dmayle

My wife and I have similar spending patterns, but if we had different valuations on something, I would want to be able to talk about it (express my desire), show a willingness to compromise (in exchange of a birthday gift) but in a way that respected her valuation.

Going a bit deeper, however, it will most likely increase health care costs over time. This is because it splits the population into two separate risk pools (low-risk low-use, and high-risk high-use).

To save myself the time of explaining it in full, just compare it to the current state of the credit card market. When Discover pioneered the idea of splitting the risk pool (by offering cash back rewards to low risk clients), then it created upwards pressure on credit card fees (because the general risk pools slowly became high-risk pools, meaning that existing risk fees didn't cover the necessary spread). The traditional cards now started charging more to merchants, which left room for larger rewards for the low-risk pool in a vicious cycle.

What I think we need, however, is a model that doesn't depend on single-pricing to work, because the real world isn't single-buyer.

People tried to solve it by creating healthcare savings accounts, but the solution itself is very complex, and the end user is often in situations where they don't have the ability to negotiate (e.g. emergency health care). So in practice, the financial benefits seem to accrue with low-care patients, not low-cost-of-service patients, meaning it doesn't affect the system in the right way.

Ultimately, I think the only way to fix it is to start adding negative pricing pressure in small ways to the system, not trying to tackle the whole problem at once.

For example, waive deductibles for treatments which are billed below average (mean? median? in any case, this has to be independent of list price). That creates a financial incentive for insured patients to both seek out billing information, and to lower it.

What's great about that (for insurers) is that you're specifically altering behavior of your most cost-conscious customers, who tend to be your lowest margin customers, without mucking about with the profit margins on your most valuable customers.

French poses a large number of difficulties for the native English speaker. While the letters are the same, the sounds are subtly different (more precise, less rounded than English), and there are at least three sounds that simply don't exist in English (the two "u" sounds "ou" and "u", the nasal "n", the guttural "r"). You most likely won't even be able to hear the difference between the two "u" sounds until after you've trained your ears.

Also, many sounds are simply elided from the words they are attached to. Almost any word with an "s" loses that sound ("filles" and "fille" for daughter(s) are both pronounced "fee"). A word like "comment" (how), where if you were to pronounce the "ent" would be a very light nasal "n" sound, is pronounced "co-mo".

Additionally, while the number of contractions in English is small, French has a construct called the liaison (which means link), which causes a combinatorial explosions in audible contractions. For example, the word comment (pronounced "co-mo") and the word allez (pronounced "ah-lay") links to become "co-mo-ta-lay". (added "T" sound).

This link is because normally, in French, two vowel sounds can not be consecutive, and so the otherwise silent sound is re-injected to make the two sounds flow together better. In cases where no sound has been elided, a new letter is injected to keep the flow. "Has" is "a", and "he" is "il", but "has he eaten?" gets an injected "t": "a-t-il mangé?". However, if adding the sound for flow causes confusion, then the French will leave it out for no strict reason. The example given to me was "trop aidé", which translates literally as "too helped", because the link would make it sound like "too gay", which would cause confusion.

So when you combine these (along with a number of complexities I haven't mentioned yet (like there's a whole verb tense that only exists in writing, but not spoken form), then French in specific conflicts with a lot of what you learn for English, making it very difficult to learn as your second language.

The version that propublica is talking about is actually free for the whole service.

  * Tokenization is using a unique per-device credit card.  These are generated by the payment network, so Mastercard knows who is making the payment.
  * EMV includes per-transaction tokens.

TFL says daily ridership is 5MM people, and based on your figures, daily advertising revenue is 390k GBP. That means that for every 1000 users, they're earning 78 GBP in ads revenue.

From my experience on the tube, I see maybe 10 unique ads in a given day (sometimes less, sometimes more), which means that CPMs on the tube, for an untargeted audience, are about 7.80 GBP. That's a huge number!

Revenue didn't bottom out. CD revenue is still on the decline, and digital revenue is still on the decline.

Ever since the age of the first recording, music has worked on a freemium model. Music was free to listen to via the radio (and ad-supported), which acted as an advertisement and upsell for physical (and later digital) media sales.

With the decline of radio and physical media, as well as the democratization of distribution (less hits, revenue spread more evenly), the music industry has been searching for a replacement business model that works.

It looks like they've found it in streaming services.

The real question is about the wireless processors designed 13+ years ago (longer than the painting to allow time for it to hit production).

