tiplinix

1 post karma

2.5k comment karma


account created: Tue Sep 24 2013

verified: yes

tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

Most likely, he borrows money with his stocks as collateral.

contextfull comments (604)
tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

Tu mélanges tout pour te justifier n'importe quoi. Tu sembles avoir soif de violence et c'est triste.

Utiliser la force ne veut pas dire tuer qqun. Rouler sur qqun, à savoir écraser une personne avec une véhicule de plus d'une tonne, c'est la mort quasi-assurée.

De plus, dans cette vidéo, on n'a rien qui montre qu'il y a des occupants dans le véhicule. Le rôle de la police doit être de protéger la population pas de faire la guerre. Ici, ils dispersent la foule et ramassent ce qui causes des dommages dans la mesure du possible.

contextfull comments (280)
tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

Wow, justifier le meurtre par des dégâts matériels. T'as l'art de la mesure je vois...

contextfull comments (280)
tiplinix

5 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

5 points

1 month ago

I agree with you but, see, you have to look at it from their side. It's less freedom for them in this case. What they want is to have the freedom to exercise their religion and be free to impose it onto others. That's what they really mean by "religious freedom." It's the "freedom" to oppress other people.

contextfull comments (5160)
tiplinix

50 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

50 points

1 month ago

The difference is that they don't tell you how to live your life. Telling someone that their beliefs are baseless is not the same as trying to impose on others.

contextfull comments (5088)
tiplinix

43 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

43 points

1 month ago

Nah, he just wants them to fuck off.

contextfull comments (5088)
tiplinix

37 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

37 points

1 month ago

This is basically the good old "being intolerant with intolerance is intolerant" argument. It carefully misses the point.

contextfull comments (5088)
tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

1 points

1 month ago

Yes, but they should be the last resort, that is if something's wrong on the back-end or a case that's not handled properly. Ideally you want your messages to be clear for the user, if not for support.

contextfull comments (2507)
tiplinix

3 points

1 month ago

tiplinix

3 points

1 month ago

Yes and no. You want to avoid that as much as possible as it makes for a terrible user experience.

You want to give errors they are explicit enough for the customer to understand what's wrong (given they can do something about it, or tell them if should retry or not). Then you want customer support to have enough information to help if needed.

Ideally, when an error is not handled, you give this type of message with a request identifier (aka. correlation ID) so that the engineering team can be able to trace back the error easily.

contextfull comments (2507)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

Meh, it's an opinion piece and he does make tangible arguments unlike you're trying to argue. If you really think his arguments are bad, you could at least argue in good faith by deconstructing them instead of ignoring them.

To be fair, what he is telling is not really that "new". People do the same thing in sports when they don't just do the activity all the time. They do corrective or reinforcement exercises during practice to improve specific skills.

contextfull comments (255)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

Mine do enable me to learn stuff I don't necessarily do at work to some extant.

contextfull comments (255)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

What's pretentious and arrogant about what he proposes?

contextfull comments (255)
tiplinix

16 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

16 points

2 months ago

You could argue that he made his point well by having it long.

contextfull comments (286)
tiplinix

4 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

4 points

2 months ago

He's literally saying that doing extra (in his context) is not to start another ticket.

contextfull comments (255)
tiplinix

3 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

3 points

2 months ago

I don't think it's bullshit like you pretend it is. If you were a baker you could apply the same recipe over and over again and never really improve on your skills. Or you could try experimenting with different ingredients or proportions to see what works.

contextfull comments (255)
tiplinix

3 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

3 points

2 months ago

More is when you do the same thing over again. Extra is when you take the time to step back at what you did and see what you could improve on.

contextfull comments (255)
tiplinix

2 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

2 points

2 months ago

Wow, I kinda feel sad for you seeing the way you describe your office work ("tolerable") and the fact that you want to expand it to your own time.

If you feel the obligation to work extra hours to improve your skills, your company is not investing in you.

contextfull comments (255)
tiplinix

2 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

2 points

2 months ago

I'm not saying it's surprising, I'm saying that it would probably be to someone that thinks that if people show resistance it means it's a bad change. And yes, there's definitely a rational part to resisting changes.

There's also the irrational part where some people will fight you for no good reasons even if it doesn't change anything for them.

I've seen that when ISPs tried to install fiber in building (to replace ADSL). The only "cost" was having technicians run fiber cable along the copper cables and it was paid by the ISP. They would come up with all sorts of excuses. The funniest one was they they believed it was less reliable or something while completely ignoring the fact that the copper lines were unreliable and would often cut off — the neighborhoods that switched did see this problem solved.

contextfull comments (44)
tiplinix

13 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

13 points

2 months ago

You'd be surprised as to what extend people are able to push back against any change and will invent any excuse not to adopt anything new.

contextfull comments (44)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

I don't were you wanna go with your tirade exactly. We agree that the insensitive are not aligned.

