ksk

Give us 15%/30% because the user doesn't have the right to run an executable of their choice on a device they paid for?

Sure there is a place for nuance, but there is also a place for bold writing without all the pussyfooting. Exclusively using either style makes it boring for the reader. We need the sweet with the sour ;)

>You can celebrate something you like without having to make the alternative a disease, sheesh.

You can, but would you be equally successful at it?

>Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights

Who defines what those rights are? I don't agree with this dictatorial definition of rights. This mindset needs to change.

I don't want Microsoft "owning" Windows and banning Firefox and Chrome because its their "right".

I think the "what right do you have" or "can you force someone" phrasing is adversarial and can't drive a conversation.

Lets instead look at distilling the universal access idea to its essence, we need

  1) A capital pool to fund the program
  2) A legislative framework that
    2.1) Lays out the products and services and the pricing of those
    2.2) Allows for price negotiation based on geography and other market driven criteria
    2.3) Drafts fines for inappropriate behavior - excessive billing, using unapproved medication, etc
    2.4) Defines licensing terms for a provider to bill the government 
  

Now #1 is no different from any other regular insurance, you collect individual payments at the federal level. #2 would also be federal legislation. #2.4 would be similar to how medicare-certified hospitals operate.

Now the question really becomes - why would any provider not take this deal? Certainly, there could be several reasons, and those can be addressed on a case by case basis. But the point I want to make is, we can start small, maybe we only tackle preventative care at first.

Well, they can't deny emergency care to a human being who is about to die/in critical condition, can they? So lets start on that common ground - They do already have unequivocal obligations in the current system. Now from that end of the spectrum to the other end, say perhaps an elective purely cosmetic surgery that is non-essential (agreed, this is subjective) we can find some middle ground, can we not?

As a practical matter of policy, the government can incrementally build the path towards universal coverage. By identifying problems in the outcomes of the existing system, and using various common-sense priorities to draft legislation, this can be done in a slow and sustainable manner. There are various proposals out there drafted by people far smarter than I. Its not that I think any particular one is a silver-bullet, but the current system where people go bankrupt due to medical costs is very alarming. We need to start somewhere if we are to tackle this problem.

I totally get the fear of creating yet another entitlement program, and how hospitals will possibly milk the government, but the current system isn't working, people are quite literally dying and/or having their lives be destroyed due to medical costs, so it about time we did something. I've seen some of this damage first hand and its terrifying to think it could happen to people I care about or even myself.

A lot of Apple fans say this, but I find many components in Apple products in general to be of average to poor build quality. Keyboards, display hinges, CPU/GPU cooling, weak display bezel/frames, weak outer-frames on their phones, laptop case creaking, etc. Heck they have yet to figure out how to design cables that don't fray. I'm sure there are some nice aspects to owning a mac too, otherwise nobody would purchase them. But I have yet to find anything that they've done w.r.t good build quality. I do admit they have a very good handle on making their products look pretty. So there's that..

I no longer code so I'm probably close to the 'average consumer' now. I personally consider 32GB to be the minimum amout of RAM that anyone should consider in 2020,2021 (with obvious caveats on money). My multi-GB workloads are read-heavy and include loading multi-GB games, editing hundreds of RAW images, opening 50+ tabs, etc, all without leaving the cosy confines of my RAM - which I still sometimes do. I have a 100GB system commit limit on my W10 box, and with my current usage pattern, I hit about 50GB @ peak.

It's true that if the OS could predict exactly which memory pages to keep and which to swap out, we could save memory wastage, but so far I haven't seen any memory management scheme that can reduce memory consumption by half.

For me personally, I won't even consider a machine with less than 32GB ram in 2020/2021. With 32GB, I never close out of applications that I use regularly, and so it allows me to switch state instantaneously for not that much more money. My workloads are typically read-heavy & multiple GBs - editing/screening/cataloging hundreds of RAW photos, loading of multi-GB games, having about 50 tabs open in FF, etc. After having switched careers I rarely code anymore, and I don't think these are uncommon requirements.

Aside - I re-read my earlier comment and I don't mean to come off as a crazy anti-vax person!

I work in vaccines, but I can't think of a vaccine that was completely recalled due to long-term safety issues of the top of my head. Most recalls happen because one lot or the other had some production issues. Certainly, vaccines are extremely safe by the time they get approved - because the approval process is careful, methodical and takes years.

However, in this case, if a COVID vaccine is approved by the end of this year or in the near-term, we won't have any long-term data, and so I do worry about those aspects, about the compounds used in the final formulation as well as the untested nature of RNA/DNA based vaccines.

A few places to do research for those interested:

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html?

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi...

While you may call it a 'solved' problem, in reality, its a problem that every single pharma company in the world wants to avoid, due to the high costs and other challenges.

Source: I work in vaccines, and our company works on thermostable formulations, among other things.

There is always some effect whenever any foreign molecule is injected in your blood. Simply knowing ONE 'mechanism of action' doesn't tell you the 'mechanism of reaction' or all the other cross reactions that happen. It also doesn't tell you what will happen when some one is already on medication for other health issues. The body is simply too complex to many any definitive statement like that.

So there are many reasons to think otherwise, but the simplest one is - Every single medication and vaccine that we've ever made has known side-effects. Not all side-effects are known right off the bat, and many take years to detect.

>Secondly: people are working on vaccines. If you can hold it until one is available, you might not have to get sick at all.