This thing was supposedly designed and enabled before the iPhone was released. The author does not present a credible argument.

https://www.designer.io/

The circumference of the earth is about 40,000 kilometers. A round trip from CA to Netherlends and back will have electricity going roughly that distance. Speed of electricity times 150 milliseconds is 44,000 kilometers.

That means that the number won't change over time.

It looks like what your saying makes sense... until you start to control for location. Look at the chart titled, "Metropolitan areas with the highest employment level in this occupation" for both pages, and you'll see that for every locale included in both places, CEO pay is higher than GPs.

This is most likely because CEOs aren't evenly distributed with the population like GPs are (you can have one CEO at the top of 50k employees, but you need many more GPs than that for the same number of people).

Every alternative voting method I've seen proposed by voting geeks has flaws that are as serious as the current system.

There are two main problems with approval voting (and other similar systems like condorcet). The first is that approval voting assumes that every preference has the same weight. Either yes, I approve, or no I don't approve.

If we imagine three candidates, A, B, and C, with 10 voters giving a score of 0 to 100. If 9 people give A a score of 100, B a score of 1, and C a score of 0, while one other person gives C a score of 100, B a score of 1, and A a score of 0, then B will win the election in the earlier methods, despite being 99% unpalatable to the majority of everyone.

The second problem is non-voters. Our current system ensures that the will of the non-voter is never accounted for. Now, that seams obvious, because they haven't voted, but it's possible to build a system that accounts for everyone's vote.

In the world of single-winner systems, I think the only voting solution that truly represents the will of the people is repeat-stable voting. With repeat-stable voting, you keep repeating the election until the results are stable. An example of this would be voting every day on the exact same election until the results of two subsequent votes produce the same winner.

That way there is no such thing as the surprise upset. If the will of the people is not captured in the first vote, they have the chance to mobilize for the second, or the third. In this way, you capture the will of the abstainer, as well, because the abstainer is guaranteed to know the result of their choice to not-vote, which means they have the opportunity to change their vote and haven't done so.

To move beyond single winner, however, I think the next big leap forward in voting enabled by technology would be hierarchical vote delegation. Instead of electing a leader, you delegate your vote to a leader. (This holds for any role) An elected representative is not making decisions, but wielding their collection of delegated votes. On any single issue, a person is free to manually control that issue, overriding their chosen delegate, and this ensures that the actions of government are truly those decided by the electorate.

For a MTBF of 2 million hours, that means that on average, if you have one thousand drives, then you should expect one drive failure every 2000 hours, or 83 days (1k * 2k hours = 2M hours)

When it comes to routing, you have two options, delegate or self-manage. In the case of self-management, yes, if you want complex route management, then you'll need software that handles complex route management.

Why not use Stateless DHCP, and configure a machine with short leases that can update the others as needed? It can handle the complex routing, and the clients just have to frequently ask if there are updates.

There's a python library called networkx, but it is so heavily object-oriented (multi-inheritance) as to make it impossible to get any benefit from reading the code.

Just like we didn't know to what extent DNA changes can alter an individual, and what the repercussions of making those changes are, the same is true of our actions and experiences.

This video is a look at a nascent field that requires thinking and ethical explorations.

What are the ramifications of an individual who, through modern science, has the ability to not just alter their genetic makeup, but also their experiences and behaviors so as to achieve a desired outcome?

Where is free will in all of this? Does it exist? Will we all become beholden to our former selves who, making decisions with less information, made decisions we no longer agree with?

What about our parents? They make choices, sending us to schools, or acting classes, but they shape us in the same way.

...and where is the limit? As long as we're not very good at it (like right now), it's ok, but once we're accomplished a certain level of proficiency, is that when it becomes dangerous?

This is a thought-provoking video, but I think a lot of the issues expressed here are a reflection of the viewers, and not of the video itself. It even raises the concept of responsible behavior (it refers to 'stewardship').

Our current society values the concept of 'humanity', and the 'greater good', which gives me hope that we will take action and correct evolutionary unstable systems and behaviors.

To end on a joke: I, for one, welcome our new selfish ledger overlords.

Matter is continuous into other dimensions, and this is why things like the photon/wave duality can work, interaction with other realities.

In our reality, however, our universe is so sparse as to be almost non-existent (density of the universe is something like 1 hydrogen atom for every 5k cubic meters). This has been measured, and means that our universe is flat (Euclidean).

In my mind, in order to connect the density of the universe with the continuity of quantam behavior, than every reality must have the same density, and flow continuously from ours, which would mean that every reality is Euclidean.

This is where it gets fuzzy for me, because it's my understanding that the multiverse is not Euclidean....