U.S. per-capita healthcare spending (including public and private as well as compulsory and voluntary spending) is higher than anywhere else in the world, with second-placed Germany trailing quite far behind.
On average, healthcare costs in the U.S. amounted up to $12,318 per person in 2021. In Germany that number stood at $7,383 - 40 percent lower. Yet, the U.S. lags behind other nations in several aspects such as life expectancy and health insurance coverage.
It implies the State, through the government, represents the country and deals with suppliers to achieve universal healthcare, education and housing goals.
But the State should always (must) be the primary provider for healthcare and education, although not denying private initiative but instead heavily regulating it to ensure safety and quality.
Health and Education are services, not for profit enterprises.
On the housing front, many countries own and manage large numbers of affordable housing projects and to great success. This isn’t to say the housing market doesn’t require an heavy regulatory, as it does.
i mean… i don’t want to sound patronizing, but please read SOMETHING. like anything at all. companies going bankrupt is literally part of the system. if someone wants to push a service or product and has enough resources, companies are set up to be bankrupt and lose money. this is how a big corporation can push competitors off the market: by selling a product under the cost of production. how often have we also seen companies going bankrupt SEVERAL times in their lifespan just to be bailed out?
Instead of moving a few things around thinking it will make a lasting difference we need to move in a different direction. tbh Karl Marx really had something going on even if some of the people that read his stuff were complete assholes (cough cough Stalin).
Just to be clear, Linux is not Communist. I stand for free software is designed to be sold. They key is to give everyone access to to digital hood instead of what proprietary software provides. This does not have an association with political beliefs
In this case it is the government spending money from taxes paid by the people to improve the lives of the people who elected the government to govern the country to make it worth living in.
I remember being in complete shock sometime in the late 90s when millenial high schoolers went around calling everything gay. Like mouth dropped open the first time I encountered it.
Well these things always have their roots in the past and get re-appropriated from other uses, but I don’t recall seeing the term before 2 - 3 years ago.
My second to youngest brother is technically illiterate. Meanwhile my eldest brother is very technically literate and both are completely different generation (younger than boomer) but of the conservative mindset .
my youngest brother is technically literate and liberal. He’s of the same generation as the illiterate brother.
A does not equal B. These kind of fallacy arguments of ‘how generations be’ really need to stop.
What are you talking about? Dinner of these senators can barely string together a thought. Can they email? They certainly can’t foresee the societal implications of AI, it’s impact, how it works. How can they offer oversight?
You just described several of my relatives of the younger generation . Just cuz a person was born in the technical era does not make them a technical genius.
Lol no. I never said anything ageist and neither did you in your comment. You said, you know people who are tech illiterate as well and I said wouldnt that be a problem if their job was regulating technology? The point I was making was that someone uneducated and unfamiliar with current tech, shouldnt be making laws about it. You even suggested that they were of the “tech generation” or something like that, how is anything I said even remotely ageist at all? Also, “desperately dodging” lmao you kind of seem like an idiot.
I hope they wouldn’t oversee technology or anything else they dont understand. The are billions of people but qualified to be a senator. I’m happy you know some
I’d guess that having children, in the long run is more environmentally harmful than you eating meat the rest of your life.
This just strikes me as silly. What is the “environment” but children of various species? Obviously an environmentally harmonious life is best, but life isn’t just what the environment is for, it’s what the environment is. This is the same mindset as people who have a couch that no one’s allowed to sit on.
As does every other life form, given the chance. We are the only one, that we know of, which even has a concept of conservation. We have the power to consciously regulate our behavior.
In the end, my point is that either life is valuable for its own sake, including humans, or it isn’t, including the rest of the ecosystem. Any philosophy which posits that the existence of other life forms is more valid than that of humans is foundationally inconsistent. I’m certainly not saying that human life is more valid than others, but either life is valid or out isn’t. Humans aren’t special one way or the other.
That’s just garbage talk. Sure we can enjoy life now and not consider the future of the planet but is your life more worth than the future of our own species? I find it deeply concerning that we as humans know what to do to not go extinct, buy don’t do it.
I don’t expect all human reproduction to just stop. But cutting down on the human population by either having no children or only one, would substantially reduce the load humans place on the planet and mayne even increase quality of life. Not to mention that it would improve the chances of other species to thrive.
Sure. But your framing of not having children as “environmentally friendly”, if embraced, results in only the unconscientious people having kids. That’s literally the premise of Idiocracy.
There is absolutely no scenario in which everyone stops having children. If everyone who could be convinced not to have children is convinced, there will still be plenty of human beings.
As I’ve said, if you convince everyone who considers their environmental impact to not have children, who does that leave having children? What becomes of the environment when it’s only the environmentally negligent raising future generations?
When one species growing prevents others from doing the same there is a problem in that ecosystem. For example too many wolves in an area can cause a reduction in prey which is also bad for the wolves. We’re just smart enough to see what we’re doing is harmful to the world around us and we can do things to limit our damage.
And not enough wolves causes an unchecked increase in prey which is bad for the rest of the environment. As I said, harmonious coexistence is best. We have the knowledge and tools to live harmoniously. My problem is with the trend of un-nuanced universal anti-natalism.
