Change your password immediately to something you’ve never used before and isn’t similar to current passwords. If you’re getting random 2fa codes, someone is able to complete your first factor, so fix that ASAP.
Team GB is the brand name used since 1999 by the British Olympic Association (BOA) for their British Olympic team. The brand was developed after the nation’s poor performance in the 1996 Summer Olympics, and is now a trademark of the BOA. It is meant to unify the team as one body, irrespective of each member athlete’s particular sport. Officially, the team is the “Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team”, although athletes from Northern Ireland may opt to compete under the auspices of the Olympic Federation of Ireland instead.
But there are 37 Northern Irish athletes in Paris, with six representing Tema GB while the others compete for Team Ireland - and they include three current world champions.
Forgot that came out, I should play it. Had a lot of fun with 1 and 2.
This week I played around 12 hours of Bravely Default 2, but dropped it because the boss mechanics (counters) feel anti-fun and like they want a specific party composition, and it feels a bit too grindy for my taste.
Continuing the Trails series with 3rd: it seems interesting, but I’m not sure I like how it’s structured, the gameplay feels too disconnected from the story.
I’m a communist but I suddenly realised that American conservatives should all be hardcore Linux enthusiasts. Why is this not already the stereotype?
Libertarians and conservatives in the US demand liberty only for the already wealthy and powerful upper class, the liberty to enslave and exploit whomever and whatever they choose. They believe the ultra-wealthy have somehow earned the right to do so. On the contrary, the socialists, especially the anarchists, are opposed to unjust hierarchies, and the hierarchy created by wealthy and politically powerful classes are the most unjust of all – quite the opposite of the libertarians and conservatives.
Libertarian (Liberal) propaganda appropriates the more popular socialist ideologies while conflating liberty for only the wealthy/powerful versus liberty for all people. One can see appropriation done in the same way in the very name of the National Socialist (Nazi) party of Germany. These tactics that were used by the Nazis are still used by various American conservative and libertarian parties, who mostly align under the umbrella of the Republican Party. Just look at what the Trump cult weirdos are all saying nowadays. It is pure KKK and Nazi ideology resurrected, under a thin veil of euphemisms.
So if you take at face-value what libertarian and conservative politicians in the US say publicly about freedom, small government, civil liberties, etc., then they ought to be very enthusiastically in favor of Linux, but it is all just propaganda. They don’t care about freedom, only freedom for the elite clique of their supposed “supermen,” the wealthy elites, the freedom to exploit groups of people who they hate most — take your pick: foreigners, black people, women, gay and trans, Jews, Muslims, the “woke,” the “leftist,” etc. The libertarians and conservatives hate things that benefit society at large, because what benefits society also benefits these people they hate.
Linux is pretty authentically a community project for the good of society, and it is truly subversive to the authority of the corporations and elites. So the various libertarians and conservatives of the US recognize Linux as a threat. Only that small group of privileged, middle-class libertarians stupid enough to be duped by the wealthy elite propaganda believe that free software is aligned with their ideology.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor.” -- Abraham Lincoln
This quote captures the differing understandings and notions of liberty between these different political groups
Socialism and planned economy, ban on private enterprises
Not only does it aim to stop neverending inequality shift and enshittification, it also helps to save Earth by putting an end to overproduction and bullshit consumerism
There is motivation to do better - inventors are praised and financially rewarded, and those who successfully apply new tech are too.
Sure, an inventor won’t turn billionaire, but he also won’t run a risk of losing it all trying to apply said invention. Market actually scares many off, it’s not simply a land of opportunities.
This. Think of Bill gates, and think of Linus Torvalds. Inspiration to make money can only do so much. There’d be a lot more people making awesome stuffs today if large corps didn’t just buy any small tech company making anything that could be used. Sometimes they buy them and use it, sometimes they buy is and then ensittify it so people will have no choice but to use things they want.
That exposed brick is either going to give him inhalation problems from the dust and grit, or if he added a PVA layer, then the walls will begin to run in a hot summer
Yeah, listen, I was doing my own exercises and I was everyday watching my wife doing her exercises, and then I realised “holly hell she is exercising way harder than I am”, and working muscle groups that I really wanted to work so I gave up my routine and joined hers.
At its very core, an insurance company operates by: 1) pooling policyholder’s risks together and 2) collecting premiums from the policyholders based on actuarial data, to pay claims and maybe make a small profit. But looking broader, an insurance market exists when: a) policyholders voluntarily or are obliged to obtain policies, b) insurers are willing and able to accept the risks in exchange for a premium expected to support the insurance pool, and c) the actuarial risks are calculable and prove true, on average.
The loss of any of A, B, or C will substantially impact a healthy insurance market, or can prevent the insurance market from ever getting started. For some examples of market failures, the ongoing California homeowner insurance crisis shows how losing B (starting with insurers refusing to renew policies near the wildland-rural interface) and C (increase in insured losses due to climate change) results in policies becoming unaffordable or impossible to obtain.
As a broader nationwide example, an established business sector that operates wholly without insurance availability is cannabis. A majority of US States have decriminalized marijuana for medical use, and a near-majority have legalized recreational consumption. Yet due to unyielding federal law, no insurer will issue policies for marijuana businesses, to protect from risks that any business would face, such as losses from fire, due to a product recall or product liability, or for liability to employees. These risks are calculable and there’s a clear need for such policies – thus meeting criteria A and C – but no commercial insurer is willing to issue. Accordingly, the formal market for cannabis business insurance is virtually non-existent in the USA.
