5 ms·

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? Not if you bought the 6 pack for the contractors working on your fitness room.

by bch 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago
Like the other guy did, you're focusing on the specific example, when the question and debate revolves around the general concept. But if you really must play this game, then perhaps the fact that you believe a 6 pack to even be a worthy gift is telling of your lifestyle enough to determine risk. Maybe it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else or not, just the fact that you purchase beer a certain amount of times in a given time interval has shown to increase your likelihood of injury. Or not, I don't know. The point is, they would figure that out. We don't need to hash out a full implementation of this technology to understand it'd be possible.
- mynewwork 13y ago
  But the specific example points out the flaw. The data can be misleading, for some people and in some scenarios substantially (buying a round of drinks for clients looks the same as buying yourself 8 drinks at the bar to your credit card). Plus, with government-run healthcare, the definitions of healthy will be subject to lobbying. Look at the arguments now about what is healthy food... are carbs bad? is fat? what about organic? GMO? Meat? Grains? Eggs are healthy again after being bad for you after being good for you. I have coworkers who swear by paleo diets and somehow everyone doing crossfit is convinced they're in the 2% of humans with a gluten sensitivity. Now imagine that confusion with lobbyists from every direction trying to prevent their products from being put on the 'bad foods' list.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    This isn't about government run healthcare, and the specific example is an implementation detail so no it does not point out the flaw, it points out nothing more than the fact that no system is 100% perfect.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Actually, I think you might need proof by implementation, I don't think it is obvious that purchase patterns have actuarial value, never mind single purchases (for instance, deferred refills and discarded food don't show up at the register, both are strategies for coping with fast food).

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? Not if you bought the 6 pack for the contractors working on your fitness room.

by bch 13y ago

> Are they wrong? Did you not just increase their liability by 0.001%? Not if you bought the 6 pack for the contractors working on your fitness room.

diminoten 13y ago

Like the other guy did, you're focusing on the specific example, when the question and debate revolves around the general concept. But if you really must play this game, then perhaps the fact that you believe a 6 pack to even be a worthy gift is telling of your lifestyle enough to determine risk. Maybe it doesn't matter if you give it to someone else or not, just the fact that you purchase beer a certain amount of times in a given time interval has shown to increase your likelihood of injury. Or not, I don't know. The point is, they would figure that out. We don't need to hash out a full implementation of this technology to understand it'd be possible.

mynewwork 13y ago
But the specific example points out the flaw. The data can be misleading, for some people and in some scenarios substantially (buying a round of drinks for clients looks the same as buying yourself 8 drinks at the bar to your credit card). Plus, with government-run healthcare, the definitions of healthy will be subject to lobbying. Look at the arguments now about what is healthy food... are carbs bad? is fat? what about organic? GMO? Meat? Grains? Eggs are healthy again after being bad for you after being good for you. I have coworkers who swear by paleo diets and somehow everyone doing crossfit is convinced they're in the 2% of humans with a gluten sensitivity. Now imagine that confusion with lobbyists from every direction trying to prevent their products from being put on the 'bad foods' list.
- diminoten 13y ago
  This isn't about government run healthcare, and the specific example is an implementation detail so no it does not point out the flaw, it points out nothing more than the fact that no system is 100% perfect.
maxerickson 13y ago
Actually, I think you might need proof by implementation, I don't think it is obvious that purchase patterns have actuarial value, never mind single purchases (for instance, deferred refills and discarded food don't show up at the register, both are strategies for coping with fast food).