If a take-home or anything else (automated half-hour online test or whatever) taking more than a couple minutes and not requiring as much time investment from them as you comes before they've winnowed down much of the field—if it's used as any kind of screener—I'd be out. That time's better spent sending more applications (or, IDK, drilling leetcode) if there are more than a very-few candidates still in the running for a given position.
If you want early stage bulk screeners, go for it, I'm sure you need them, but don't take much of my time or the math don't math.
In his first campaign especially, he talked exactly like a normal Republican voter. They say shit like "why don't they just build a wall?" (or they might suggest planting minefields along the border, super-common suggestion from R voters) and hate trade with China (so does a good chunk of the left... neoliberalism was never popular, "both sides" of politicians just agreed on it, until Trump) and want to lock up all the democrats and simply round up and deport all "the illegals" by any means necessary. His stuff he's doing with the military, sending them in to cities? They love that shit, they've wanted it to happen for years, they don't understand the legality, that they have hilariously wrong understandings of what cities are like due to propaganda and their own lack of experience with them, any of that, they just want "scumbags" beat up and thrown in vans. Truly, talk to them, I'm not exaggerating.
That's how he won, he exploited the gap between Republican voters and Republican politicians. As soon as I heard him sounding exactly like your average R voter chattin' at a diner, I knew he was dangerous and we were in for a wild ride.
The current far-right effort started with the postwar "think tank" boom, and that crowd has been working (successfully) to bend policy and law so they can enable and guide the creation of massive right-wing propaganda networks since the 70s. Fox News, Sinclair Media, a handful of dominant AM radio and now podcast production & distribution networks, and so on.
This isn't recent; we've been heading this way for decades, and not by accident.
absolutly but i think a big percentage of the young Rep votes have been entirely endoctrinated by a handfull of social media voices who would have hated the traditionnal rep propaganda. I wonder how american politics would look today without the 3 idiots and their friends
> When I had a bad experience at a chain pharmacy 10-ish years ago I spent less than an hour, googled "independent pharmacies" and found the National Community Pharmacists Association. They have a locator for locally-owned independent pharmacies and I switched to one of those.
The sole local thing I've been missing around here is a pharmacy that's not fucking CVS, which is awful (and Walgreens isn't better). I hadn't been able to find one using Maps.
Just tried this tool, very hopeful. There are six CVSs closer than the nearest independent pharmacy, literally a dozen towns closer to me than any of these independent pharmacies, and not a one with a non-megachain pharmacy in it :-/ Not driving 25ish minutes each way when we have to go two or three times a month (kids with regular prescriptions). Bummer. I really, really hate CVS.
> And before you say "there's no other option" you're wrong, unless you live in a deep rural area where the nearest store is 20 minutes away and is a Dollar General, you are wrong.
This varies greatly regionally. From what I can tell the places with the healthiest local business options are ones where not just some neighborhoods or a town or two are (relatively) rich, but the whole area is rich, and at least somewhat densely populated. Which makes sense, but is sad for all the small towns out there with people really ideologically dedicated to "local business"—there's a reason those struggle and often fail within a year or two, in those places, and it's because there's no money in the area.
> Which makes sense, but is sad for all the small towns out there with people really ideologically dedicated to "local business"
Pretty much everyone (excepting accelerationist communists, who would see near-monopolies as a failure mode of capitalism and thus desireable, as it would tend to hasten the collapse of the system) agrees that it's preferable to have more small businesses, vs near-monopolies; _that_ isn't really an ideological question. The disagreement is on what makes a good environment for small businesses. The US right would have you believe that it's all about low tax and low regulation, but the evidence doesn't seem to be on their side.
It's interesting to note that the US actually has rather few SMEs per capita for an advanced developed country; pretty much all countries in high-regulation high-tax Western Europe have more. Sweden has about five times more.
(Personal theory is that a big part of it is healthcare and other social safety nets; it must be really, really scary to leave your secure job to start a business in the US, unless you have a big pile of cash to fall back on.)
I don’t get drawing a distinction. If a company has it, there’s at least one government out there that either also already has it (some telecom companies just give them data portals, for example) or can any time they choose.
Corporate surveillance is government surveillance. Always has been.
I think the author needs to shop at "richer" places for the treatment they want. Service is rich-people shit, and they're evidently not spending rich-people money. Inflation may recently have fucked up their expectations. It's been rough, I get it, I feel like I've dropped a "class" or so, too, just as I was clawing my way into upper-middle.
$300 full-retail for two pairs of sneakers in the downtown of a major city is not rich people money anymore, the goddamn trash-tier sneakers for my kids at Kohls often cost like $50+ a pair—on clearance. That's dead-center middle-class spending now, and the middle class has had shit service a long time.
I get it. $100 sneakers should be premium. $150? Pft! If you're somewhere that stocks those, it's gotta be nice, right? I mean damn. But not so much any more.
I suspect there's something similar going on with the rest of what they're seeing. Though yes, I agree that the middle class once again receiving any amount of actual service instead of constant attempts to fuck them over and nickel-and-dime them would be rad.
> I think the author needs to shop at "richer" places for the treatment they want.
I think this is the mentality that’s killing the service industry. When I order a $5 coffee that’s basically just a person pouring some coffee in a cup, they expect 30% tip for the service. The swinging the obnoxious iPad with the ridiculous tip amounts for basically doing your job is what is wrong with everything right now. It may not be the worker’s fault but it is what is wrong from a customer experience. Like you could order a cheeseburger and it’s missing the fries that come with it, and you’d be the asshole to point out that they’re missing in your to go bag after paying $30 for it.
