661–670 of 836 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In big tech the benefits are the same, except you save more in 10 years in WA than people in London save in 30.
What about everyone else in society? What happens if your skill set is no longer in demand and you become one of "everyone else"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true to an extent, but the majority of US healthcare spending goes to treating chronic conditions caused more by lifestyle choices than misfortune. There's a fundamental issue in public health policy about individual responsibility and whether to charge people more (or potentially even deny care) over factors at least partially under their control. For example, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) allows health…
That topic should be a non-starter as long as US government policy is to keep shitting in the food bowl. There's way too many communities living under the toxic spill or waste of some unregulated industrial process -- and the country seems perfectly ok with that kind of "lifestyle". I really don't see why we should villify individual lifestyle choices when the entire country is happy with intentionally harmful policy…
There's very little tobacco advertising anymore so we're not going to squeeze many dollars out there.
https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-guidance-regul...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you presented a dichotomy in which the Democrats are a party intent to "make all your guns illegal", yet that is not their position as a party. Indeed the last Democratic presidential nominee made very clear she owns guns and likes the 2nd amendment. The opposite is true of Republicans: their party platform is literally "whatever Trump wants", and Trump has actually articulated circumventing the second amendm…
Ah yea sorry, I meant literally my guns , as in the ones I use for service rifle competition. Those guns specifically, like the practical ones, are definitely on the docket. In fact if I moved to my current state today, I wouldn't be able to bring my guns. Yes they will allow me to have a deer rifle with a 5-10rd capacity.
So you were not talking about your guns, you were talking about all guns. You can amend your position if that's really what it is, but that's not what you said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
instead of cursing and attacking, you can have actual discussions. most of the comments in this thread are hating towards trump and his policies without actually discussing any of the policies. Maybe you can't even read the comments. Just blank statements and making fun of trump and his policies. If u have any counters to them u will get flagged and downvoted to hell. Just like your comment, HN has gone from an actua…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a large and incorrect assumption, and not mathing, to lump non-voters into supporters, especially when the administration is purging eligible voters.
An eligible voter who chooses not to vote makes one unambiguous statement: "I'm fine with either outcome"
To the degree some non-voters say they don’t care, that’s still deeply complicated, enough that even taking someone’s word for it is a bad idea. Non-voters in the U.S. are not uniformly distributed, and thus there is evidence suggesting that not caring is already a function of class, race, education, gender, and age, among other things.
If you actually care about voting and about the truth, it does yourself a disservice to jump to a assumed conclusion that all non-voters are saying something unambiguous, that they’re all saying the same thing, that they all have informed choice, that they understand all the tradeoffs and implications, and that they really are fine with any outcome regardless of what they say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What percentage of the market actually pays it this way? The only way this can make sense mathematically is if you're including children, seniors, and/or the ill—populations who are unable to work. What is your reference?
Pew Research says just under 7% of the population uses the exchanges to buy insurance. Overall, about 36% of the population is on public healthcare, according to Census.gov. KFF says that about 80% of the working population, plus or minus, gets insurance through their employer, with an average of $570/month out-of-pocket for premiums.
These numbers are incommensurate in a way that may not be obvious.
7% of the population doesn't tell you what population fraction is covered by such policies.
36% coverage is even harder—every child in the US is eligible for Medicaid, and such children may not always need it, or may move states after using Medicaid, in a way that makes them doubly counted.
80% of the working population is also less clear; is that 80% of policy-holders get their own policy through their own job? Or 80% of working-age people have a policy through some workplace, even if they are not working?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed but we also have to stop saying "the majority support this" or "half the country supports this" it ain't true and leads people to feel hopeless.
"The majority" I'll grant you, but I'd say 43.4% is close enough to "half" for these purposes. It's only a touch lower than his poll numbers right before the election. Compare with Kier Starmer, who as of this writing has not sent armed goons into his own cities, wrecked all of his international trade and tourism, alienated his allies, or once again invaded the Middle East. His approval rating is about 20%!
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-calls-uks-chagos-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So nothing. Just anecdotes. At least you admit it.
Admit what? Trump is open about the racial nature of deportations, and witnesses say the same. If you want to bring stats into it, the baseline is to try to disprove what everyone already knows. Assuming something is false just because it makes Trump look bad, in your eyes, is a very biased take on the world. Just listen to his own words, he's not ashamed of the racial nature of the deportations, it doesn't "make him…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it’s resistant but then they can just deny your entry into the country.
Presumably not if you’re a citizen but then, who knows
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, a CEO has never lied before about the reasons for layoffs.
I think COVID ruined people's ability to critically think. The amount of people in both journalism and across the economy, people are just taking the words of others (often those with malicious intents) with zero critical thought being applied. For Block's case they have had multiple layoffs over the last 5 years, hardly the sign of an AI apocalypse and more of a sign of a business leader that only survived because o…