Yes, with hindsight a lot of things look ridiculous. Now go and tell such a story about a person offering an investment into their business of whom we don't know the future outcome yet...
Somehow you missed that the main point of the article being discussed here is - again! - that the US already pays more than the other top countries and receives less. Somehow that doesn't fit what you wrote at all, it's the exact opposite, to get better care you could do with less money. So where do you get that "we would have to raise taxes" from?
> here everyone calls you a physician even though you only work with animals
Just an aside, but that is a gigantic undersell of veterinarians. The difficulties of becoming one aside, just seeing that "humans-only" doctors only work on one kind of ape, compared to the many very different kinds of life forms a veterinarian has to deal with (of course they specialize too), I don't understand why one would think a veterinarian would deserve the word "only".
Your 1) Please read again, this does not fit to anything I wrote. Especially the main point, that inconvenient "anybody" vs. "everybody" thing that you completely ignore.
Your 2) This too has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. You respond to whatever strange visions appear in your own mind. I'm very sorry for you if you find the idea that people who are down and/or out are getting help so frightening, that non-rich people don't have to live in fear. And if you want to point to the "overachievers" - again see my main point and answer those points (first you have to actually notice and acknowledge them, of which there is no sign even though it was the main point of my post, "anybody" vs. "everybody").
Do you have proof, or do you just happen to feel this way without actually knowing any background story? If you make such an accusation you should state your reasons, preferably observable facts. Both "hacker" and "news" are generic terms after all.
In addition, even if they did mimic the name, I would not see a problem. It's very descriptive, unlike a completely made-up word that someone spent a lot of effort on to establish as a brand.
What happens if "everyone" does it and now you compete not with a few but with hundreds, thousands? Will you still do and feel so good? Does your suggestions scale if it is applied not just to a few? What makes you think you can just multiply your particular personal situation by [insert any number here] and it will still work?
Also, another confusion of "anyone" vs. "everyone". The English language has those two distinct words, unlike my own native language, so English speakers should actually be at an advantage here. Any time someone comes up with an example that (in an idealized universe, but let's grant them the unrealistic assumption because it does not even affect the final result) would work for anyone, make a check if it works for everyone, meaning what would happen if everyone actually did just that.
I think such huge levels of new "entrepreneurs" just means you get something like "Uber jobs". All the risk of being on your own but none of the benefits of being part of a large organization. Even if every single new entrepreneur were to cure one kind of cancer - how many such people are needed before the ROI on a cure for a cancer form is down to pennies? Just to use an extreme example where every single person actually is a genius. Now imagine what happens when most people are ordinary. Not to mention that actual monetization of cures for forms of cancer can only be handled by - large companies! It seems to me to be quite clear, given the complexity of what needs to be done in today's world economy (vs. shoe makers or smiths or XYZ makers in centuries past who could happily work alone or with just family) that most people in the economy should be employed and part of large(r) organizations. If everybody is an individual (entrepreneur) this would not fit into how modern society works, solving complex tasks in a tight network of people.
To me it's like propagating a mostly bacteria world because multicellular organisms, where individuals give up most of their autonomy and prefer to be part of a big organization, are somehow "bad" (and cancer cells, breaking out of the organization to follow their own path, are somehow rebels fighting for freedom?). To me, people giving up many of their freedoms to work in a higher-level form of organization is something positive, and I think we actually need more of it. The problem is that, following the multicellular organism analogy, today's organisms (firms) are quite hostile towards their own cells (workers). Too narrow-minded. They could (allowed to) be that way - if the parent organization, the state, would jump in and provide the safety instead, on the (even) higher level. For the unbelievable wealth (in tools, knowledge, infrastructure, processes, networks) that at least part of humanity has accumulated and achieved I think we have waaayyyyy too much risk completely unnecessarily put on individuals, for no good reason. We could easily give everyone food and shelter and some basics. To me, much of that pressure on people is completely artificial. "Sure, we could feed you, but we won't because you are unworthy."
