>A district court's decision has no precedential value—that is, it binds only the parties to the case but not future decisions of other district courts
>Similarly, a decision by one district court in New York is not binding on another district court, but the original court's reasoning might help guide the second court in reaching its decision.
Why should it be mentioned? The article doesn't call out any other specific company by name. Is the Times really that egregious of a offender compared to the other businesses? Does new york city have a history of selectively enforcing laws to favor local businesses?
Reminder that apple provides burner emails that are effectively unblockable (because they use the @icloud.com domain, at least for now[1]), for $0.99/month.
>So why not make fun of them? There's no downside.
...except the populist right backlash, triggered in part by their resentment at coastal "elites" (think yuppies, not people who fly to davos annually) sneering at them.
>I think we are all villains here. Good healthcare coverage is just another status symbol to be attained.
Seriously? How many conversations have you been in where people were bragging about how good their health coverage is and trying to one-up each other? The extent I've experienced is stuff along the lines of "thank god I had my health plan, because otherwise it would have cost [6 figures]", but it didn't give the impression that they'd be mad if everyone didn't have to suffer that fate.
They can't make money on some customers (medicare/insurance), so they have to make up the difference however they can. In practice this means screwing over the people who have assets to seize.
>I don't think you fully grasped the concept of an option, which is why it isn't illustrative for you
I perfectly do know what an option is. It's just not relevant to the discussion, or at least not necessary. If you're selling a service that costs $2k of amortized costs to provide for $300, because that's all medicare/insurance companies are willing to pay, that's not a problem because you're offering options, it's an issue because you're charging too little. You're losing money because the numbers simply don't pencil out, not because you sold a bunch of options and sharp jane st traders cleaned you out. In any other situation where you're charging less than what it costs to provide, people just call it "bad business model", not "you're selling options" or whatever.
>The options model matters: if you model an ambulance ride as a roulette wheel, you only expect to pay if you get very unlucky. If you model it as an option, you expect to pay even if you never use it.
There are plenty of services that have high fixed costs but low marginal costs, but we don't use the "options" framing. A movie costs tens to hundreds of millions to make, but otherwise costs very little to deliver. Their price are also fixed, rather than dynamically priced. Yet when a movie bombs, nobody is like "wow I guess they shouldn't have been selling an option for 2 hours of entertainment for $20!". It's a price problem, first and foremost, caused by insurance companies and medicare strongarming them.
As much as I like articles that tries to use economics or finance to explain stuff, the "options" analogy is a bit hamfisted. The article starts off by noting about how ambulance is an "option" for a rescue, but even though the analogy might vaguely work, it's not really needed to answer the question. That can be answered far more simply: "medicare and insurance companies pay them too little, so they have to charge everyone else more". Or, from the article:
>This meant that the payment structure and the cost structure were increasingly mismatched: and so ambulance services had to pay for their round-the-clock readiness by billing for individual rides. [...]
>And notably, the fees that Medicare sets run far below cost. The average ambulance transport costs $2,673 to provide; Medicare pays only about $329 of that. A typical ambulance ride for a Medicare patient, in other words, loses theambulance service thousands of dollars.
AFAIK some of the other chromium forks (brave and/or edge?) were committed to backporting manifest v2 (or more specifically the webRequestBlocking API) for future chromium versions.
>Any excuse to pull someone over will be used by police to extort people because thats how cops and courts fund themselves, they will always fall back on "it was procedure, therefore we hold no liability." There are more than enough victimless crimes on the books with high monetary penalties to just drag net citizens and profit.
That might make sense for speed traps or whatever, but how does brutalizing people with suspected stolen vehicles help "cops ... fund themselves"? Civil forfeiture doesn't even apply in this case because by definition that car has a rightful owner, so they won't even be able to keep it.
>pretty much every popular health fad has no provable causative effect on health.
Isn't this almost true by definition? If it actually works, it's not a "fad", just "science" or whatever. Advice like "eat more vegetables" and "don't drink alcohol" probably do work, but they're ingrained enough that nobody thinks they're "fads".
Sounds like the actual issue is that the false positive rate is so low that cops get complacent. If in the past all you had were vague descriptions like "grey F150" then police would be far more skeptical if they saw a "match". However if they're using ANPRs and it's reliable day after day, you stop questioning the system. After all, it never makes a mistake, right?
Isn't there already thousands of ways for exfiltrating data that must be whitelisted by corporate firewalls? office365/gsuite, for instance. Not to mention the classics like dns.
>However part of the problem is that real-world plastics are chemical sponges that absorb toxins (heavy metals, PCBs, etc) from the environment and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body.
No, multiple sources confirm this:
>https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48320
>A district court's decision has no precedential value—that is, it binds only the parties to the case but not future decisions of other district courts
>https://law.justia.com/cases/
>Similarly, a decision by one district court in New York is not binding on another district court, but the original court's reasoning might help guide the second court in reaching its decision.