|
Mr Jaunts posted:This, and let's stop pretending that the HL decision only happened because there was an existing exemption: the opinion is very clear that the government assuming the burden of cost of something is the "least restrictive means" of providing it, regardless of whether or not they have to modify an existing program or create a new one. It's not clear at all on that.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Unfortunately the way society is organized tends to have a significant impact on whether or not the technological progress is even utilized in a way that maximizes the overall welfare of the society. Elon Musk will save us  (but realtalk I love Elon Musk. He's a loving ultragenius, self-made ultra-billionare, everything he touches turns to oodles of money, and he's huge into philanthropy and using his money and brains to make the world better) Magres fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So you agree with my point but want to declare you disagree just because? I don't think I actually disagreed with you if you reread what I had said. "Freedom" and hapiness can't easily be measured so you can't really argue that "freedom" improves as a rule over time (how free is a cro-magnon in Spain 20,000 years ago?). But living standards in the aggregate seem to improve over time (because of technology) as we transition from pre-subsistence states in pre-history, to population explosions thanks to complex social organizations making possible great feats in logistics and planning. We seemed to plateau population wise until the double whammy of modern medicine and industrialization broke out of the Malthusian Trap. It is impossible to suss out the ramifications of everything going on 500+ years out, really. It is entirely possible for everything to go fascist and lead to 1000 years of darkness, but it's possible it doesn't (have to qualify where? how long? and for who? also). Also even democracy falling apart (indefinitely) doesn't necesarilly mean that everyobe just starves to death and is ground under the jackboot of suppression. But really we could just as easily eventually extinct ourselves. What I mean is, hey isn't it a little early to be drinking??
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:I need some good high end bourbon ideas. My roommate wants to get me some nice alcohol as a thank you for a favor I did him but I already have a bottle of lagavulin so I don't need more scotch. Thoughts? Tell him to get Pappy van Winkle. Allegedly the best bourbon but I'm more of a rye guy so bourbon is all SoCo to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
McDowell posted:If Nixon had beat Kennedy in 1960 America would be lot different (and arguably better) today. Holy poo poo are you serious with that parenthetical? Cuban Missile Crisis alone invalidates this. America would be different in that Nixon would have have negotiated a Soviet First Strike.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
But, Freedom can be measured? It is how much of a meritocracy you have. The general "freedom" of ALL to get what they deserve. Is this an incorrect view?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:It's not clear at all on that. quote:The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections. This would certainly be less restrictive of the plaintiffs’ religious liberty, and HHS has not shown that this is not a viable alternative. You're being obtuse. Unless the government can prove why it cannot create a new government program, this court sees no issue in declaring that the option of a new program is the least restrictive means of provision. Note that I have no doubt that this will come up in a new case in the future where there is no existing alternative, but going the language of the opinion I see no reason to believe that they won't insist on a new program. sexy fucking muskrat fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:It is entirely possible for everything to go fascist and lead to 1000 years of darkness, but it's possible it doesn't (have to qualify where? how long? and for who? also). Also even democracy falling apart (indefinitely) doesn't necesarilly mean that everyobe just starves to death and is ground under the jackboot of suppression. Well automation actually does increase the likelihood of this if free market extremism wins the day and establishes the kind of long lasting order you are speaking of. If most humans are redundant or useless and you have an ideology that demands that man must work or die, well... AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Mr Jaunts posted:You're being obtuse. Unless the government can prove why it cannot create a new government program, this court sees no issue in declaring that the option of a new program is the least restrictive means of provision. Yes, but that part of the argument basically said “HHS barely presented evidence on this, and we're going to talk about the accommodation anyway.” It's not strong evidence in favor of anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Holy poo poo are you serious with that parenthetical? Cuban Missile Crisis alone invalidates this. America would be different in that Nixon would have have negotiated a Soviet First Strike. Cuban Missile Crisis never would have happened because Nixon would have used the Air Force during the Bay of Pigs invasion. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Cuban Missile Crisis never would have happened because Nixon would have used the bomb during the Bay of Pigs invasion. I just want you to think big, Joe, for Christsakes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Can you guys please take end of the world chat to another thread? US politics is depressing enough on its own (as someone who works in US politics.)Relentlessboredomm posted:I need some good high end bourbon ideas. My roommate wants to get me some nice alcohol as a thank you for a favor I did him but I already have a bottle of lagavulin so I don't need more scotch. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
