_heimdall

5 ms·

61.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Exactly. I'd at least want to see similarly funded studies comparing solves for underlying causes beyond just insurance companies not being nationalized. Similarly we could look into the likely cost of over medicating our people, and t
62.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I don't think our problem is a lack of regulation though. If anything its a lack of market competition, and that is caused by over regulation and legal protections that make holding companies responsible difficult or impossible.
63.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I understand that theres an argument for removing private insurance companies in favor of thr government can cut costs. It can also increase them. I'd argue that the primary issue with insurance costs today is the lack of market compet
64.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
(1) we don't know the claims of the study will be accurate if implemented and (2) we would need studies modelling cost savings of alternative approaches to actually compare anything. Obamacare made wild claims about cost savings as wel
65.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
These types of studies, and the goals they aim to support, always frustrate me as solving a surface-level problem rather than root cause. The problem with US healthcare isn't who pays for it, its how damn expensive it is. As always the
66.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I'm sure it varies in different parts of the country. I'm in the southeast, a very Republican region for the last 60ish years. I also have family in Arizona, not as red as here but still popular. In both areas, the young people I
67.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
That would depend on why they do it and what theoney is reallocated to. Though yeah I'm sure they'd be wrecked, I don't think they'd dump treasuries I'd the risk of being wrecked was already very high.
68.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
If Japan were to quickly unload a meaningful chunk of their $1.2 trillion in treasuries it would wreck the treasuries market. If I'm not mistaken, $1.2T is roughly the year-to-date trading volume of the treasuries market [1]. [1] http
69.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
If you go back that far, you have to keep in mind major shifts in party alignment. The two parties changed drastically coming out of the civil rights era and by the 80s had effectively flipped. I can't speak to the Republican politicia
70.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I'll be surprised if renewables overtakes oil for energy production anytime soon. I could see nuclear doing that, but I never can get past the challenges of maintenance and replacement costs for solar panels, turbines, and especially f
71.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I don't know English law, and I'm american so I have a bent towards protecting freedoms. That said, no I don't see it as necessary to arrest someone before they do anything wrong. There's a gray area for sure, and in the
72.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Well that's interesting. Mine always say it is covered, I've never had an insurer (in the US) say its required. I could see it for certain types of life insurance, maybe?
73.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
What do you mean by "need to arrest someone"? Would that be for someone who already committed a crime and has a warrant, or one who cops think may commit a crime in the future?
74.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
England is the country, part of the United Kingdom. Kingdom being the key word there, the US is a collection of countries ruled by the crown.
75.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
What would be grounds for arresting someone at the tube stations? Is it illegal in the UK for police to believe you intend to go a certain area based on how you exit the tube?
76.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Controlling the weights wouldn't control the precise outcomes though. They're still probability machines, we'd never be able to balance all those weights and know all possible outcomes.
77.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
But how do you write rules that prevent that behavior reliably? I have a user rule for Claude that explicitly states it cannot use any authenticated tools, or tools that infer authentication like pushing to a got remote, without asking for
78.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
People may not realize the risks, but it does seem to be what people want. People expect AI to "cure" cancer and somehow crack unlimited free energy. Those aren't goals you get without it relentlessly chasing am objective.
79.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Why would the new AI by loyal to its creator? We don't see that in humans, I wouldn't expect it to be a universal truth in AIs.
80.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Do you consider IOT devices to be AI? They may have a little ML going on st best, that seems like a very loose definition of AI and intelligence in general.
81.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I wouldn't consider it intelligence if I can definitively give it any properties I want. We can find patterns of experience or information that usually teach certain lessons, but part of being intelligent is being able to make your own
82.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I haven't seen any whining in the thread, though maybe you're referring to me since I started the thread here? I didn't say people need to stop using AC, I don't even agree that eating less meat would help, and my only m
83.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Regulate externalities sounds like a nice way of phrasing what would amount to authoritarianism. It seems reasonable to want a government to help ensure externalities aren't being ignored in prices, but not to regulate them by saying h
84.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I'd argue that we have to find some level of "enough" when it comes to quality of life, likely a balance between incremental improvements vs the costs to get there. Effectively all history of life was focused entirely on find
85.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
That depends entirely on how you measure quality of life. Though I'd argue that if quality of life measures didn't noticeably increase after those products were released, then I'd say no.
86.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
I've never been particularly intrigued by the climate disaster angle. Not that it isn't an issue, but that it shouldn't be a prerequisite for a person to consume less by choice. If I have to convince someone that 1) the clima
87.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Oh it shouldn't be a political issue at all. We don't need the government forcing us to reduce energy use, we need people to do it for themselves.
88.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
There must be a cap where quality of life is good enough though, right? Or do you propose it should go up indefinitely? Air conditioning is quite nice if you find yourself living in a hot environment, for example. But do we really all need
89.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
We also need to use less total energy, regardless of source. That number doesn't have to always go up.
90.
by _heimdall 2mo ago
Ah got it. It sure does seem like that's where we're ending up. Whether they would have been useful a couple decades ago may be up for debate, but I wouldn't want to be landing on one of those with drones in the air.

More ›