julietOscarEcho

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Agreed, de facto, budget cuts have been and would be racist.

Fiscal conservatism actually does mean something though. Like you could imagine a left leaning fiscally conservative government that maintained a balanced budget by raising taxes on corps and the wealthy. That would be basically fine (though I think on balance not as good as running a modest deficit to fund nice policy). If you just go, yeah no those words are henceforth no-bueno, aren't you just buying into their doublespeak?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Trumps "platform" was by any measure or definition less fiscally conservative than kamala. Pretty sure the reps left fiscal conservatism in the wasteland with Romney.

The new bullshit dogma for the right wing is "growth". But I don't think the Trump parade really even tried to explain that was the goal, or really any coherent economic policy.

Edit: the article seems to make the same point. That previously at least outwardly normal people have gone off the deep end.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Only has a fraction of the strategy and deck building of the actual TCG. Just seems like the usual mobile garbage to me (stamina mechanics, a million currency types, pay to win), shame.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Quick Google suggests healthcare costs for obese people are <50% higher than non-obese and the US has 15-30% more obesity than these countries. So maybe 15% at most of the 100% higher cost per capita of healthcare is obesity related. The killer for me for that hypothesis is that within the set of countries with normal healthcare costs, there's huge variation in obesity (10% in France to 30%in ireland) with limited variation in cost.

Maybe the life expectancy side does have more to do with obesity?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

"As usual with those sorts of memes, the numbers are completely wrong. European nations spend around 11-12% of GDP on healthcare vs about 17% for the US. So you'd likely pay significantly less (about 30% less)"

Dis you?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

It must really suck to be a good hearted doctor in that system. When every incentive is to push unnecessary interventions and you must encounter patients that can't or won't accept your help because it would ruin them or their family financially.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Really USA, how does anyone pretend this is OK?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

OK cool, well if "someone is wrong on this Internet" is more important to you than making a case for a better health are system (that I note you have spent 0 energy on) I think I'm done. Thanks for the entertainment of "$5k per person is 30% cheaper than $10k" though, that was a good one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

So when the meme was wrong about 5% vs 20% it was "outright lying" but when you were shown to be wrong about your 30% you just continue on your high horse. Cool beans.

Not a political issue for me anymore thank goodness. Lived in the US for a while but very glad that public health is available for everyone where I live now (as is literally everyone else I know).

I mean private healthcare is strictly worse for everyone except business owners (and doctors without morals I guess). So that's my best guess at your motivation, but please correct me. Why?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

"30% less" 😂 US GDP (it said % of pay, but let's play your game) per capita is 1.5x or more European countries, so try at least 50% less. It's a meme, it's not meant to be accurate, but if you're going to be a pedant at least be right.

Not to mention the lower cost is like 3rd on the list of reasons why public health care is amazing. Why you our here shilling for big business pal?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

"needs to be a balance" this is exactly the problem right. There is zero balance, to the extent that even projects that set out to be operated for the benefit of humanity (open AI, looking at you) get converted to just enrich the already ludicrously wealthy. The corporation is a lever to concentrate wealth. Really important projects being closely controlled by billionaires is the natural consequence of this. Their unfettered power puts us all at risk from their capriciousness.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yup. Betfair in the UK didn't close or settle their 2020 market for months, even though the terms of the market were about who was declared winner on election night, and were long since met with 100% certainty. That was some very easy money.

 

It doesn't take a wealth of big names to make a sprint compelling huh?

 

They seem to just not really be covering it. No highlights show that I can find tonight and the tour of Denmark and tour de l'avenir are more prominent on the website. What gives?

 

Picking a winner is boring so let's talk about the real stuff.

Would be good to see G up there but unclear what form he's in. Bardet looks strong, maybe TT kilometers will be a problem for him? JuanPe maybe a spicy call after tour of the alps result?

4
QB wolf (sh.itjust.works)
 

Yuck twitter. But:

8
GCN Plus going away (www.globalcyclingnetwork.com)
 

Streaming sport just gets worse and worse. This was the only streaming service I would actually recommend to other people, and of course big corporates pull the rug to force us onto their shitty expensive platforms.

4
Velo d'or (www.reuters.com)
 

Not a fan of that outcome. Can you be the "best" cyclist if you don't enter, let alone win any one day races?

 

Today had to be the worst case of group 2 syndrome ever. I refuse to believe that those guys couldn't take back time on Pog cramping and alone on the flat. Carapaz catching back up shows you how little effort they were putting in. Fair play to Pog for taking the opportunity but it's maddening to see it essentially gifted to him by a bunch of guys content to podium/top 10.

3
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Today I received in the post a kit I had bought already. I think this is the acid test for unpainted models. If you can remember everything you have yet to paint you're good. Above that is verboten for me now.

Anyone else have a rule of thumb to keep themselves in check?

 

Pidcock going better than guys I would have rated above him. Fair play. Here's hoping he can go for 3 weeks.

 

Can WvA catch up to Sagan in the count of 2nd places? I was surprised he only has 7 so far. Feels like more.

 

I don't love free wargear (because there will inevitably better or worse options when everything is a straight swap whereas with points cost you can balance finely), but I can see that it makes life easier.

Fixed unit sizes, however, are supremely shit. All in all totally ripped the variety out of list building, which was one of my favourite things about the game. Lists now will look mostly identical.

view more: next ›