> unless you were huge enough to have your own locations
Those locations are millions, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars investments with backup power generators large enough to provide power to a comfortably sized village. So, "large enough to a) need and b) able to afford owning such a location just for your own needs", e.g. Google, Amazon. Even companies like large banks have their servers co-hosted in a separate section but in the location owned by a 3rd party co-hosting provider. To own one you either are one of those providers or you are in the "Google tier". For the purposes of the current context, the linked article, one would even need to have multiple such locations all over the world. I think that qualifies as "huge" (the company owning such infrastructure just to run their own servers, co-hosting firms do it for others).
So what is the alternative? Maintaining your own infrastructure like we did before "cloud" providers, i.e. your own dedicated servers in managed locations unless you were huge enough to have your own locations? Or just a different cloud provider? It is hard to check if your suggestion is any better since you only say "don't do that", but not what else to do instead...
That sounds like a great way to make her resent playing an instrument when she's grown up.
I learned (soprano and alto) recorder when I was young, in evening classes at a music school (East Germany), and started learning to play violin a few years ago (which turned out to be _the_ instrument for me, I can't stop and after a few years I know it's not short term). I had always practiced a bit on the recorder on and off. Fortunately nobody had forced me to continue music school. When I was young I had sooo many other interests. Being told what to do can hardly be a recipe to create a person that acts on their own? Sounds more like a recipe of trying to educate somebody who follows orders well.
So, and now go back and read what I wrote until you understand it. My hopes are low though, but you can at least give it your best effort, even if the result is underwhelming.
> but my next-door neighbours will follow different rules.
Some rules are different, many are not.
> Alas, money is always an overriding concern.
No it isn't, see what I wrote.
Your entire comment is an amazing display of cluelessness about the forces acting on you. Cultural norms are a FAR bigger factor. Yes you don't realize it, see what I wrote.
You are also quite confused about what is being discussed. What is that about building houses and buying stuff? If the topic is too difficult for you, just don't comment, posting incoherent random thoughts is useless. Yes, we indeed use money in the economy, great insight.
There is an incredible number of norms you and most everybody else adheres to every single day. Some of them even obviously ridiculous and without any objective basis, like "don't wear white socks and sandals". Nobody charges you money, not even if you ignore such norms. And yet you comply - and the corset of cultural norms is far tighter than you realize (unless you start thinking about it, but even then it's hard to see from the inside how many rules you actually follow, by now quite voluntarily).
The human world outside "money" is far larger and the bonds also far stronger than inside of it, I would claim. It's just that one is mostly subconscious and the other one very often requires conscious attention, so guess which one you always notice.
So, and now go back and read what I wrote until you understand it. There is no point to this whole thing (apart from creating clicks for the attention industry). It has no impact (again apart from creating clicks). There is no outcome that hinges on anything. They can claim whatever, whether they are right or wrong matters for absolutely nothing. The creation of attention and clicks is completely independent - it happens before the "forecast" event. Great business where outcomes don't matter.
The whole point about the current topic as well as of my post: You missed by about a thousand miles. Please read it again. It's really pointless to argue about a strawman created by you. Your model is useless, that's the point! It makes no real(!) predictions - not usable for anything apart from blowing ever more hot air, and if it doesn't come to pass, you are never wrong because you left the door open by not actually saying anything in the first place.
Do you not understand that the guy/his company did nothing at all? And that giving some arbitrary probability was/is utterly devoid of any meaning (especially if you can't be wrong whatever the actual outcome)? They could have made any prediction at all, what difference would it have made? That is the value of that "work".
However, I realize there's people who like such meaningless drivel. It is a version of appearing to actually do something while not actually doing anything. You make it into the news but you can never be held accountable because whatever happens happens, you just helped create a few more entirely useless headlines (apart from helping with page views and ad impressions of course). It's actually quite ingenious to misuse actually useful tools like statistics.