That’s not really a salient argument. Can you think of even one place where it would be appropriate to say there aren’t enough humans? Besides that, humans and wolves have completely different impact on the environment.
Additionally, after the advent of agriculture and industrialization, I think there is a fair argument to be made that humans are no longer capable of living an environmentally harmonious life. Think of all the resource depletion and fossil fuel consumption required just for you to post that argument on the internet.
Until we regain the ability for, not just individuals, but entire societies to live in harmony with the environment, I believe there is a strong argument for reducing your impact by not having children.
All I’m saying is that there’s a logical breakdown at play. Any argument in favor of “the environment” had to be based on the value of individual life. I’m not even saying that we shouldn’t be moderating our population growth, we should. I’m just saying the environmentally friendly angle is a logically strange argument, from first principles.
“I’d guess that having children, in the long run is more environmentally harmful than you eating meat the rest of your life.” =/= “people who have kids are bad people”
you’re starting to come across as someone who is only in this discussion because you feel personally attacked and since you haven’t I’m done conversing with you
I find a lot of people can kind of fall down from this path, into anti-natalism, and then malthusianism, and then ultimately eco-fascism and eugenics, through what I like to call the “idiocracy deduction”. Name pending. The sort of idea that, if stupid people are the only one having kids, only stupid people will promulgate, and then we’ll all be stupid. Substitute stupid, for whatever political ideological group you don’t really like (or even minority group), bam, shit’s wacked. So, logically, stupid people, or, my political opposition, or, people I don’t like/who can’t be trusted to have kids, shouldn’t be allowed to have them. After all, you know, it’s more ecologically conscientious to not have kids, so we should just kind of force everyone to not have kids. A lot of this is also going to come down to like, third world countries tending to have higher birth rates because of higher infant mortality, and also tending to have higher emissions, and those two are connected because ???. It’s sort of the inverse of christian conservatives who want to force every white anglo saxon protestant into having 70 billion kids, and then do things like ban abortion on those grounds.
I think there’s also this like, really stupid idea that if we have more people, somehow those people will not have any jobs, based on some naturalistic concern. This is stupid. It’s less that we’ve surpassed the planet’s carrying capacity, and more that we all are just fucking morons who live in an 18th century economic hellsystem. That’s the core of why mathusianism doesn’t work, because there is no “hard” carrying capacity to the planet. People in ancient times had to occupy much larger portions of land in order to support themselves, because their crops were not selectively bred to maximize their calories, and because of diseases and shit, which is part of why agriculture sucked back in the day compared to hunter-gathering, (even though in practice the two aren’t really that different, hunter-gatherers just move around more and thus have access to that larger space which they need to “grow their crops”). In any case, you’d have to build some argument that we’ve entered a period of natural technological stagnation, which is pretty fucking hard to do because you have to thoroughly discount any conceivable future technologies that might help, and you have to discredit the amount of blame resting on the current economic system.
So, yeah, I dunno. I find the whole dealio kind of dumb and stupid. Seems like an overcorrection, kind of like those hardcore atheists that were everywhere in the 2000’s and 2010’s, and you could tell they’d all grown up being raised by radical fundamentalist christian parents or whatever, or just that christians are fucking annoying (big if true), and then have kind of a limited perspective, even just on all religions, because of that, on top of not really being politically different enough from those christians, if you actually boiled it all down. Everyone’s a neoliberal, at the end of the day, everyone’s buying in to the same premises and arguments, even when they disagree on some issue, and then they all fail to see the bigger picture and just kind of end up splintering themselves into more and more radical extremist positions.
Actually you can stop reading here (if you even read all of that, good luck), but I kind of wonder if that’s just like, an inevitable facet of late stage capitalism. It sort of seems to me like the ideological version of spam, which I tend to think of a lot as an analogy for capitalism “maximizing efficiency”. Spam is nonsense, nobody wants to read it, and yet, it will inevitably eat up all the bandwidth if left unchecked, because those with the most economic resources want to cut out all other avenues of communication, and, “make efficient use of the bandwidth”. The fact that everyone eventually becomes kind of radicalized and pushed into these nonsensical extremist positions, totally lacking nuance, the fact that, you know, people slip into fascism, it seems kind of along the same lines. People get pushed to what the maximum extent of their political ideology will allow, through some mechanism, despite liberalism kind of inherently being a modest and compromising ideology at heart, one that becomes incoherent if you actually push it to any logical extremes. I dunno if there’s anything there, about how people’s conceptions of things gets shaped by like, the larger economic system at work.
Upvote for partial agreement, but why the attack on atheism? It’s not extreme to not believe, in fact, it sounds utterly ridiculous that you want moderate or liberal people to believe a little bit in fairy tales, but not too much. There simply is no middle ground with regard to religion, either you delude yourself or you accept the obvious implausibility, lack of evidence and irrationality inherent to them.
Theyre talking about atheists in 00s10s that were ex-Christians who were still closed minded and hateful, and essentially using the same flawed evangelism tactics as Christians (not great). They don’t recognize that not all religions are the same, that different ones have different goals, and never considered why someone would choose to practice any form of spirituality, labelling it as a form of religion.