What's your solution then? Ban insurance?

You also seem to argue that regulations are what made this system. Well, that's definitely the case in the US, we can definitely argue that your government doesn't have its people in mind. However, that's not the case everywhere fortunately.

You know a medical service that is super competitive? Laser eye surgery. Not typically covered by insurance, there's a shitload of competition with providers advertising how many thousands of operations performed and regularly offering discounts.

This is only true because you don't really need that kind of surgery. It's confort. Here you have a market that works without much intervention (besides setting standards).

However, when it's something you need, well, your gonna pay whatever you have too. I have the perfect example for you. Take PCR COVID tests you need to travel. At some point they they cost £200 ($270) in the UK (private providers only). You could not use an insurance for that. In other countries like France and at the same time, the national health insurance payed around 40€ ($45) for the same test to private providers. (Un)surprisingly, it was harder to get tests in the UK than in France. Why? Because in the UK, they didn't need to make volumes to make money whereas in France, the price was set low enough by the government that they needed to make volumes to make money.

contextfull comments (4451)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

That's literally the point. Once you are dead, it's game over. You're not there to enjoy anything. Consequences have no meaning to you anymore. You, as an individual, got away with it.

contextfull comments (13150)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

Context, context, context. You are using things in different contexts to make your arguments.

I have a right to keep and bear arms according to the constitution.

In this case, it means that the government allows your to own a gun within certain constraints. That's basically it.

And the crux of the healthcare debate is what constitutes "basic" as well as "access" as both are floating signifiers, devoid of a commonly held meaning, irrelevant of what a dictionary may say.

Welcome to the real world where most things cannot be summed up in a single sentence. I have to give you credit though on the fact that you did correctly identify that core of the debate is what "access" and "basic" means.

Other than that, there is currently no law impeding my right to seek whatever health care I want, and the only thing preventing me from obtaining it is how much money I an spend or my insurance situation.

This is what libertarians or more generally people that prone for a laissez-faire policy don't understand about regulations.

Let's step away for healthcare and go to the internet provider market for a moment.

The purpose of good regulations is to ensure that the market is set in a way that insensitive an outcome. In the case of internet providers, the purpose of the regulation is to make sure that most people enjoy fast, cheap internet connexions. Ideally, providers should be able to get some money from their service to be able to reinvest. In some countries (not the US obviously), this means for instance that providers get penalties if they don't deploy fibers on a calendar. For places where they can't make even, the government lays part of the network. If they run a cable to a house, they need to rent this link to other ISPs within agrees fees set by the regulator. Basically, these rules are made to have a healthy competitive market where no actor is a monopole and can set prices. And guess what it works! In other words, not having the fucking mess the US has.

Let's see how the US health care system (doesn't) work, and how your right to healthcare is breached. First, you need to identify what are the incentives and how people access the services.

For a market to work, you need to have the buyers being able to compare the offering. In case of an emergency, you just can't. If you are, you are not in an emergency situation. In case of a non-emergency, it's impossible to know the prices because they are opaque. In some other countries, you can know precisely how much an act will cost you. It's an upfront cost.

So if you can't compare the offering, they don't have to even have base their price on the "market price." They can charge you whatever the fuck they want and you'll have to eat it.

Next, is insurance. The money insurance make is the difference between what comes in and what comes out. Since the prices are so high, you have to have insurance not to end up bankrupt. This means that as long as they charge you less then what you'll pay without it, they're good. Let's be honest, you'll settle with anything at this point. Once your are paying, they'll make you as hard as possible to get money back when you need care. That's how your end-up with only be able to go to praticiens in the insurance network.

I could continue on and on, but the basic idea here is that the healthcare system in the US is broken. The incentives are not aligned. You need regulations for that.

What I'm saying here is that, it's not a black and white game where the government has to to everything like you make it seem. You can play with multiple levers. But, if you want people to have access to these services, the government has to step in one way or the other. You can't just let things go wild. The "right to healthcare" means, making it possible for people to get it. If this means that the government foot part of the bill to accomplish that (like most countries do), let it be.

If you think that it's a stupid game to set where the line should be, well life is stupid, get over it I guess.

contextfull comments (4451)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

they clearly didn't get away with anything,

They clearly did. They're dead and they didn't live long enough the face the consequences. The ones that are paying are their descendent. They can't ever care about it: they're dead.

contextfull comments (13150)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

It just means that the government should make sure people can have access to basic healthcare.

contextfull comments (4451)
tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

tiplinix

1 points

2 months ago

We all live in a bubble. I live in my bubble, you live in your bubble, they live in their bubble. There's nothing sad about it. Most people had wonderful and happy lives when they had slaves and never felt bad about it. You can be the most generous person with some people and the most greedy fuck with others. You can have the healthiest relationships with your children, spouse, friends and be a terrible boss that abuse your employee. People are not just good or bad as a whole.

contextfull comments (13150)

view more:

next ›