It's not like there's much of an alternative, but that's irrelevant anyway. Android is becoming more like an iPhone, and as long as the OS is able and willing to reliably report to anyone asking just how tightly it is locked down, we have zero choice in the matter, because increasingly many important apps (like bank and government apps) plain refuse to work if device is locked down less than it could be.
Right like someone who can only afford a $100 phone can buy the cheapest iPhone which is 5x more expensive.
This is about like the geeks who hate the idea of ad supported services and think that everyone should just pay for every service they use.
FWIW: I do exclusively buy Apple devices, pay for streaming services ad free tier, the Stratechery podcast bundle, ATP and the Downstream podcasts and Slate. I also pay for ChatGPT and refuse to use any ad supported app or game.
If they fly low enough that I could hit them with a shotgun, they're on my property. This isn't true of planes and helicopters.
These things aren't planes or helicopters and poised to be much more invasive and annoying, why people act like they are just like a passenger airplanes flying a literal mile overhead is baffling. But to that end if Amazon started making deliveries by landing a fucking helicopter in my yard on the regular I would also want them banned.
I agree with you that FAR covers all airspace. There's an interesting case on airspace (over an Indian reservation) & an emergency landing that's winding its way through the courts right now [0]
I can't find the detailed breakdown for 2025, but in 2024, they took in $308bn in premiums and paid out $264bn in medical costs. So even ignoring all of the downstream and systemic problems caused by insurance existing as a for-profit entity, they're taking 14% off the top just to exist as a middle-man.
Highlighting that was actually part of my point. What utility does insurance add to justify its existence as a middle man? How are we better off with a middle man taking a cut vs nationalizing the industry? And that 14% is at best, given the other externalities of the existence of insurance and its perverse incentives.
You're saying "how is that worse than other industries", but I'm saying, why is there an industry there at all?
The government would still need employees to basically do everything that the people at insurance companies do. Theoretically it could be more efficient, realistically it would not.
The real problem with our system is that for anyone who is going to hit their deductible, or especially their out of pocket max, the costs no longer matter at all. Sure, that cancer drug can be $500,000. GLP1 drugs for $1,000 a month? Why not?
Of course, there's no free lunch on this. In a single payer system you get things like the UK not approving certain cancer treatments for people over a certain age, certain medications just aren't available, etc.
Otherwise you could make every plan a very high deductible plan, possible just not cover medications at all, etc. But then people will complain about people not being able to afford things, especially in the short term.
If you’ve had UHC you’d know very well that Optum is intimately tied to their insurance business. UHC just “administers the plan” while Optum controls plan decisions. So when there’s a problem, which there always is with every claim more complicated than a PCP visit, you get bounced between both companies for hours until you find someone willing to take responsibility for answering questions.
I didn’t know it was called crosswordese! I wonder what the most common term used is. As a very occasional player, for some reason ARIA, IBIS, and VENI/VIDI/VICI stick out, but I’m sure it’s actually one with an E.
VENI/VIDI/VICI are easy for anyone who studied Latin (as indeed used to be common), and ARIA is similarly easy for anyone who knows about opera. Basically, the crossword is for snobs.
I agree that crosswords often include cultural references that lean towards certain demographics / assuming particular education, and that can feel exclusionary if you don’t share that background - and there's even an argument to suggest snobbery might be behind those choices.
But I disagree that that makes it for snobs. Snobbery is more about an attitude of looking down on others or their tastes, whereas knowing Latin or being a fan of opera is really just about exposure.
Sure, there exist some (too many) opera fans who would say something like "it's real art compared to pop or hip hop being low class trash", but that's not a defining part of liking opera and plenty of people who like opera aren't snobs. Ironically it's a different form of snobbery (sometimes called reverse snobbery though personally I hate that term), to dismiss anyone who learned Latin or who likes opera as being a snob!
The middle 4 are all fairly common words. "Ode" isn't super common, but I hear it in "An ode to..." phrases. And "err" I've only ever heard in 1 phrase: "To err is human."
That's not really the concept. People know what an orca is.
But if you see a crossword clue that says "black and white animal", you know that the answer is ORCA without even needing to look at the number of letters in the answer. (Could it be "skunk"? Could it be "panda"? No, those are stupid questions.) Same thing if the clue is "marine predator". (Could that be "shark"? No.) The words I listed are incredibly likely to appear in crossword puzzles. That's what's weird about them.
An épée is one of three types of sword used in the three styles of Western fencing. As such, it's about as technical as, say, the words "touchdown" or "mitt".
It's also just the regular French word that means "sword". But although crossword puzzles frequently ask you to know common French words, I've never seen one clue the answer EPEE that way.
If you took fencing at an Ivy League school for you PR requirement you would know all about foil, saber, and epee fencing. Not everyone gets to row crew.
The essay is a great example of a mindset that devalues the subjective and strives to rebrand it as objective. Paradoxically it shows insecurity. "My experience doesn't count unless it's The Truth."
You like a thing. That's fine. That's enough. There's no need to prove the worth of your own enjoyment by fantasizing that it conquers everyone else's brain too.
You're the adult now. You're allowed to like it just because you like it.
Please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you aren't. That's an internet snark trope, and we're trying to avoid that kind of thing here.
You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course.
These scammers are parasites on society, they add nothing while draining resources away from honest people.
If you participate in society, that net drag will affect you in subtle ways. Like if you have money invested in something, that thing doesn’t go up in value as much as it would have if x% of society isn’t simply parasitic.
You are missing the point, though. The complainer decides whether it's a solvable problem or not, not the listener. So "I'll listen if it's unsolvable (to me)" is a non-starter.
That's right, it's your decision to use Android. If you choose to do so, that's on you.
reply