virmundi

75 ms·

691.
by virmundi 10y ago
I'm invoking the commerce clause. So the States can only make more onerous regulations. You see this with California emission standards. The Federal government has a minimum and California say, "You got to do better." This pr
692.
by virmundi 10y ago
I won't ever use mental health services. Personal choice. The old plan didn't offer that. I could get another plan to cover that. Why should I be forced to purchase something I have no intention of using? Insurance, as a product,
693.
by virmundi 10y ago
Yes. When I was working on a contract, my income put me out of the subsidies range. I would have had to pay $780 for the cheapest plan per month. Essentially a mortgage. Actually $130 more than my current mortgage.
694.
by virmundi 10y ago
No more evidence than I just stated. I didn't screen capture the change. Rather I told my wife to sign up for her company's insurance since their non HSA plan dramatically cheaper. I personally prefer HSA backed plans since I have
695.
by virmundi 10y ago
I grant that this is particular to ski towns, but it is still a good example of risk pool size [1]. I think the costs will go down when the whole nation is the risk pool, rather than state or smaller pools. To me this makes sense in that, a
696.
by virmundi 10y ago
It's at least correlated. Within 1 month's time, the plan cost doubled. The ACA required insurance to cover things like mental health care. As a result, the plans had to be more expensive since they needed to cover more.
697.
by virmundi 10y ago
When my wife and I looked for insurance just before ACA, the private plan without subsidies, because they didn't exist, was $250. It was a basic plan with a high deductible and an HSA. It was pretty much what my employer offered. After
698.
by virmundi 10y ago
Where does that link show evidence of a fake? My reading is that the supposed guardians of our democracy failed in executing their due diligence. That's the "powerless" part of the article. I didn't see anything, either
699.
by virmundi 10y ago
Part of it is JSON as the storage format. Another part is its Node driver. The whole API fit it well. It understood async programming. It felt JS-like. The input and output were JSON instances. Finally, yea, from what I know of him "we
700.
by virmundi 10y ago
Watch how far you generalize that view. I realize that "I can do everything with a single...language" can make "everything" mean anything. I had a coworker that helped a middle eastern country with security software. He
701.
by virmundi 10y ago
> Do you think parents should be allowed to sell both kidneys in exchange for, say, fully-funded college tuition for their kids? Ideally no more than one parent, presuming a two parent household, but yes, I'm morally okay with that.
702.
by virmundi 10y ago
Yes. To all of that. The second kidney would be a death sentence. If they sell it, they can do it for whatever reason they want. It is theirs. Life is not something to be held on to at all costs. Perhaps selling two kidneys would end that p
703.
by virmundi 10y ago
Depends on how the execs' compensation is structured. After a certain level they get paid more in stock than in cash. This should, theoretically, incentivize them to succeed. Many devs, outside of the startup scene, are not paid in sto
704.
by virmundi 10y ago
I'm arguing that any moral consideration you have is arbitrary. If you want to protect dogs, go ahead. If the person lighting them kills you in the process, I can't necessarily say it's wrong, as an agnostic. If you can band
705.
by virmundi 10y ago
I'm a theist. I totally agree that there are absolute truths. You're logic breaks down at step 2. If I don't agree with 1, your whole argument breaks down. In my experience debating philosophy throughout my education, seldom
706.
by virmundi 10y ago
> High expectations for someone thats been here for almost 10 years. A) now you've gone and made me feel old. :( B) I hope to raise awareness about how HN should be. I'm not making a rallying cry, "Make HN Great Again!&quo
707.
by virmundi 10y ago
Not a bad answer, presuming humanity is a thing to preserve (not proven). Though it answer the question "Should we eat meat farmed in a mass production way" much more than should we eat meat at all. There is a theory that we can u
708.
by virmundi 10y ago
@Falling3 > Sentience is the line I and many others use to make that distinction. Fine line you got there. Why do you have it? I'd take an actual response, but the question is rhetorical. I just want people to know why they make dec
709.
by virmundi 10y ago
> Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. Because this is not proven. Soy is pretty bad for us. The best diet to date is the mediterranean diet. While not having much beef, it does include ample amounts of fish with
710.
by virmundi 10y ago
The trouble comes with eating plants. Do they want to be eaten? So far we pushed our desire to live onto animals. Why not push that view onto plants? At least to the core plant (seed bearing plants appear to need, and I guess therefore desi
711.
by virmundi 10y ago
> Why stop there? Why is continued living a good thing in the broader scope of the universe? I don't necessarily think it is. I empathize with Joker in the dark night series. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd be a Nihilistic Ex
712.
by virmundi 10y ago
If we're doing it for those reason, sure, go ahead as long as you don't weaken society. An arbitrary line is that society is good. If you Torture and it causes civil unrest to the degree that it destabilizes an otherwise productiv
713.
by virmundi 10y ago
Why? Let me limit that a bit: why are there ethical/moral truths? There are probably statistical truths. Such as generally don't kill people. However, every society has loopholes or outs for such a law. What leads you to believe t
714.
by virmundi 10y ago
No, because we've found empirically that torture doesn't work. If it did, why not? I know many will not like that conclusion, but again, presuming an amoral universe, and I have little evidence outside of a religious world view th
715.
by virmundi 10y ago
That is a valid critique of my context. I presumed a Post-Enlighment Western world view of a European atheist bent. Unfortunately Buddhists and Jains don't get away any better. They have an underlying belief in a Universal truth. The U
716.
by virmundi 10y ago
It is an argument against an absolute truth. Ironically, the absolute truth is, under an agnostic view, there is no Truth. Every ethics system that we have is a might makes right. People need to realize this. When someone makes any ethics c
717.
by virmundi 10y ago
Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. For the general concept of animal herd vs people collective (effectually herd vs herd), this do
718.
by virmundi 10y ago
I agree. In the comment above I played it from two world views. The one you espouse is the same (or similar enough) as the Christian view I mentioned. The agnostic view is there since I think, or at least assume, the majority of people on H
719.
by virmundi 10y ago
You've made it a side-effect. As a conscious being I know that there is a circle of life. I know that animals eat each other. I know that without getting into franen-foods, the human body evolved to eat other animals too. You picked an
720.
by virmundi 10y ago
Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a

More ›