I think direct care models, in all but name, are probably coming. I might be wrong, but the way federal governance in the US is headed it seems increasingly rather than decreasingly likely.
In our region there are already hospital systems that are owned as subsidiaries by corporations that also own insurance companies. These corporations are gobbling up smaller hospitals as those merge and then subsequently get purchased by regional systems.
The monopoly in the provision is problematic enough, but it reaches new levels of problems when they are also merging with insurance companies.
So for some people, even if they aren't getting direct care technically, they are, because their choices are limited geographically for all intents and purposes to one provider, and their insurance is coming from the same provider.
The challenge these direct care models faced, as alluded to by other posters, is in competing with conglomerates that offer a complete spectrum of care. You either cater to people who can afford it, or have to lower costs enough to make it reasonable for people who might not otherwise. The first option limits your customer base; the second is not really currently feasible given government regulation and how it inhibits competition in delivery models.
I worry about the future of health care in the US, only because I don't see the GOP implementing anything other than the not-too distant status quo, which was broken. I sympathize with their stated ideal of reducing costs and increasing competition, but it seems like doublepeak for reducing costs and decreasing competition for established financial interests and increasing competition for everyone else. The net effect will just be squeezing more and more money out of the common individual.
Reasonable point, but I'd argue that the purchasers of dedicated cameras are already not the general market, who will just be using their phone camera anyway. For purchasers of these cameras, I think the cameramakers going down this route would be a clear signal that they care about the users' freedom of speech and security concerns and are taking their use seriously.
Also, my guess is compared to other features they work on this would be fairly trivial, or at least in the same ballpark. And I think it would immediately give the camera a certain cache that would signal "professional" or "serious" that would increase its value, regardless of whether or not the user really needs it.
Without meaning to be dismissive of the large numbers of people who do need these types of cameras (I have close loved ones who are professional photojournalists who rely on having the best cameras), I think a large proportion of people who who buy them don't need them relative to what's on decent phones today. They're just a status symbol for them anyway.
Bingo. The fact this is one of the two most popular TED talks says volumes about TED, and how to interpret TED vis-a-vis the broader scientific community.
I started reading the essay not knowing what to think, and it turned out to be more relevant to my work than I thought.
The issues being discussed in the essay have been a central issue in some area of psychology and behavioral sciences for some time--how to interpret components such as these.
One thought about your "coming into focus at a certain level of compression" comment: I've done some analyses of these vectors as applied to text samples, and one thing that struck me was how unreplicable some of them were across datasets that should be ostensibly similar (but are not the same). Others, in contrast, reappeared across multiple corpora. To the extent some of these components represent "real" features, they should reappear consistently across different datasets where you'd expect them to. That is, they should be robust to changes in idiosyncratic features of the database.
Whole fields have been devoted to defining science; I don't think experiment is necessary to the scientific endeavor. Experiments in many fields, for example, often suffer from problems related to generalizability or applicability to real-world scenarios. It's a major reason for observational science, although not the only one. Problems with replicability have also been shown to be just as endemic to fields dominated by experiments as those more influenced by observation, if not more so, across different scales of analysis from the molecular to the societal.
I think a better definition of what science is is broader, something like "logical argument based on empirical observations," although that too isn't right. I think the appeal of experiments is in line with that, to the extent that you accept that the experimental rationale involves a logical argument pertaining to randomization over potential confounds.
The underlying problem being discussed in the article, to me, is the denial by scientists that science is fundamentally a human endeavor, subject to all the problems of humans: things like greed, deceit, ideology, and so forth. Scientists like to pretend that they are somehow above all that, which means they pretend it doesn't exist, which makes the effects of human weaknesses in science all the more insidious. We see this play out with the problems in academics, financial conflicts of interest, and so forth.
What happens is that a certain cultural subgroup, already primed to be skeptical of science through their social context, recognizes the human weaknesses of science. They then make the mistake of rejecting science wholesale because of this. Scientists, in turn, often make the mistake of rejecting the notion of human influences on science, thereby placing undue confidence in their conclusions, leading to a lack of accountability or explanation when failures occur. Some degree of evolution in scientific theory is due to random variation, or lack of appropriate data, but some of it is due to human factors.
This was one of my first thoughts--these are extremely, extremely low base-rate events with not much measurement power. People mess with the surveys, or simply fail to understand the questions, or make mistakes in responding. The combination of them makes extrapolating very difficult. This was an internet sample too, and biased in that regard (which the authors acknowledge). It was interesting to me to read, though.
I think the bigger question for me, aside from this, are the benefits and costs associated with any response.
Even if you redid this and found that the likely percent of noncitizen voters was nonzero, you'd have to balance the benefits of any enforcement strategy against its costs.
Given that respondents were also saying that photo id didn't stop them, you'd have to also determine the number of citizens who were unable to vote because of voter identification. To me, the cost of denying a citizen a vote is much greater, and also more certain, than the cost of allowing a noncitizen to vote.
Overall, I'm concerned that the typical "innnocent before proven guilty" logic is thrown out the window when it comes to immigration, citizenship, and voting rights. The government should have to prove to some reasonable level of certainty that I do not have the right to vote, not the converse.
