> I’m surprised there isn’t a Costco like medical group that’s nationwide, has a membership, and works solely to provide care efficiently.
What you are describing is an HMO, which hasn't had that much lower costs historically. Theoretically, you pay once and then they take care of you, but in practice costs haven't been that much lower.
I think this is disingenuous. Charlie Kirk's content was specifically around "triggering the libs". He deliberately tried to make people angry, not looking to make any kind of common ground for discussion.
Haven't you ever turned a blind eye to somebody breaking corporate policy when you know its dumb and helps nobody? This is basically that. This kind of "immigration" is solely helpful but US immigration laws are intentionally obtuse and broken. The only "harm" here is that Hyundai didn't follow the right paperwork while helping build American manufacturing.
Because the documentation is intentionally obtuse and difficult, meaning that it is nearly impossible to get approval for these kinds of things even though they benefit the US immensely.
It's like if a neighbor fixes your fence without asking you first. Wrong? Maybe. Harmful? Definitely not.
The solution here is to work with South Korea to follow actual procedure, not arrest everybody and deport them. These people were objectively good for the American economy.
As somebody who has struggled with similar issues, oftentimes the psychological help you need is to de-emphasize the ambition and success. You have to act against the expectation and dreams of greatness, and instead focus on your present state and appreciating that. It's not impossible to do great work and be happy, but it's very easy to let your dreams consume you.
In that instance, I would say the problem is that the laws around patents are preventing competition, not that one competitor chooses to lock down their system. We have seen that more open systems like Android can exist, so I would expect those systems to stick around for the people that want them. Having both types of systems actually increases user choice.
Something very specific to a walled garden is that app developers are forced to play by the garden’s rules. Facebook/Google/etc are forced by Apple to reduce their tracking, spam apps are less common, and generally apps are forced to support the latest APIs. I’m not saying Apple is some benevolent dictator, but it at least has helped curb certain abuses by other megacorps.
I could be wrong about this, but it seems like it would change for most users since Facebook/Google/Amazon/etc have a big incentive to push third party App Stores: ad tracking. Apple currently limits it, so I would not be surprised at all if suddenly all of grandmas and grandpas favorite apps are now “third party only”.
I don't want to fearmonger too much, but you may not have a choice in using 3rd party App Stores, assuming you use popular apps like Facebook or Instagram. The large tech companies may remove their apps from the original App Store and only use third parties that allow them to do the ad tracking they want to do.
Nobody is stopping you from escaping the walled garden; you can absolutely go buy an Android device which is equivalent to an iPhone but without these sorts of restrictions.
The trouble is that the walled garden approach only works if the wall goes all the way around. If Facebook, Google, or the other big ad companies are allowed to access the iOS ecosystem without consumer protections, then they absolutely will and will force users to go along with it. This is about developer freedom, not user freedom.
Let me provide a concrete example: right now I can download and use Facebook, with less tracking than Facebook likes, on the App Store. If Facebook is allowed to offer a sideloaded app with all the tracking included, what do you think the chances are they will keep the version on the App Store? If they remove it and only offer the new sideloaded version, I am worse off as a user than I am right now.
Are you allowed to buy into a walled garden where developers can’t force you to sideload apps to use their apps? That’s what I want to do, but it seems the EU is making that illegal. It seems that users who value freedom can buy Android, and users who value security can buy Apple, but the second option is going away.
The trouble is that if large tech companies are given the opportunity, they will force users to use whatever is best for the company, not for the user. The only way to stand up to large tech companies is with another tech company like Apple.
When that gap is rapidly closing, I don’t think it’s weird to speculate how it will go in the future. We saw something similar with college attainment, where women were being pushed out and are now the majority, which is causing pains with both men and women in college right now.
Is it weird to worry about the direction the future is heading? Plenty of problems can be seen before they arrive, so why not start thinking about them sooner?
Because it is evidence of a broader trend, where womens’ and mens’ pay is equalizing for people under 30. This has long been predicted by some given the gap in college attainment.
What remains to be seen, and what has people acting weirdly, is whether this trend will stop once pay equalizes or if it will continue farther and result in a pay gap in the other direction.
What you are describing is an HMO, which hasn't had that much lower costs historically. Theoretically, you pay once and then they take care of you, but in practice costs haven't been that much lower.