In a recent case of someone living in TX learning that their fetus had trisomy 18, there was a whole legal case that had to be fought, and when Judge Gamble ruled that terminating the pregnancy could proceed in this case, TX AG Ken Paxton filed an emergency petition to ask the state supreme court to overturn the ruling, and that blocked Judge Gamble's ruling. Meantime, the woman's condition was deteriorating enough that she left the state to get her healthcare needs met.
So, what can we expect when TX is making it this perilous to provide basic healthcare for such a large percentage of its population? More of the same, I'd argue.
If you care about your sisters/daughters/spouses' access to healthcare, consider other states.
adding a “can” in there can clarify the author’s intent, I think. I mean, some truth to that, a political economy is not a solely hands-off thing in all cases, or solely planned-out either. And some aspirational idea thrown in about being able to direct an economy — I mean we were able to redirect our economy into a total war machine in our not so ancient past, and that was a common good arguably.
So could you slowly rotate a satellite and extract a bit more energy in orbit? Since the side facing the sun is baking and the side that's away is freezing?
For one, this is not as one-sided and simple as "X is a tax burden".
The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2007 that "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to them" but "in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."[1] Unauthorized immigrants create demand for goods and services[10] while an estimated 50 to 75 percent pay taxes.[9] Due to cheaper labor, they contribute to lower prices in the industries where they work, such as agriculture, restaurants, and construction.[2]
Also, legal immigration just doesn't work well as a policy today. There's this perception that there's a line that people should just get in, but actually that process has been jammed up and there's active efforts to sabotage, with rhetorical tricks like claiming family immigration includes more than just immediate family (parents, spouse, children, only, not uncles and nieces etc), and silently walling off by extending processing times to multiple years, to the way quotas work -- same level regardless of size of country.
But more to the point, talk about morality when noticing how some vilify refugees and asylum seekers, and don't learn from history, like with WW2 refusals of refugee jewish people from Europe, which led to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Want to practically and cheaply address illegal immigration? Maybe consider actually solving systemic issues like issues with legal immigation instead of throwing refugees and children in cages perhaps?
Sorry but where there's asylum seekers caged and cases of sexual abuse and abuse of power and lack of oversight and cases of deaths, and when there's such a clear understanding of the real issues that could be improved that people just conveniently set aside, it's clear what the dictates of morality are in my mind.
On the second point, I think folks are rightly dubious about the effectiveness of incentives broadly[1]. There's also some hilarious historical examples of incentives backfiring or having unwanted side-effects (like the Cobra Effect [2].)
More broadly, I don't think it's that easy to think that private prisons can even work well as a solution, regardless of whether they should be allowed to exist as a matter of public policy and ethics. Consider one summative look at this issue provided in this evaluation[3] -- it's dubious whether they're even cost effective, one of the strongest pro-private-prison arguments there has been in public debate, and how there's much better alternatives than the kind of perverse incentives bundled with private prisons, like re-evaluating whether parolees should be allowed in public housing, and providing more transition housing so when sentences are complete, inmates aren't forced to spend even more time in prison because they don't have an address to go to.
This is a common argument (bordering on memetic and cached) and well, the budget for ISRO is about 170M USD, rounding up and considering steady increases lately. That 1:9 compared to recent outlay for just healthcare in the budget, after some basic googling. And strategically, India’s historically wanted increased self-sufficiency after the colonial era, and you need deterrence and military power to protect your own interests. So, it seems to just follow from basic needs and doesn’t seem to be out of whack. ISRO handles a ton of commercial launches too, and space industry is growing more and more — makes economic sense to continue to compete and iterate.
I'm quite taken aback by the vitriol in those comments.
Programs are meant to be read by humans, and language/terminology has a huge impact. If there are cost-less replacements to words that are easy to adopt, why not adopt them? These changes are beneficial to the community, don't hurt the language, and are cheap to adopt in many cases anyway.
Chernoff faces are pretty fun to play with too! A while back, I played with it[1], and they do seem useful. I wonder if more realistic faces lead to better utility as a at-a-glance data visualization tool?
Yeah that makes sense. If there's enough of an enticement to adopt the infra service and you standardize the API at the bottom, any developments/contributions on top of it could co-exist and be more share-able. I'm reminded of the addon marketplace in Heroku. The underlying infra was consistent and general, which made third party plugins/addons/contributions easier (even to make money). Heroku ended up getting a lot of specialized support for platform customers that they probably couldn't have built out themselves.