... but later the whole line of inquiry and interview of him was ruled in court to be immaterial to the case. So there's some disagreement with the perspective you're outlining.
So, I'll try to respond as someone who voted in support of Johnson, and can get the appeal of Trump as well as the Clinton, as well as visceral hatred of either.
I get that huge swaths of the electorate feel like this system hasn't been working, and that' it's all manipulated by career political insiders who have their own brand of benevolent authoritarianism. I get the distrust of a liberal culture that overvalues its own contributions to society, and has a false sense of how correct they are and why they are where they are, and overlooks their own serious problems and prejudices. I understand how the media plays into this, and believe that a lot of what Trump has said has been taken too seriously or distorted, that he was projecting a character rather than an argument, and in doing so, demonstrated empathy with a huge group of the population. I get that population has been so screwed by the current system they just want something different, whether that be Sanders or Trump.
However, I strongly believe that there's a false equivalence in these discussions, and that calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right are often intentionally or unintentionally meant as a negotiating tactic, to cover up arrogant intransigence on their part. They don't get what they want, so rather than contributing something constructive, they accuse the left of "not having a reasoned discussion" or not "compromising." When the GOP and Trump talk about the left "not compromising," they're really meaning "we're not getting what we want."
Relatedly, do you really believe that the things that Trump has said about minorities, women, and so forth are acceptable ways of leading the United States, or treating those who disagreed with you? What would the GOP do if the liberal candidate said the same things about Trump?
Which party shut down congress repeatedly rather than have a reasoned discussion? Which party has been obstructing and crippling the supreme court because they didn't get their way?
The reality is that the GOP lost this election in terms of votes, and yet are still entering the white house because of a broken electoral voting system. Like it or not, Clinton won more votes than Trump. So Trump and the GOP are going to undo everything the majority voted for to get their selfish agenda, because they don't care about the majority of the electorate that voted for someone else.
Who is being unreasonable in this situation? It's not the liberal party.
I have plenty of reasons to be angry with both parties, but Trump is dangerous in a way that Clinton was not. Sure, I could find some bright sides to his ticket, but it's overshadowed by a lot to be terrified by.
I could not in good conscience vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both were appalling candidates.
Why was Clinton appalling? 25 years of scandals. DNC biasing the primary in her direction. The email server. (I've worked in internet security; that was a horrible decision. It was also completely against policy, which gave the impression that she thought rules were for other people. And it at least looked like she did it to avoid any emails coming home to haunt her presidential run.) The Clinton Foundation at least gave the appearance of "pay for play".
Also, she was very much the establishment candidate. In an election where many people were extremely dis-satisfied with the status quo, that was fatal.
My impression is that some people genuinely bought Trump's message - but not enough of them to win the election. There were a large number of "not Hillary" voters who put Trump over the top. That doesn't make them "pro Trump", it makes them "anti Hillary".
Would you really be saying this if Clinton lost the popular vote?
> calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right
We are not talking about discussion at a political level. This isn't about the GOP. The GOP hates Trump. Its at an interpersonal level. Person to person. Comment to comment.
Look at this thread as a case in point. You will see a perfect sample of the kind of discourse you get when you start talking with liberals. Plenty of accusations of sexism, racism, xenophobia. And I'm just a username on a forum. I could be a gay, female, muslim, illegal immigrant and I would still have been called these things. And also would be called out for betraying the liberal cause. :(
Yeah, all these arguments against non-GMO products, painting non-GMO proponents as antiscientific, seem to me to be strawman arguments that ironically miss the point. It's a thinly veiled means of asserting intellectual superiority that backfires to me because it overlooks the real arguments against GMO products.
Great, you're parents and scientists. I'm a parent and a scientist too. But I understand that many of the arguments against GMOs have nothing to do with science (at least biological science) and everything to do with economics and human rights.
Just because something involves biology doesn't mean that arguments about it can be reduced to that.
A major downside of Stan is its lack of support for discrete priors. This isn't really advertised very well, but is more of a problem than it might sound initially. Its type handling also can get a little frustrating at times. Overall, I highly recommend it but it does have its downsides, and there's some room for alternatives or improvement.
In our region there are already hospital systems that are owned as subsidiaries by corporations that also own insurance companies. These corporations are gobbling up smaller hospitals as those merge and then subsequently get purchased by regional systems.
The monopoly in the provision is problematic enough, but it reaches new levels of problems when they are also merging with insurance companies.
So for some people, even if they aren't getting direct care technically, they are, because their choices are limited geographically for all intents and purposes to one provider, and their insurance is coming from the same provider.
The challenge these direct care models faced, as alluded to by other posters, is in competing with conglomerates that offer a complete spectrum of care. You either cater to people who can afford it, or have to lower costs enough to make it reasonable for people who might not otherwise. The first option limits your customer base; the second is not really currently feasible given government regulation and how it inhibits competition in delivery models.
I worry about the future of health care in the US, only because I don't see the GOP implementing anything other than the not-too distant status quo, which was broken. I sympathize with their stated ideal of reducing costs and increasing competition, but it seems like doublepeak for reducing costs and decreasing competition for established financial interests and increasing competition for everyone else. The net effect will just be squeezing more and more money out of the common individual.