Why? This is a crappy review that doesn't do the device justice, and the PinePhone has nowhere near the level of support that Purism will offer. Neither should be considered "consumer ready", and it'll probably remain that way for at least a year.
1,828 karma · joined July 7, 2012
If you wash your hands frequently, don't touch your face, and maintain a safe distance from others, your risk goes down dramatically. If you add a mask to that, your risk goes down modestly. Everyone can do the first set of steps, but not everyone will have access to masks, and having more people panic about getting masks will likely cause more problems than we have already.
I feel like that was the intended message, but they weren't transparent about it. Trust is built over time and can be destroyed in an instant. Our leaders need to be much more careful.
I don't know Chinese culture well enough to know if we can solve this problem through market controls (might just shift to the black market), so we should be focusing efforts on identifying and understanding viruses and bacteria that could transfer to humans so we can stay a step ahead of disease. I'm sure we're doing a lot of that now, so perhaps we just need to adjust funding.
This is an older article[1] (2003), but I imagine the findings are only more relevant today. It compares the costs of the US healthcare system and Canada's, and there are huge discrepancies in price. Obviously the systems are very different, but I think we can trim the administration costs while keeping our privatized system.
I'm not an expert, nor have I done a ton of research, but it seems that making costs transparent (and having instance pay advertised costs) would go a long way to cutting costs. Care providers do a lot of work to deal with insurance, so if we move that to insurance companies, they'll find ways to reduce their own costs and we can eliminate a lot of redundant jobs. Medical care providers should focus on medical care, insurance should focus on financial care, and individuals should shop for the best deal. Ideally, I only interact with my insurance when I need it, much like auto and home insurance. I don't tell my auto insurance every time I change the oil, so why do I do the same for health insurance and checkups?
These are tough questions, but I think they're worth answering so we know what we're really gaining by shutting down the economy. I know we want to save as many lives as possible, but we should also know the cost too.
Since we don't know who is contagious, and we don't have enough masks for everyone, they're essentially "useless". They're quite useful for medical professionals because they're more likely to use sufficient caution than the average person, so it makes sense to reduce panic buying for something that likely won't help the average person so more are available for those that really need it.
This isn't some society-collapsing event, but it does require containment so our medical infrastructure doesn't get overwhelmed. If you get it, you'll most likely live, even without medical attention.
That being said, we do need to treat it seriously. It isn't just a dress rehearsal for something worse, but it is telling in how people react. I'm worried about what will happen if something worse comes along.
What I have learned, however, is that my general strategy is always keeping 1-2 months of basic essentials on hand is a good idea, and that I need to be more vigilant about it because people overreact.
However, you could also think of it like the digital equivalent of sharing. If someone purchases a movie or TV series on physical disks, they could loan it to you without breaking the law. In fact, they could even make a copy of the disk and not break the law. The only way to break the law this way is by having multiple copies in use at the same time. This is just digital sharing without checks in place to make sure multiple copies of the content aren't used simultaneously.
That being said, who is really harmed when I give someone a copy for free? I'm not stealing from the content creator (I paid, after all), and I'm not selling it, and there's no guarantee that the person I gave it to would have purchased it. If the creator hasn't lost anything and I'm not taking credit for it, nobody was harmed. In my eyes, this makes piracy acceptable as long as I don't sell it.
If we didn't have such strong copyright protections, content creators would be forced to compete with piracy by offering convenience, but instead they sue. Netflix has proven to reduce piracy because they offer convenience, but that only works for content they can provide.
I currently pay for Netflix and Amazon prime, mostly so my kids can watch cartoons (we don't have c cable or satellite TV) and because my wife likes fast shipping (we watch way more Netflix than Amazon Prime though). I don't expect to pay more than either service to have access to a better selection of movies.
These days, if there's nothing good on Netflix, I play video games or read a book because both of those offer far more value/dollar. If the movie industry offered $2 rentals for everything other than new releasees, I'd watch more movies. I'm only willing to pay $5 to watch a movie if it's a new release and I really want to watch it. I also rarely go to the theater as well because $10+ is too much for that experience unless it's opening weekend for a film I've been waiting for (we usually go on Tuesdays for the discounted rate for regular entertainment).
I wish the film industry would recognize the opportunity they have that's evidenced by projects like PopcornTime. If they make a movie platform with a nearly complete catalogue, people will use it. It's annoying to check multiple streaming platforms to see where something is available, and it's annoying to pay $5/movie to rent (that's about discounted theater prices, but without the theater experience).
Which is what most people mean when they say "cash" in the context of company financials. As long as it's reasonably liquid, I consider it "cash". Investing in the company, on the other hand, is not liquid (e.g. hiring, buying planes, etc).
What we need is to get over this pandemic as quickly as possible so we can stop disrupting trade and get people back to work. The news coming out of China is encouraging, and production seems to be slowly returning to normal.
Any discussion about UBI should be based on the long term merits, not a reaction to any current crisis. QE is a bit different, but honestly I think it does more harm than good much of the time, especially once it makes it through the political system.
I'm personally a fan of controlled, opt-in infections to help speed up research for a vaccine along with moderate quarantine (cancel many public events, encourage self quarantine). It may not be as effective, but it's much less likely to end in riots.
COVID-19 isn't going to be some world ending thing, it's just going to put some supply pressure in the short term until production and distribution can ramp back up, but people are treating it like it will be. It's really frustrating.
I don't know anything else about the state of things, but I'm sure automated systems and things that can be done remotely are allowed to continue, so if you want to pay your mortgage, I'm sure you can continue to do so.
It's possible, but probably not ethical.
It's not a terrible headline, but it could also be improved.
Most of my socializing has been and continues to be done in person, over text, or over email. I do miss out on updates from distant family and friends, but the interaction on Facebook was always shallow anyway, so I don't feel like I'm missing much.