I could totally see even seeding a possible 'marketplace' with your own services. Like perhaps Func as a service, powered by Hyper. And others also benefiting from the underlying infra being so simple. Why wouldn't a platform-provider use an infra service that's flexibly scalable on perf+price? They probably have the skillset on hand for that too and don't need any more finesse than already exists, beyond stability.
Anyway, that's just my own ramblings. Hope you're having fun with Hyper! It sure looks like a lot of love/tears went into it.
This looks really awesome. I liked that rehydration was factored out with a higher order component like that. That seems like a much cleaner solution.
Overall, I'm really intrigued by Apollo Client and GraphQL in general. My guess is that using them cuts down on a lot of custom Redux related code you'd end up writing, mostly fetches and mutations. And replaces those concerns with much more declarative code. And also handles conventions about the shape of how to handle errors and load states.
But what are the gotchas of a stack that might heavily favor Apollyon Client and GraphQL?
Check out Hyper.sh too. It abstracts away the whole datacenter -- you can use `hyper` instead of `docker`, basically. You don't need to think about VMs ever as a concept, containers run directly on the hypervisor. And they have Hyper Func, an AWS Lambda-like alternative that uses images. And per second billing.
On the downsides, they're small and they have one data center, and they're not Microsoft. But their tech is open source.
For small teams like the one I work in, and for solo work I have dabbled a bit in, I can imagine the following thought process if I have a git repo and sit down to think about how to best deploy it.
- I start researching how to deploy this, but I don't care about optimizing for a lot of scale. I DO care a lot about iteration speed, integration with image registry + code repository + CI/testing services (ideally out of the box), and not making it hard to maintain/deploy/expand for the rest of the team (if an associate engineer can be brought up to speed on the infra and become fairly independent, that'd be wonderful).
- I probably care about burstable, pay-for-usage infra. But it'd be great if that was somewhat abstracted away. Perhaps even based on requests-per-minute, and I set up limits about how far it should scale. (This would immediately put this far and above Heroku -- good, cost-efficient auto scaling)
- I really care about not having to maintain my own DB cluster myself. And similarly for key/value storage and block-file-storage (like s3). And I'd absolutely love to not have to myself tweak and implement something common like cron or logging.
- And I'd probably care about integration with error-detection services and performance monitoring services.
- It would be absolutely amazing if there were default stacks/recipes with load balancers, so the common cases were easy (a common case like a standard RDBMS-backed JSON REST Api using cron and background jobs, or a static website (which basically covers all SPA-like frontends, if you add in a flexible reverse-proxy URL-rewriting solution))
Then, I could pick it up and be fine depending on it, since costs would scale down to my level (plus some premium I guess, but hey I'm even okay with Heroku for some things). But I could probably continue to stick with it for a long time. Inertia in ops means that if you get green field projects early and sustain them, my guess is that they stick around longer than they really even should -- but that's just an unverified guess on my part, idk.
ps -- the thing that really strongly drew me to hyper.sh was that I could abstract away the whole cluster behind `hyper`, like `docker` on my own computer. That was an amazing selling point, coming at after the popcorn machine of container management solutions with their very own intricate towers of complexity. It's what I like about sandstorm.io in part -- abstracting away a lot of complexity about hosting apps. But there's other complexity that could perhaps be eased or simplified, since running a software project is not simply the same as running an app on a computer, networking, load balancing, data security, backups and so on add up to a lot. So it's not enough that `hyper` abstracts away the data center, because there's scope for some more simplification for a certain slice of market: smaller teams who can't afford a full ops team, or teams with a small ops team who want to tackle a monstrous tech project.
But Hyper.sh is still competitive, I think, even though it's super young. They already have a high level AWS Lambda alternative (Hyper Func) that uses containers and is fully language agnostic, and they have reasonable pricing-per-minute figured out.
They also have open sourced their tech [1], so for certain companies they probably are compelling.
Perhaps they should provide the kind of ease-of-use on top of the stuff they already provide that will cut open a steady market for them, like a Heroku but with this underlying tech and thus more dynamic on scaling and flexible on tech stack.
I was considering the first column, which does list Thailand as second highest in terms of road fatalities per 100k inhabitants. By second column, I didn't mean to say skip the column with country names -- that may be the mixup. Here's the source data too: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_st.... I think considering the number of road fatalities and accounting for population seems like a good enough comparative measure.
Sorting by the second column gives a good picture about which country has more dangerous drivers. And Thailand is #2... so your claim tracks well against this reality.
So, what can we expect when TX is making it this perilous to provide basic healthcare for such a large percentage of its population? More of the same, I'd argue.
If you care about your sisters/daughters/spouses' access to healthcare, consider other states.