I will not tip for just facilitating a transaction. There has to be some actual service for me to tip. No offense to the employees at Crumbl Cookies, but putting the cookies I asked for into a box is not tip-worthy.
Yep. There's a clothing store here in town that has top-notch service. Salespeople who can measure you, find the right size or arrange alterations, know everything they sell. But the cheapest shirt they sell is probably close to $200.
You’re going to have to do more work to prove the size of the problem is equivalent or larger than the well documented issues with insurance, before you can start pinning the blame on them as a why.
If the doctors are causing like 1% of the issue, it’s not likely to be worth the time and energy to rectify vs if you can point to it being like 50% of the issue.
I’m pulling those numbers out of my ass so don’t feel like I’m trying to hold you to the literal values but I’d need to see _some_ data to even consider supporting changes to the AMA and laws surrounding them
I did a ton of looking into this over the years. That everything is a little bit at fault, is why if you exhaustively eliminate (say) insurance overhead, it leaves a weird amount of the elevated costs intact.
Thinking you’ve found the one main reason makes it easy for opponents of reform to dismiss your solution, because you haven’t found it, because there’s not a main reason. It also means “cut private insurance out of the process” doesn’t fix it
Consider: public insurance schemes in the US spend far more for some given amount of care than peer states do, even as provides complain these programs don’t pay enough—that latter part is because all their vendors, suppliers, and personnel demand more money than their counterparts in the rest of the OECD states. Every single part of the system costs too much.
Switzerland pays more than us for doctors, barely, but also has unusually high healthcare costs for Europe (though not as bad as ours) and is richer than the US. Luxembourg is close but is an outlier for basically everything, they crush us in median income and such as well. Bermuda, a little lower, but it’s an island nation (everything’s more expensive) and, like Lux, richer than the US, another outlier. Nearest comparable looks like Australia, paying doctors an average (this avoids missing the effects of crazy-expensive top-end specialists, as a median might) about 76% what we do. The rest of the OECD’s lower than that.
You want one thing that is contributing, but such a trivial amount that it’s hardly worth addressing until everything else is fixed: it’s doctors’ liability insurance. They really want to reduce that cost, for obvious reasons, and Republicans want to fix it because… they hate poor people who’ve been harmed being compensated “too much” I guess… and it does contribute to higher costs, but very little compared to practically everything else. That one gets way more attention than it merits.
The unifying factor of other countries’ healthcare schemes that keeps them cheaper than the US doesn’t seem to be that they’ve minimized the role of private insurance (some haven’t!) but that they have explicit (like government-set price lists) or or implicit (via e.g. monopsony) price controls. It seems like you can use any of several approaches, some of which keep private health insurance in a prominent role (Switzerland! Though they at least have the good sense to force them to be nonprofits, IIRC) so long as you have, one way or another, price controls.
The only near-exception to this I’m aware of is Singapore, but… it’s Singapore. Plus they do have some explicit price controls, and I think it’s fair to say healthcare providers there might consider there to be a persistent, credible implied threat of more price controls or even harsher measures from the government, should prices rise too much, because… it’s Singapore.
[edit] FWIW I do think fixing the insurance situation is an excellent place to start, even the best starting point, and that the insurers in the US are probably beyond salvaging through integrating them into a better system, and should just be eliminated or their role drastically reduced; I think this would make less progress toward fixing prices than some suppose it would, though would still do a lot for that, but it’d, crucially, fix most of the hidden costs of our system, like patient-hours lost to waiting on hold to try to get insurance to pay what they’re supposed to, HR folks messing with insurance-related issues, et c, which are huge and don’t make it into straight cost comparisons with other countries because those aren’t “healthcare costs” (putting a dollar value on that would make us look even worse than we already do)
That is interesting information and probably worth rectifying if it all holds true but I want to be clear that my contention was with the framing of the comment that made it sound like the AMA getting doctor pay higher was _the_ reason not _a_ reason
What's the error? I'd hyphenate "poorly-composed" (most wouldn't these days, but they can go to hell) and I think it's a bit too wordy for what it's communicating, but I don't see what I'd call an actual error.
I would personally avoid writing that "poorly composed sentences" have an "affect"—rather than the writer having or presenting an affect, or the sentences' tone being affected—as I find an implied anthropomorphizing of "sentences" in that usage, which anthropomorphizing isn't serving enough useful purpose, to my eye, that I'd want it in my writing, but I'm not sure I'd call that an error either.
What did you mean?
> Commas and parentheses can do it all, and an excess of either is a sign of poorly edited prose.
This attitude, however, is a disease of modern English literacy.
I meant "affect" and not "effect." You need to learn what affect means. I'm not asking you to learn about affect theory, but ffs no part of my sentence implied it meant "effect" and not "affect." Ugh. It doesn't even make sense. What would the "effect" of "poorly composed sentences" be? Only affect makes sense there.
Psychology., feeling or emotion.
Psychiatry., an expressed or observed emotional response.
Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.
Obsolete., affection; passion; sensation; inclination; inward disposition or feeling.
Now let's replace that in my original phrase:
> prose intending to imitate the affect of poorly composed sentences
becomes
> prose intending to imitate the feeling or emotion of poorly composed sentences
My point was that the author is trying to convey a specific feeling by way of poorly composed sentences. Perhaps they want a colloquial feel or a ranting feel or a rambling one. An obvious example would be the massive run-on sentence in Ulysses.
