It’s the conflict of interest in the “decision maker”

Yeah, but the professional board is kinda like an HOA board. Should be more like a jury of all regular doctors or something.

Really what it should be is that if a doctor prescribes unnecessary care, they should go after the doctor, not the patient. Doctors have malpractice insurance. If the health insurance can’t win a case of malpractice, then they should pay the bill. Why are patients in the midfle here at all.

I think there are a lot of us there. More than lemmy would make it appear.

I’m going with I don’t advocate for violence, but I also won’t condemn this use of it. If I knew a better way to attempt to cause change, I would advocate for that. But it is hard to argue with the result. (Anthem reversal)

Missing the “oh shit need to fix this other thing but I am in the middle of a big change,” flow. I use git stash, but I wish I could include files that haven’t been added and I wish it could be tied to the branch

Conserve thier god given right to exploit everyone and everything for thier short term benefit.

So here is one of the pages I read… https://linux-gaming.kwindu.eu/index.php?title=Should_you_switch_to_Linux_gaming%3F I saw similar sentiment in other places as well. Sounds like you are saying this isn’t the majority opinion?

Overall, I have a strong dislike for apple in general, and I won’t take a job where I have to work with windows ever again unless I am desperate. And I am also getting very tired of Microsoft’s bs. But I don’t want my main home pc to be a project either. I already use Firefox and a vpn. But every time some page doesn’t work right I have to turn off the vpn, and try chrome before I know the problem is on thier end. And it usually isn’t, well other than not supporting firefox and a vpn, but these are banks or doctors offices, I don’t have a lot of choice in most of them. There is only so much of that I am willing to do on my main home pc. But overall, I would like to be part of the solution, as long as I am a target user, which from what I have read, I am not.

Nice. My info was from googling using Linux as a home pc. So it may be a gate keeping attitude or it may be fact. I don’t want to fight with my home pc that just browser the web and plays games. Oh… I guess it runs turbotax in april.

I was reading pages about going linux only. Everyone I read warned people off about how it isn’t easy and such. That was just one example. But for work linux is easier to support, hands down. I have supported both. But for my home pc… which surfs the web, plays games, and not much else… windows is sadly easier according to the pages I read.

Sure, and where the line is drawn now is why more people don’t use Linux. I even use it for work, but still don’t want to deal with the hassle at home. I am getting a new home pc soon, and I thought maybe linux is ready. So I started reading up. No, I do not want to have to reinstall the os several times before I get it right. I don’t want another chore.

Yeah, I don’t consider any moral stance to be “litterally right”. They seem like opposites to me. And clearly philosophy is by definition is a personal view point. Thanks for the history and such. Your comment adds a lot of value to the discussion, which is great to see.

I will agree with you on B and C. Not so much on A. Not saying A isn’t true, just that it isn’t as simple as most people think. And probably is impossible to prove due to all the unknown side effects. An example of a side effect not related to veganism is the effect monocrop farming has on bees. Noone saw that coming until it happened. So changes to what is planted and such to support veganism could turn out to be less sustainable for reasons we can’t fathom. Similar on the “better for the planet”. We can’t really know that. So I wouldn’t put that under “litterally” right. Just probably right. In general I think diversity is better than one thing or the other. In the US the balance is way over toward the animal side. Shifting toward less of that would for sure be good. But going all the way to no animal products will probably have it’s own issues on things.

I just want to ask for more details on the “they’re litterally right” part. Mostly cause I didn’t think the had an official organized statement to be right about. But I don’t really follow them, so maybe I’m missing something.

Yeah I never understood why ads make so much money. Seems like some kind of gift is going on.

Selling personal data at all should just be banned. It says personal right in the name… Giving away free services with forced adds is exploitation in my opinion. The first step to solving the issue is to require everything have a paid option that gets rid of adds and doesn’t sell personal data for additional profit. The hard part with that is preventing them from just setting the price unreasonably high.

Or… do both. Buy premium because you are actually getting something for your money… a platform. And support ad blockers to stop the ads where the product is just a webpage.

But Microsoft designed the system such that they needed a level of access that allowed them to crash it. Microsoft could make changes that allowed the software to do what it needed with protections against letting that software crash the system. Basically a wrapper. Or, it could track updates to software that has such special access, and roll back updates after crashing more than once or something. It chooses not to. So it shares the blame because of that decision.

Insurance is why. They can sell insulin at the prices they currently do, and still sell it to millions. Insurance companies can in turn charge more overall as well, pointing at the cost of insulin and the millions who need it as one of the reasons. So it is win win for both the buyer (Insurance) and the seller.

Yes, but they want money. So why deny us teeth when they can let us have teeth for money. They can make more selling it to millions of people then a few rich people.