ricecake

It's complicated, because it's American healthcare.

The hospital charges $200k. The insurance agrees to pay a negotiated discounted rate of $100k. $75k goes to the various insurance plans of the doctors and hospital. $15k goes to the people providing care and materials costs (everything is itemized, so then $50 aspirin you see is because it includes the time of the pharmacy tech who got the order, entered it into the system and checked for interactions, the tech who filled the order, the pharmacist who had to sign off on it, and the nurse who carried it to the patient.). $10k goes to the hospital as profit.
The insurance then makes the patient pay their $5000 deductible, which is what you pay before the insurance you pay for pays for anything, then the patient pays their $2500 coinsurance, which is what you pay after the insurance you pay for starts to pay for things but they only pay for half. After that the insurance covers it. The "perk" is that having met your deductible and coinsurance costs you likely have to pay little or nothing for care for the rest of the calendar year, making January to most financially responsible time to have a medical emergency.

In terms of actual "cost", I think the biggest difference is the itemization of everything. Universal healthcare is intrinsically more cost efficient, but it still has to pay doctors and nurses. When that cost is viewed as part of the cost of running a hospital as opposed to part of the service "charged" to the patient it can bring the "list price" down a lot. You end up with the price of a broken arm being the cost to treat a broken arm, not then cost to treat a broken arm and have everyone involved show up and your share of building the hospital room, and the cost of the janitor cleaning the room.

It's time entirely likely they never actually paid anything out of their own pocket. Situations like this are awfully common, so hospitals pretty easily mark a bill as in legal dispute and move on while it gets sorted.

Part of the horrible cycle is that bills are high to cover costs while bills are disputed, which makes them more likely to be disputed.

It's less to avoid situations like this and more to avoid the stresses of travel and having something come up in a situation where medical care might not be available, or leaving you far away from your usual care team, or in a situation where you have a very fresh baby and you live 5000 miles away, which can make for a very rough trip home or a difficult recovery in a faraway place.

It's actually the same in the US. Misery increases the birthrate.

Our birthrate is higher because we traditionally have had a higher immigration rate from countries with higher birthrates.

You're taking what they said a fair bit further than they actually said. They said a class a day for technology literacy, and you reacted like they advocated for nothing except advanced computing.

Teaching tech literacy is part of the basics.
You can say it should be learned on their own time, but why not say that of drawing and color theory? Math, history, civics?
Some parts of primary and secondary education are about teaching you how to live in the society you'll be living in. Technology is part of that.

Yeah, but why bother? They can just turn off the body camera and shoot them in self defense. Same outcome and way less work.

So for the first part, I don't disagree at all. I just don't think the logistics or theoretical necessity is a bearing on the symbolic-ness of it. Same for the effectiveness of it. Even if it changed literally nothing and no one would ever know I still wouldn't shake hands with someone I considered evil.

I don't see defining a subset of what you consider evil, like dissemination of hate speech, to be a downside.

There's a lot of complex questions around a platform curating ideological content which could possibly make them loose certain platform protections. Right now most platforms are roughly content neutral because it allows them to be viewed as platforms, rather than publishers. This is more a response to the claim that there's no reason for them not to remove ice. It may or may not be compelling, but it's a real reason.

As for the use of the word "service", sometimes my hands type slower than my brain thinks. My intent was to convey "those who develop and control the mastodon license". Hopefully my original statement makes more sense in that context.
Those are the people providing the printing press schematic analog. Obviously an idea can't support an ideology in that sense.

I'm not of the opinion either supports them in a way that's worth getting angry over.
We also aren't talking about being angry at ISPs for being willing to deliver packets to and from ice or Nazis, or any of the other entities that do less then the most they could possibly do to distance themselves.

Says the fact that it's come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren't used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been "in progress" for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it's not compatible.

Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.

If you're mad at one and not the other, you're applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.

Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I'm neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it's hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.

So the mastodon service supports Nazis.

nobody owns it and anyone can run it

They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put "free software" and "open source" above blocking hate speech.
They're providing software to Nazis, and I don't really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.

I agree with you. It's just that the "right to remain silent" is the name for the category of right that the fifth amendment provides, not the actual right.
The reason the interpretation is bullshit is because what the actual amendment says is stronger than a simple right to not speak: it's very clearly intended to be freedom from being coerced to provide information that could hurt you. They shouldn't be able to interrogate you at all until you clearly waive the right against self incrimination.
You don't have the literal right to remain silent. You have the right to tell them to stop coercing you, after which they have to end the interrogation.

It's not generally uncommon to have to do something to exercise a right. No one is passively invoking the right to petition their representatives or own weapons. The supreme Court has just unfortunately held that you have to tell the cops to stop pressuring you, instead of them not being able to start.

And that's exactly what I explained. There isn't an answer that doesn't involve the constitution and what judges had to say about things.
considering the police are legally allowed to lie to you, the Miranda warning using the name for a legal concept instead of a more accurate description of the right is about the least abusive thing they can do.

It's not particularly weird for rights to need to be explicitly actioned in general, as an aside. You have to actively get the arms to bare them, write a letter to petition the government, ask for a lawyer and ask them to stop interrogation. Invoking a right isn't weird, but in this case the actual right is freedom from being coerced into self incrimination. They shouldn't be able to start interrogation until you unambiguously waive your rights.