OK, here's a dumb hypothetical: what would the Democrats actually try to do if they could do what they wanted? Imagine that the GOP somehow blows up in the next couple of months and Democrats end up with a Senate supermajority and House control again. What would the dream agenda be? To me it seems like we might get some tepid immigration and environmental reforms, but it just seems like there's no real vision for the party besides hanging on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Can you guys please take end of the world chat to another thread? US politics is depressing enough on its own (as someone who works in US politics.) Laphroaig is astoundingly good but if you're looking for the syrupy taste of bourbon, Laphroaig ain't gonna be where you find anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Probably a lot of social stuff like gay marriage, perhaps public option healthcare. Whether or not there would be progress on financial regulation issues etc would depend on how resurgent the progressive wing would be in a blue-dominated world – in other words, how much spine "moderate" Dems would have to stand up for what they actually believe in.FAUXTON posted:Laphroaig is astoundingly good but if you're looking for the syrupy taste of bourbon, Laphroaig ain't gonna be where you find anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Holy poo poo are you serious with that parenthetical? Cuban Missile Crisis alone invalidates this. America would be different in that Nixon would have have negotiated a Soviet First Strike. Kennedy ran on a hawkish line compared to Nixon in 1960, perhaps Nixon never would have placed the missiles in Turkey that caused the Soviets to send missiles to Cuba. Like I said, different, but not necessarily better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:OK, here's a dumb hypothetical: what would the Democrats actually try to do if they could do what they wanted? Imagine that the GOP somehow blows up in the next couple of months and Democrats end up with a Senate supermajority and House control again. What would the dream agenda be? To me it seems like we might get some tepid immigration and environmental reforms, but it just seems like there's no real vision for the party besides hanging on. They would pass UHC if they had a large enough majority, some conservative dems would oppose it but most of them including the leadership have said they want it. EDIT: To clarify, this would be on their "dream agenda" but they wouldn't do it simply if they had a supermajority because they're spineless cowards. If they could be guaranteed that they get to keep their seats then I bet they would. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The curve goes out the other direction too. Cheaper, good enough processors are making internet connected embedded devices more ubiquitous. There's quite a bit more to be done before we're done with this whole computer revolution thing we've got going on. Magres posted:Even if computers stop getting better (three or four cycles away is, what, doubling or quadrupling our computing power from where it is?), quote:they have already dramatically accelerated the rate at which we can improve other technologies. We're still working on, hardware and even coding languages aside, just figuring out all what the gently caress we can do with computers to speed up other fields. quote:The doctoral work I'm starting soon for my PhD is literally to pioneer, explore, and provide proof of concept of a new method for evaluating nuclear power plant safety upgrades entirely virtually. A friend of mine got his doctorate for building a methodology that involves taking data from a power plant in real time, running hundreds of randomly sampled, detailed simulations all about ten times faster than real time, and spitting out predictions for what could break to endanger a power plant in the next few hours. Literally working at having a power plant that is somewhat precognizant of its own pitfalls. One of those is an impressive marginal gain, the other is revolutionary. Right now, since the industrial revolution we have been seeing industrial changes. Those are the kind of changes that blow up the power balance and allow the kind of stuff we think of as "things getting better". But given that they all peter out I don't see why we should assume that those revolutionary surges in development will continue rather than petering out as the rate of change drops off. quote:Like maybe it's because Nuclear is having something of a renaissance right now as we're exploring technology outside of Light Water Reactors, but I don't think that's all it is because this is new ideas we're applying to old rear end technology. Like my work is to do these evaluations on the existing fleet of 50 year old power plants. Computers have changed so much about the way we do science and have made us leaner, meaner sciencing machines. quote:I'm not totally optimistic about the country sociopolitically (hint: I think we'll drag our sad rear end country along for another century before it collapses) but I am excited as gently caress about the world technologically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:He said he got Lagavulin last time, so I'm operating on the assumption he's not a pansy. Maybe there's a reason he wants bourbon this time 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Nybble posted:US Politics July - Not Even Tim Howard Can Save Us
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:being able to toss on more power because the cost has dropped is growing linearly though. I am well aware that we can still see big improvements by optimizing code, or altering structure, or tossing on more processors once they are at the price point of slapping a bar code on something. But that won't be the big year over year jumps we have been seeing since 1976 This is no longer true if you've been paying attention to some of the new developments we've been making with quantum computing and parallelization. I know you're the poster who thought cloud computing was banned by the SCOTUS decision, but c'mon, guy, even if Moore's Law slows down a tad computers aren't going to stop being revolutionary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Assuming 1eV per calculation that would be 10^21 calculations per second to get 160W of power dissipation which is a typical desktop. That's really goddamn fast and definitely way more than 3-4 development cycles away but I get your overall point. There are definitely physical limits to the way we do computing now and there would need to be a fundamental shift to overcome them. An n-channel MOS transistor has a gate oxide thickness of ~500 angstroms, an atom is 2 angstroms thick. That's where I got the 3-4 cycles limit. The eV was another limit i was mentioning. I might have conflated them together, I apologize for any confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
I've been led to believe graphene will just fix 90% of our engineering problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:We can already see this in places like Detroit. There are plenty of other areas of the US where you can pick metrics that show that progress has pretty much ground to a halt. Again those are totally regional aspects. Detroit is poor because there was a sudden loss in tax base and there's explicit non-help/damage directed at the city.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