I work in vaccines and I don't believe any vaccine is even close to coming out. The products our company is working take about 10 years from start to final sale.

Its quite likely that the FDA will have to lower their standards to fast-track coronavirus vaccines. I am going to be very skeptical of their safety given that we don't have long-term data, especially with the newer unproven vaccine tech.

Nobody is asking the government to make sneakers.

Universal access to healthcare is a human right, and insurance as a product by its very nature - is non-universal - as it relies on denying access to make profit.

The pre-existing conditions loophole in the current system means that you can purchase insurance one day before you get sick or need a major medical procedure and a private company is mandated by the government to pay up. The whole Obamacare plan is a clusterF*.

We're slipping into a whose worse argument. OK, Obama/Biden admin was largely style over substance, and I can't think of anything major they got accomplished. His whole "I'm going to change the way the game is played" was just bluster. Nothing came of it for eight years. He got incremental stuff done like any other president. Obamacare was a giant gift to the insurance industry. And he got a peace prize on top of that? Are you kidding me?

For the past several decades, presidents who presided over booming economies have shared credit. You must have missed that.

Agreed, documentation was in some cases improperly maintained and/or became stale once they started contacting the people. As a parent, I can empathize and it is truly heartbreaking. I hope Biden can do something positive here.

But at the same time, I think the larger issue is a bit more nuanced, than simply assuming people are all monsters.

for e.g. After some initial research :- https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/us/migrant-children-separ...

>Some of the families who have been identified have decided their children would be safer in the United States than in their home countries, and elected for the children to stay with friends or family members who agreed to sponsor them.

>And because the computer system used by border authorities for processing incoming migrants had not been updated to accommodate family separations, the agents often inadvertently deleted identification numbers that could have been used to keep track when parents and children were sent to different places.

>In some cases, members of the steering committee have had access to only names and countries of origin while trying to locate separated parents. Even after conducting public record searches to identify the cities where the families were from, they faced additional hurdles. Many of the families had fled their homes to escape violence or extortion, intentionally withholding information from friends and neighbors about where they were going.

etc..

I'm nowhere close to rich or a Trump voter, but I'm glad my 401k) went up when the stocks went up. The Dem's economic policies in recent years are stinkers. I don't like the idea of raising taxes and creating new money-pit departments and thinking the government can fix stuff like education at the federal level. The idea of mandating people to purchase a healthcare product was also abhorrent. I'd much sooner get behind something like a single payer/universal coverage and kill off the useless insurance industry.

No politician is as outwardly vulgar or crude as Trump, but... for e.g. Bill Clinton is now seemingly allowed, nay, welcomed in polite company after sexually assaulting multiple women. How come the media or our esteemed blue checkmarks never ask dems about that? Trump and his flaws are well represented in US politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scan...

May I ask how you know that the children came in with their parents in every single case? After all, if we knew that they came with their parents, it would imply we have some documentation that points to who their parents are, and could potentially contact them.

I admit, I haven't extensively researched this, but would like to collect more info and keep an open mind.

You're turning on the TV and after missing out on half the game, and asking why a team is losing. You gotta watch the full match, my friend.

One candidate supported bombings in the middle east that resulted in deaths of hundreds, thousands of civilians including children. I'm pretty sure killing children is worse than keeping them alive. Why would you support that candidate?

You're playing a rhetorical game, rather than having an honest discussion.

What makes a chat message via an application that you chose to install any different than sending you an email?

> What people disagree on, and what elections really come down to, is figuring out the best way to achieve the above objectives.

I think the disagreements are even narrower than that. The structure of the government is pretty much fixed, so are the vast vast majority laws/institutions/legislations/policies/etc. What people are voting on are minor modifications to the existing system.

Heh, Yes on re-reading the comment it does sound ironic. :)

Our IT is not purposely keeping a security hole open to boast about uptime. If there was a security impact to our particular configuration/use-case, we'd patch it for sure.

I'm sure you already know it, but Lightroom works on OSX too. And also I believe Adobe Camera Raw can bulk-convert your camera-specific RAWs to DNGs, which you can use in any software - unless you need lens profiles. I'm trying to wean myself off the Adobe subscription treadmill and giving Affinity Photo a try. Seems decent so far.

They already did all that with their enterprise edition, but they don't market it much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Comparison...

Even with the somewhat limited pro edition, our IT is able to give us months and months of uptime for certain critical computers (i'm in biotech). Heck we have a W10 pro machine that handles building security and it has over 2 years of uptime.

The problem is the disconnect between HN and the average user who is dumb as rocks when it comes to tech. The average user expects the OS to magically take over the sysadmin duties. They just want it to be as simple and seamless as their phone - not an entirely unreasonable expectation given that the phone is sharing a lot of tasks that were only done on dedicated machines.

They're like any other industry, struggling in an increasingly digital, on-demand world and competing with 'free' YouTube entertainment. There is no quick fix here. Its a supertanker that takes ages to correct course. People need to vote with their eyeballs and ears. Folks need to take some personal hits and avoid popular big-studio content. Its hard, if not impossible to make an amicable deal when only one side has to compromise.

Because some countries don't allow certain types of media to be accesses/broadcasted/consumed. If a streaming/broadcasting business wants to operate in that country they will have to follow the local laws.

Hmm I see it at $6.99/mo ..

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/p/microsoft-36...

>They can't afford to let 20% of that go to spam without a backlash.

They will launch a 'secured sender' program where you pay Google a monthly fee so your company's email doesn't fall into spam.