That will hide your own posts and replies as well. So if you post something and go to check on it later in your profile it wont show up. I thought my posts were being deleted for awhile there, till I looked it up.
Mine is randomly hanging up. It’s either bad memory sticks, hard drives failing (again). Or, it’s finally time to splurge on a new system and retire this one after 12 years of loyal service.
I had a semi-similar issue where games would randomly “freeze” - or rather, you could still hear stuff happening and reacting to key inputs, but the screen was completely frozen. Turns out slightly lowering the clock speed of my GPU basically fixed the issue. I wonder if something similar would be able to extend the life of your GPU too.
Thanks for the well intentions, but so far I know it’s not the disks, I changed them last year. I run Linux Mint, so I use other tools to monitor the disks and memory. I actually suspect it’s the graphics card getting funky because running things in software render mode solves the random hang ups.
Yes it became prominent after 9/11 … but that kind of behaviour has been going on for a century and more distinctively after the Second World War
Look up the history of Allen/Foster Dulles and their work for American Corp in the 20s and 30s … their enthusiasm for war in the 40s … and then with the CIA in the 50s and 60s … the actions of which led to what happened in the 70s and 80s … which later on affected what happened in the 90s and 2000s. It makes you understand that even if the US people don’t want a war … those in positions of power and wealth enjoy war and conflict because it makes them money and spreads their power. We accuse other nations of doing the same but America does it while draped in a democracy flag and an ugly tattoo across their forehead that says ‘freedom’.
The Dulles brothers did legitimately help the Allied effort during the Second World War … but leading up to and during the actual war years, they were also known to play favourites, court unscrupulous characters, take part in shady deals and help one side or the other depending on what business was involved. Then when the war was over, it was far easier and more acceptable to be a fascist or even a Nazi than a communist. Look at the history and background to a lot of German and Nazi professionals, academics, scientists and military leaders after the war … many of them were courted by US intelligence to work for the US while disregarding their past offences.
Allen Dulles probably single handedly sabotaged any kind of neutral or positive relationship with the Communists … this isn’t meant to say that the Communists were a positive political movement … Allen Dulles was instrumental in making a bad situation worse for probably 20 years. Even JFK wanted to build a relationship with the Soviets but people like Dulles just wanted fear, anger and war without negotiation or compromise.
When you start reading the history of the Dulles brothers … it gets hard to differentiate them from the fascists they supposedly fought in the Second World War … they were more like the Nazis without the overt Aryanism
Democracy in America actually does have consistent meaning. It’s just that it isn’t what people think it is. When america says ‘democracy’ what they mean is liberalisation of trade and markets for American capital interests. Often with disastrous effects for the local population and their economy. The word freedom also has a similar meaning. The word freedoms is more accurately considered a contraction of the phrase ‘freedom for american capital flows’.
Looking at the Official Report On the Iraq War published in the UK some years ago, American “bringing of democracy” there was quite literally the war crime of Pillage.
Basically the local administration installed by the Cohalition in Iraq was forced to give almost all oil exploitation contracts to British and American companies, mainly the latter.
Who knows just how rigged the voting system is over there to produce an image of “Democracy” whilst making sure real power always goes to those who favour American interests or are easy to corrupt to do so.
Having come up in the 90s-00s, the few times I’ve been called “daddy” were a little surprising at the time (“it’s just something I say, don’t overthink it”, etc), but thankfully said moments were in the rear-view quickly enough.
In later years, my kids didn’t add the “y” and one even asked why other kids say it that way. Hell, I’m ok with “dude” from my kids or their friends, in certain contexts, but “bruh”? Might as well try calling me “son” or “boy”, and see how that flies, child. 🤪
I am not partial to informal nicknames. If I stand with a group of my male coworkers I usually greet them with “gentleman” or something that. I don’t work with a lot of women but I’m not sure what to say to a group of women. Ladies seems kind of demeaning and gentlewomen sounds weird to me. I usually just go with miss or ma’am.
I feel like fire was ours unless it’s just been a localized slang. I feel like I’ve been saying it for like 10 years, maybe more. Maybe I just got the ole dementia.
In the 90s, when everyone started using the word fat/phat, I found out from an article that it’s usage that way could be traced back to 1920s jazz musicians. Everything old is new again.
I always thought the word “ginormous” (a portmanteau of gigantic and enormous) was totally modern, but then I read a book published in 1943 by a Battle of Britain Spitfire pilot which had “ginormous” in its glossary section.
even so, it’s stupid, you need to apply an update?, shutdown the pc in your work when you’re in your home?, you are being idk hacked and need to shutdown everything?
It’s simple: if you’re a person that’s supposed to be shutting down that computer, you’ll be able to. If you’re encountering the message, you’re using the wrong account, or you’re the wrong person to be doing that. Switch accounts, or call up the right person.
Non-privileged users of such systems shouldn’t care about updates or whatnot. They’re there to do their work not mess with the system managed by someone else.
Idk, I think this meme is acceptable under the premise that clearly evident truth with mountains of proof can’t possible be a political wedge issue, right?
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.