On a related note, I'm eternally grateful for the conversion to open source of the Squeezebox platform (now known as Lyrion Music Server) and SageTV. I use both of these every day.
Hear hear. I'm also a daily LMS/squeezebox user, across many years.
In fact, given the full-throated open source nature of that platform (you can even build your own player with a raspberry pi[1]), I doubt I'll ever need to use anything else for the rest of my life for playing music in my home, even as my devices die and need replacement over time.
... which does make me wonder: that's great for me, but I can definitely see it as a deterrent for companies to do similar. If they want to make a competing future product, they'll be competing against an open-sourced version of their past selves, too.
Habits vary (vegans exist!) And I agree 4 oz is a pretty small portion. But I don't think I personally know very many people who eat beef daily. For me and my family it is once or twice a week.
4 oz (a quarter pound) is 100 g or an amount about the size of the palm of your hand -- a single serving. It's not a small portion, it's recommended standard portion.
If you were following the old food guide in use for the last 20 years -- the one that replaces the food pyramid -- you'd see that 100 g is about a quarter of your plate. The old food guide could be summed up as "a quarter of your plate should be protein, a quarter carbs, and half fruits and vegetables". Real simple, so simple anyone could understand it. Although I have been presented with evidence recently that there are some who can not.
It's a working national health programme. Expanding it makes more sense than starting anew. My proposal is to expand its mandate to covering pregnant mothers and children directly.
I would like to get a catastrophic plan that doesn't cover things I would categorize as consequences of bad choices. I get that covering these things is less costly for society than just letting things run their course, but it does drive costs onto everyone else's premium.
Catastrophic plans are still quite costly because they aren't really a pure insurance product. Mine is over 2k/month for 3 people on an ACA Bronze plan with HSA.
The challenge with such carve-outs is it incentivises broadly defining the offending lifestyle choice. So the specifics matter, because otherwise, insufficient diet and exercise (or, for the exceptions, overexertion) is a lifestyle choice that can be positively linked to pretty much any issue for any person.
Even if everyone's fit and has a good diet, maternity care is medically important and starting a family in a free country** definitely counts as a lifestyle choice because some choose not to do it.
Human childbirth without any care has quite a high fatality rate*; no childbirth, no next generation to cover the pensions of today's taxpayers.
* I don't know if South Sudan had something weird going on to push their lifetime rate of fatal complications from maternity to 35% in the worst years, but even if they're an outlier there were plenty of other countries trending at around 10% in 1985: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/lifetime-risk-of-maternal...
** Not so in places without women's reproductive rights.
> this paradigm completely fails for almost anyone with an income that isn't above the 50th percentile
I'm in Wyoming, and our threshold is under 200% the poverty line. That's $53,300 for a family of 3 [1]. Median household income–nationally–is $84k [2]. In Wyoming, it's $75k [3].
Why isn't it a privacy and security problem if it is just done for a single phone number?
What is this was not WhatsApp, but it was a website or service dedicated to something unethical or illegal or just extremely embarrassing? Something that could ruin a marriage or career if it was known someone was a registered user? Would it be OK if someone could punch in phone numbers to find out who is registered on these sites?
What if someone automated and correlated this information to produce a profile for a phone number of all the shady/embarrassing services that phone number is associated with?
Why is it OK to allow enumeration of accounts with a given phone number, when it is generally considered to be a privacy and security violation to allow someone to enter email addresses and confirm if they have an account with a service or app?
I've never understood this idea that phone numbers shouldn't be protected the same as email addresses or other personal information.
It's for contact discovery. It's actually pretty similar for email? If you enter an email address in your mail client and send an email to it, in most configurations you'll get some kind of notification if the recipient doesn't exist.
Email, of course, has an unlimited number of possible addresses. Phone numbers are a dense space with limited parameter length. So it is easier to enumerate all phone numbers.
There is such a long history of using humor to affect change and discuss extremely serious matters. Legally it's protected speech because of it's importance.
The main purpose of sarcasm is not humor, it's to use irony as a form of contempt. To the extent that humor is involved it's usually done so as a form of mockery.
I agree that satire and parody have a valuable place in discourse.
But I believe there are some subject matters including sexual assault and more specifically pedophilia that are pretty much never in good taste or useful to parody. Apparently this position is somewhat outspoken here.
Swift's Modest Proposal mentions eating babies which is very obviously an extreme behavior that is not tolerated by anyone anywhere, which is a distinct contrast to sexual assault which has victims in the millions if not billions.
Also just to note that the comment I replied to is now dead and flagged, so I guess I'm not the only one with these opinions.
reply