ACA is horrible for the middle class. The only reason it retains any type of popularity is because the media refuses to associated ballooning cost to cost redistribution that it enables. Preexisting conditions? Middle class family picking that up. Subsidy? Middle class family picking that up.
This is unfair to the ACA and factually incorrect. ACA subsidies (median household size) [1] are designed to start above the 50th percentile (income) [2].
The details matter. If you're a single person living alone at an income of $70,000.00, you're below the median household income and "picking up" other people's subsidies, but that's not indicative of the country.
In a wealthy and civilized society we have a moral obligation to care for all of our citizens. Some of them have pre-existing conditions and can't afford to pay market rates, so the middle class is going to have to subsidize them one way or another. Whether that subsidy comes in the form of higher insurance premiums or higher taxes hardly matters.
Unfortunately their arrogance isn't false bravado. iPhones brand is extremely strong. Funny aside I know many women who won't date men who's text come up in green bubbles... thats branding.
I believe you -- though it's not surprising in the USA. Apple absolutely dominates the US market. I'd estimate of the top 75% of incomes Apple has at least an 80% market share. I live in a high-income area and the only Androids I ever see are carried by my house cleaners. And among young people it's only more intense because teens are so obsessed with brand cachet (as they always have been).
Now, on HN we know some people, though plenty wealthy enough to afford Apple, are choosing Android for function. But I doubt most of the public even thinks about that choice through that lens. Green bubble is the same as arriving to pick up your date in a 2002 Civic. It projects "I'm probably broke." Statistically. In the US only.
There you get arrested for being a Nazi. In America you get disappeared for not being one. There was a bit of excitement in the 1940s that gives us moral guidance on what to do when Nazis rear their heads.
Maybe if we'd stuck it out with Hoover... "given a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, and we shall soon with the help of God be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this Nation." (campaign trail, 1928) He only got four of those years.
Yeah, we’d be much much better off if the Great Depression was still happening, and Hitler got to slaughter our ancestors. I’m guessing the congress critters are pretty nostalgic for stuff like polio, tuberculosis, measles and the bubonic plague.
Also, screw breathable air and drinkable water, even more than the internet and microwave. Above all else, ballpoint pens and velcro need to just stop.
Excuse me. It’s rush hour. I need to go yell at a busy bridge until the thing just falls the fuck over.
Would there be a way for the bluetooth device to rotate its broadcast keys in a predictable way to avoid the iphone notification of "unknown airtag close by" messages? Seems like this could be exploited for surveillance.
Technically it would need to rotate every 15 minutes or so - the notification you're talking about happens when the device is in "lost mode" (away from its owner): in that case the key is rotate every 24 hours
The Holocene extinction was started when pointed sticks were state of the art and we ate most megafauna to extinction. It would be more the Anthropocene to blame if anything. Blaming high technology is thus rather anachronistic.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the world was already on fire as it were, what with the mass extinctions caused when we became an invasive species out of Africa. If we were still stuck in the stone age like our predecessors we would still be an ongoing mass-extinction. There is some hope to eventually not be an ongoing mass extinction but that would require some combination of even better technology and the right priorities.
Yes government bureaucrats got to drag political enemies off planes and kick them out of restaurants on the basis of wrongthink, masquerading dogma as science.
I agree that the original ruling was ideological, but in the real world the enemy of good is perfect. How many people will suffer in the meantime because of this? How many women in red states will undergo back alley procedures to terminate their pregnancy? Truth be told I really don't care about the intellectual consistency of upholding or overturning Roe, I care about the real world impact it will have on people. It's not abstract, these are real people's lives.
Also that's before even getting into the structure of our federal system and explaining how "states rights" have almost always been a tool for upholding regressive legislature that is unpopular at the national level, due to the fact that a filibuster-proof supermajority is required to reign in the states, meanwhile a dissenting minority within the states has no similar recourse. Why do you think most of the progress in civil rights post-1964 has been accomplished through the Supreme Court? It's because southern and rural states are impossible to reign in with congress. This is why the Federalist Society went through the Supreme Court, because it's technically legal and technically how our government is supposed to work. But the end result is them harming people just like you and me.
There is a reason the maxim exists "Hard cases make bad case law". Of course slavery is wrong, and in fact rebellion to end slavery is more appropriate that case law to end it. That said abortion isn't slavery and its unclear which is morally superior. It's a question of balancing of rights between one human and another, no easy answer here.