greatn posted:I've been led to believe graphene will just fix 90% of our engineering problems. You should look into colloidal silver for health problems too, then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Magres posted:Elon Musk will save us And I wouldn't bet against him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again those are totally regional aspects. Detroit is poor because there was a sudden loss in tax base and there's explicit non-help/damage directed at the city.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:They would pass UHC if they had a large enough majority, some conservative dems would oppose it but most of them including the leadership have said they want it. So, if the power of corporate rent-seeking somehow gets curtailed, we should be set! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This is no longer true if you've been paying attention to some of the new developments we've been making with quantum computing and parallelization. I know you're the poster who thought cloud computing was banned by the SCOTUS decision, but c'mon, guy, even if Moore's Law slows down a tad computers aren't going to stop being revolutionary. Parallelizarion gains are dependent on the number of processors meaning they are linear. Less actually, given Amdahl's law. Quantum computers imply room temperature superconductors, which kicks off a wholly different technology curve with completely different uses
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:
Hmmm not what I was looking for but I haven't gotten a bottle of Laphroaig before. Any specific age? FAUXTON posted:Maybe there's a reason he wants bourbon this time Its because I just got the Lagavulin and I've been slowly savoring it. I'm not even half done with the bottle yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Drink up. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/halbig-obamacare-ruling-looms-dc-circuit quote:Any day now, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule in Halbig v. Burwell, an expansive challenge that goes directly after federal insurance subsidies. An unfavorable outcome stands to cripple a core component of Obamacare, without which the law may not be able to survive. Two of the judges, both Republican appointees, expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the challengers' case. quote:At issue is whether the statute permits the federal exchange (which serves residents of 34 states which opted not to build their own) to dole out premium tax credits. Without the subsidies, which are benefiting millions of lower-income Americans, the individual mandate is unworkable because many people won't be able to afford insurance. And without the mandate, the coverage guarantee for preexisting conditions threatens to send costs soaring and destabilize the health care market. quote:The legal basis for the lawsuit was crafted by Cato's Michael Cannon and Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler. The challengers lost the case in the D.C. district court. Cannon said on Wednesday he's "hopeful" about winning at the appeals court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Cynical as I am, I have a really hard time thinking the SCOTUS will give them a second bite at the apple and effectively strike down the ACA after upholding it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
greatn posted:I've been led to believe graphene will just fix 90% of our engineering problems. Remind me, is graphene the one that is asbestos level toxic or is that buckyballs? I know one of them the nano structures flake off and build up in your body with bad side effects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
zoux posted:Hahahhah America you're fired from decisions. God damnit we are the worst 24/7 news next week: "Obamacare crushed as Obama is voted the worst president of the last 60 years. Is Obama literally Hitler?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Cynical as I am, I have a really hard time thinking the SCOTUS will give them a second bite at the apple and effectively strike down the ACA after upholding it. I doubt it too; but I used to doubt a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Remind me, is graphene the one that is asbestos level toxic or is that buckyballs? I know one of them the nano structures flake off and build up in your body with bad side effects. If graphene was as bad as you're thinking you'd be hosed from using a pencil in grade school dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
VOX just posted an interesting video about the Import Export Bank. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/2/5864711/are-republicans-and-big-business-on-the-brink-of-divorce
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
That case pisses me off so much. Its a couple of Boston bullshit lawyers trying to claim because one clause in the law says "the State" it means only exchanges run by the states get subsidies, when any sane reading of the law makes it obvious the State is just referring to the government in general versus if a private enterprise were running an exchange. And they found a court with a couple of asswipe republicans sympathetic to their cause. What I don't get, how the gently caress do they even have loving standing? What harm is being rendered unto them by poor people getting part of their healthcare tabs picked up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Stop focusing on pure performance metrics as the measure of a computer's utility to mankind, it's the applications (as in uses for tasks) that matters and we aren't going to run out of those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
greatn posted:That case pisses me off so much. Its a couple of Boston bullshit lawyers trying to claim because one clause in the law says "the State" it means only exchanges run by the states get subsidies, when any sane reading of the law makes it obvious the State is just referring to the government in general versus if a private enterprise were running an exchange. And they found a court with a couple of asswipe republicans sympathetic to their cause. What I don't get, how the gently caress do they even have loving standing? What harm is being rendered unto them by poor people getting part of their healthcare tabs picked up. It's… something, alright. quote:David Klemencic is one of four individual plaintiffs in this suit. He avers in a declaration – and the government does not dispute – that he expects to earn approximately $20,000 in 2014. Klemencic Decl. ¶ 4; Third Moulds Decl. ¶ 2. For ideological reasons, Klemencic does not wish to purchase minimum essential health coverage. Klemencic Decl. ¶ 8. Mr. Klemencic also has introduced evidence that the cost of minimum health insurance coverage, if unsubsidized, would exceed eight percent of his income. See Kessler Decl. ¶ 21. Thus, if tax credits were unavailable, he would be eligible for an “unaffordability exemption” under the ACA and could forego purchasing health insurance without incurring a tax penalty under Section 5000A.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:15
|
|