With these examples, we can see that the automobile insurance market meets all three criteria for a healthy market, but it’s how these criteria are met which is noteworthy. Motorists in the USA are obliged to insure in every state except New Hampshire and Virginia: it is a criminal offense to drive a car without third-party liability insurance, meaning the motorist might spend time in jail. Note: NH and VA won’t send a motorist to jail, but they do have administrative penalties for driving without “financial responsibility”, which includes insurance or a bond at the DMV.
The exact requirement varies per state, with some requiring very low amounts of coverage and others requiring extra coverage like Personal Injury Protection (PIP, aka no-fault insurance). The point is that criteria A is easily met: motorists want to avoid jail, but also want to avoid the indignity of being sued after having caused a road incident, in addition to protecting their apparently only viable mode of transportation.
Insurers can take into account the overall trends in national risks trends for automobiles (eg new car safety, through the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, IIHS) as well as local or hyper-local risks (eg hail damage in the southeast, property crime in a particular zip code). And as a large country with nearly as many cars as people, many insurers are willing to meet the demand. This satisfies criteria B and C.
So well-organized is the automobile insurance market that you could almost say that it’s vertically integrated: the largest nationwide insurers have contracts in place with every dealership network, auto collision chain, new and used parts dealers, as well as automatic data sharing with state DMVs, plus with firms like CarFax that buy information. Despite each state being slightly different, the insurers have overcome and achieved a level of near uniformity that allows an efficient market to exist.
Things are drastically different for the American healthcare system and for American health insurance companies. While most think of their healthcare provider as a national name like Anthem Blue Cross or Kaiser Permanente, the reality is that each state is an island, and sometimes counties in a state are enclaves. Even federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare are subject to state-level non-uniformities. For example, hospitals can be either privately operated (eg religion-affiliated, or for-profit) or run by a public entity (eg county or state), and can exist as a single entity or form part of a regional hospital network. Some entities operate both the insurance pool as well as providing the health care (eg HMOs like Kaiser Permanente) while others dispatch to a list of contracted providers, usually being doctor’s own private practices or specialist offices.
With so many disparate entities, and where healthcare is a heavily-regulated activity by each state, the cost of insurable risks – that is, for routine healthcare services – is already kinda difficult to compute. Hospitals and doctors go through intense negotiations with insurers to come to an agreement on reimbursement rates, but the reality is that neither has sufficient actuarial data to price based on what can be borne by the market. So they just pass their costs on, whatever those may be, and insurers either accept it into their calculations, or drop the provider.
Suffice it to say, there are fewer pressure to push the total cost of healthcare down, given this reality, and more likely prices will continue to climb. This fails criteria C.
Briefly speaking, it’s fairly self explanatory why people would want health insurance, since the alternative is either death or serious health repercussions, paying out-of-pocket rates for service, or going to the ER and being burdened by medical debt that will somehow haunt even after death. Criteria A is present.
As for Criteria B, that was actually resolved as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). During discussions with the drafters, insurers bargained for an obligation for everyone to have insurance (aka the individual mandate, bolstering criteria A), in exchange for an obligation to issue policies for anyone who applies, irrespective of pre-existing health conditions. Thus, Criteria B is present for all ACA-compliant policies in the USA, even though the individual mandate was later legislatively repealed.
So to answer your question directly, the costs for healthcare in the USA continue to spiral so far out of control that it causes distortions in the health insurance market, to everyone’s detriment. Specific issues such as open-enrollment periods, employer subsidies, and incomprehensible coverage levels all stem from – and are attempts to reduce – costs.
Enrollment periods prevent people from changing plans immediately after obtaining an expensive service, like a major surgery. Employer subsidies exist due to a federal tax quirk decades ago, which has now accidentally become an essential part of the health insurance and health care situation. And coverage levels try to provide tiered plans, so people can still afford minimal coverage for “catastrophic” injuries while others can buy coverage for known, recurring medical needs.
But these are all bandaging the bleeding which is unchecked costs. It would take an act of Congress – literally – or of state legislatures to address the structural issues at play. The most prominent solution to nip costs is the bud is to achieve the same near-vertical integration as with automobile insurance. This means a single or very few entities which have contracts in place with every provider (doctors and hospitals), negotiated at once and uniformly, so as to achieve criteria C. The single-payer model – which Medicare already uses – is one such solution.
Going further would be the universal healthcare model, which discards the notion of health insurance entirely and creates an obligation for a government department to provide for the health of the citizens, funded by taxes. This means doctors and hospitals work at the behest of the department for the citizenry, or work privately outside the system entirely, with no guarantee of a steady stream of work. Substantial administrative savings would arise, since the number of players has been reduced and thus simplifies things, including the basic act of billing and getting paid for services rendered.
These models could be approached by individual states or by the nation as a whole, but it’s unclear where the Overton window for that idea currently is.
I find it hard to believe that a far market can exist when everyone is required or effectively required to purchase something. If you think of supply and demand, the demand for something like health insurance or legally mandated car insurance is effectively infinite.
The decision to get car insurance or not is not “is the value this car insurance provides worth the money” it’s “is the value this car provides worth the money”. Similarly, the value of health insurance becomes the value of getting any sort of medical treatment, because it’s generally impossible to get treatment otherwise.
This allows the insurance companies to charge rates far beyond the value they actually provide, because they are legal gatekeepers to far more valuable opportunities.
We use libreNMS. Its docs state that it will do this, but we only use the uptime monitoring feature, so I can’t arrest as to how well it will monitor everything else.
I use this too. When SNMP is set up there are loads of things you can monitor with LibreNMS. Much less of a learning curve than Grafana + Prometheus, although the latter probably has some nice tweaks available that SNMP does not provide.
42TiB (I managed to get about 5TiB back by defining remux to be lower quality as “normal” releases in the arr* apps 😎) Now I can finally add more media
kbin.life
Active