I agree about conservatives but it's also liberals, who have a fundamental aversion to making rational cost/benefit healthcare decisions because they ultimately don't believe that money represents anything real and finite.

It could be done, but not without completely re-inventing healthcare in America, including our expectations about 'consumer choice' (laymen telling the doctor what we need) and over-treatment (spend $1000 on an MRI even if there's a tiny chance of it helping - or get sued), and throwing expensive care at lost causes, especially at end-of-life. We need far more teaching hospitals, to create more physicians with cheaper education and less demanding jobs but who are paid less money. We need to rip out the whole private insurance market, which is enmeshed in the job market and taxation. Then we'd need the public to vote for the taxes to pay for it.

I hate to say it can never happen but after watching the trajectory of Obamacare, it's hard not to.

It's interesting that people think that. In fact the US government spends more per capita on healthcare than Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Canda, Japan, UK, New Zealand, Australia...

https://www.visualcapitalist.c...

I had no idea that Apple buillds and sells Android tablets - Who knew?

Canadian checking in, eh?

Oh? Really? You had your house DoD certified and underwent the yearly inspections? What kind of safe did you have? What room of your house was cleared for classified work?

I knew of exactly 1 person who worked on Classified Data from home. His work area was handled as a SCIF, and he had to follow all of the rules that we did at work.

Point is, if I knew your name, I'd be on the horn to the FBI. I suspect they would be really interested in taking a look at you.

Do you think? My stated point was that only a subset of workers have employment that they can only work from home. I don't think that is misrepresenting anything

And that is your specific work case. My specific work case at present is half home, half workplace presence.

The job I retired from was research, and no work could be done at home. It was often dangerous - as experiments will be, required travel, and was sometimes of a sensitive nature.

Another sub point I was making is how they measured that the top tier of Tech workers demand to work from home, and have left And how these senior difficult to replace employees are now all working from home.

Interestingly - how is Spacex going to build and test Rockets from home, and how is the classified work they do being done from their best employees from home?

And my final point is - Give me the numbers of where all of this top talent that will not work anyplace other than their homes - where are they employed now? Seems for all the numbers they have given that are essentially saying that the companies are left with bad employees, that should show those numbers of where the best employees ever went. A cadre of elites, working from home (or Starbucks) and taking the world to a new level of excellence. Yeah, sarcasm.

Differential analysis - Since we don't have the data of where they went - it is not unreasonable to think that many or most of these top level senior employees simply retired.

In an interesting twist, in my previous work as a top level senior person, I retired when I was transferred to a different group, under the supervision of a person I did not care for.

I was going to say this is cool because I remember disappointment being expressed that the Human Genome Project had not yielded more revolutionary results. But then in looking to back it up I found out that even in 2010, recognition was growing that the Project was leading to a change in the understanding of RNA:

A decade ago biologists and nonbiologists alike gushed with optimism about the medical promise of the $3-billion Human Genome Project. In announcing the first rough draft of the human âoebook of lifeâ at a White House ceremony in the summer of 2000, President Bill Clinton predicted that the genome project would "revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases."

Fast-forward to 2010, and the scientific community finds itself sobered and divided. The problem is not with the genome project itself, which has revolutionized the pace and scope of basic research, uncovered heretofore hidden purpose in what used to be called "junk DNA" and even detected traces of Neandertal DNA in our genomes. Cancer researcher Bert Vogelstein, echoing a widespread sentiment, says, "The Human Genome Project has radically changed the way we do science." The problem is that research springing from the genome project has failed as yet to deliver on the medical promises that Collins and others made a decade ago.

...a few brave voices are suggesting that the rabbitâ(TM)s hole of human biology may go still deeper than a focus on DNA sequences and proteins can reveal. Traditional genetics, they say, may not capture the molecular complexity of genes and their role in disease. The vast areas of DNA that do not code for proteins, once dismissed as "junk," are now known to conceal important regulatory regions. Some DNA stretches produce small bits of RNA that can interfere with gene expression, for instance.

https://www.scientificamerican...

Biology is hard. Untangling all this stuff is a very long and slow process. Yet, it progresses.

Where I live they made the city bus free. Now my daughter can't/won't ride it because it's full of stoned lunatics riding it to nowhere all day.

but with Internet TV they're getting you for the bandwidth separately.

On the other hand I have the cheap Netflix and 720p on today's screens is noticeably bad.

...it actually is the old boss!

This isn't a concession, this is like a drug dealer hanging around schools providing free hits. The hope is to milk the cash cow for all its worth before it is finally dead.

I think Waymo has done a great job. 20 million miles driven. As of late last year the stats they reported were 85% reduction in injury-causing crash rates, and 57% reduction in police-reported crash rates.

And if somebody doubts the statistics, a degree of that is healthy, but read my second link before taking uneducated guesses at what you assume they're doing wrong.

Not really. Members of my family have been in a few crashes over the years, none too serious, and I don't think anybody was ever cited on either side. However my wife did get sued once (unsuccessfully), and my son got what he says was a pretty sizable settlement for being hit by a car when he was cycling. But I don't think they were cited or anything like that either.