scenario? I'd prefer to hear the people advocating it be explicit about what they want and why.

That and the fact that Apple isn't actually dominant (depending on how far you want to split down the definition of "phone" or "smart phone" or "high end smart phone" or "very high end smart phone".

How is that comparable? Running everything as root is a) asking for accidents; b) a different class of problem.

The point is that it's up from an arbitrary historical value? It's down since the story broke - that's the point.

This didn’t become public last October.

Intel stock is down ~10% and AMD up ~10% since end of December. I'm not even sure why people are saying the stock market thinks it's not a problem. The stock market represents a weighted average of possible futures and it has priced in some damage. Is the idea that Intel should instantly drop 90%?

I mean, they could go back to the provider of the clinical information with a unique ID and request follow-up. But people are still a) busy (clinical data may come from a hospital that has little interest in research; researchers want to publish and move on); b) extremely scared of making mistakes (to the point of delusion: wanting data/results to never change, even if its an improvement - because that implies there was something wrong in the past). Getting follow-up clinical data may also be out of scope of existing agreements.

It is common for the data to be anonymised. Especially if there is a third party involved (e.g. a lab producing sequencing data attached to sub-sets of clinical information, according to whatever contract or legal environment they are in).

Even if they add a lot collectively, it's logical to pay individuals according to their individual impact. Collectively they still get more (just not as much more as when they were being subsidised).

However, in the long-run the challenge is enabling the transition from small to big. Doing one without the other would be quite short-term thinking from YouTube - they would massively disincentivise the new users who become next year's big channels. I haven't seen many platforms both care and execute on this.

There's not really enough detail here to support either point of view. There's hacking & skimming in addition to hitting withdrawal limits. It's arguable form the article's information that implicitly trusting up to the withdrawal limit was partly to blame. I'd prefer to see some evidence that it's necessary to put this trust in place at all.

Sure, a fail-safe mode makes complete sense. I'm just doubtful that there's a need to be in this mode 100% of the time.

And it would still be acceptable to wait 0.001% of the time, would it not? Or degrade to limit mode in that situation?

It takes a fraction of a second to send the withdrawal to the main office - how would a scam based on this really work? A second card with another person at a different ATM? Even then, you'd think you could serialise per-account without affecting throughput at all.

The paper is written rather... colloquially. Not necessairly a problem. But it seems mostly concerned with telling the story, and that a huge buyer in the market causes prices to go up. That's not market manipulation.

However, there is also the claim that the buyer did not actually have to pay for the BTC they bought. Well, that's certainly a (very strong!) form of manipulation, but it's not what people traditionally mean when they use the phrase. There is normally an expectation that you have real money and are following exchange procedures, but simply behaving in a way that is frowned upon or considered unfair/detrimental to the reputation of the market. As far as I can tell, people are still worried about traditional manipulation in Bitcoin markets, for things like marking the close. The behaviour described here is more akin to hacking/traditional fraud - it is not zero-sum.

Easily the buggiest, spammiest and most dishonest of the social media sites, I hardly find it surprising. Never had any reason to go there other than incessant spam invites, unwanted notifications and the vague promise of potential future value of contacts.