anon_
22d ago
Indeed. Now what percentage of the time is sexual assault a really salient risk: when alone with someone, in a sensitive place like a locker room, at a club or other place where lots of inebriated people congregate.
Those are real, but they don't comprise anything close to a plurality of situations that the modal human being faces.
anon_
22d ago
Indeed, the prevalence of body cam footage has undermined the demonize-the-police movement considerably.
anon_
22d ago
I'm not sure that conversation would have been possible at a policy level without the (largely, I agree, bullshit) personal angle. American politics doesn't seem to work at such a wonkish level. Without being too cynical, it seems at least possible that it just never happened otherwise.
The parallels to Trump are also interesting: would it have been possible to get conservative politics and a retreat of the worst of the LGBT (not that I want to roll back some level of acceptance, but surely high school locker rooms were a bridge way too far) without the personal angle of a thrice-married adulterer?
anon_
22d ago
I think you would very definitively lose that bet. Fig 4A has the cross tab for women.
anon_
22d ago
Well, if the claim is that even a plurality of daily interactions don't depend at all on the sex of those interacting, then that seems evidently true whether or not it's part of a larger project of the left.
[ This is a pet peeve of mine, even wrong movements are very often correct on at least something, even if it's embedded in a vast edifice of incorrect claims. They can't be wrong about everything all the time. ]
If society is richer than reproducing pairs, and the majority of that richness doesn't actually need to care about the biology (or anything else) of sex, then that's a fact we ought to understand & integrate.
anon_
22d ago
Thinking back on the vast majority of the interactions I've had in the last week or two, I can't think of that many in which it did matter. The clerk at the store, the other parents at the park, coworkers, friends. If it wasn't easy to tell which were biologically fe/male, I don't think it would have made my life that much harder.
Society is built on reproducing pairs, which is an inexorable function of biology -- but not a ton of day to day life impinges on that.
anon_
22d ago
Eh. OTOH, the widespread adoption of body-worn cameras has been a nearly unalloyed good (a rare culture-war thing!). It's reduced excessive force, it's vindicated cases w/ justified use of force and it's shed light that neither totalizing view was remotely correct.
I'm not sure we would have gotten them in an alternate timeline without that national conversation.
anon_
22d ago
But the progressive activist is only happy with that status quo to the extent that they think there's enough goodwill to push it further.
The activist that has to fundraise needs a live conflict. They can't take yes for answer
Hence Dave Chapelle's admonition to the LGBT coalition that they ought to cash their chips in and go home before the crap out.
anon_
30d ago
And it's self-reinforcing. Unbelievably, some folks were questioning whether this shooting as a false flag which was itself gonna justify the goons and the gulag. One poster called it (and you can't make this shit up) a Reichstag-fire moment.
anon_
1mo ago
I do expect that if they can get the noise level down, Mach 1.7 over land will be achievable. Granted this is more of a political than engineering question. On range, yeah, that is a sore spot. Hopefully a LR version gets to 5500nm which unlocks most of the transpacific.
The economics will be interesting. I'm not sure daily service is a must as you can freely mix-and-match supersonic and subsonic travel. Heck, you could run the thing purely westbound (LHR->JFK->LAX/SFO->ICN/HND->DXB->LHR) with the understanding that your biz travelers are taking a lie-flat on their eastbound legs. All-premium has been a losing proposition (RIP midwest) but that seems like a capacity thing right?
That said, you've convinced me to adjust my optimism a bit downwards, at least in the medium (say, 2035/2040) timeframe.
anon_
1mo ago
Sure. So 1/2 the price of Concorde but connects all the major cities of the world at Mach 1.7 instead of the 0.85 of a 777?
anon_
1mo ago
Concorde wasn't transformative because it never scaled.
My claim is that merely achieving "equal to Concorde but consistently adds at least a handful of new routes every year" is transformative, even if it's not any better or cheaper. And they are already notionally aiming for $7000 tickets, which is 1/2 the inflation-adjusted price of Concorde.
Or maybe the other way around: Concorde wasn't transformative because they only built 14 of them and only served 3 airports, which was downstream of the fact that the thing could barely fly and bled[1] money.
anon_
1mo ago
Oh, I have. The interesting thing is that they are pissed they get insurance consults on patients they want to send to surgery, but they freely admit that there are some of their colleagues (and it's a "everyone knows who it is" kind of thing) that propose surgery for literally anyone that comes through the door.
Can't have nice things ...
anon_
1mo ago
The answer is that the guidelines say that level 4 is when "more complex decision making is required" or a diagnostic test like an ultrasound is required, which is what they did. OK, but then you charged us separately for the ultrasound and the doctor's time, so you are essentially double-counting.
I haven't seen your details, but the complex issue could be the ED physician and the extra doctor's time was probably the radiologist. It's not double counting.
anon_
1mo ago
I mean, that's the problem. The system can be issue-based or it can be time-based. But it can't be both.
I thought lawyers billing me in 15 minute increments was bullshit
Bruh, we're at 0.1 hr (6min) increments. And I'm happy enough about it because they do good work and don't waste time. Remember you are paying a professional to deal with arbitrary issues.
anon_
1mo ago
Hospitals have a perverse incentive to "upcode" your bill, that is to put down a code for a higher tier/cost, of treatment that you received. This is illegal, but it happens with shocking regularity.
There is also the converse problem -- I am friendly with a lot of doctors and they are all beyond frustrated that they will get an appointment for visit A and patients will expect them to also cover B,C,D and E. This is especially bad at the level of preventative visits turning into issue visits".
They have different approaches. Some will bill higher codes if patients want to talk about something outside the scope. Others will ask them to come back (or do a Telehealth followup). Sometimes they'll just eat it if the patient is quick about it. None of them have an objection to doing those visits, it's just that they aren't reflected in their scheduling or billing.
I expect upcoding is more of a problem than scope-creep, but I wanted to mention it because the symmetry is there.
anon_
1mo ago
Boom is reasonably likely (2:1 odds) to get commercialized supersonic passenger transport by 2040. I think that will seem like a mere evolutionary change (plane go faster) but, if it succeeds and scales, will be transformative.
anon_
1mo ago
Dirigism with retarded characteristics.
[ With sincere apologies to Deng Xiaoping ]
anon_
1mo ago
You're thinking too much in terms of the general election. In an election where a politician gets 100% of the votes, the process (primary/party otherwise) by which they were selected is the real election.
It's not a stable equilibrium point.
anon_
1mo ago
Plus you get a bunch of loonies in Congress because the district is so far off center that the primary is the larger hurdle.
anon_
1mo ago
Packing enough minorities into a district minimizes Dem representation overall.
Have you read DARPA grant applications? I remember (in 2005) PIs filing all kinds of "we will use micro-scale flux capacitors to create a mobile platform capable of detecting chemical and biological weapons so as to ensure American victory in the GWOT".
Indeed, the men are immiserated as well.
Still, it's not true that a chunk of women are significant happier, otherwise they would have raised that line somewhat.
More options
Context Copy link