This doesn't seem to be relevant to the comment you replied to. They didn't mention anything about paying less to pharmaceutical companies, they argued that the administrative overhead of providing the insurance itself is lower.
As I read it, your argument seems to be that American healthcare must be more expensive than similar-quality healthcare elsewhere because we're paying higher pharmaceutical prices to fund research. If we accept that premise, shouldn't that mean that:
1. The "medicine" portion of costs increases, causing the total cost to increase
2. Administrative effort, and therefore absolute cost, remains the same (we're paying X% more for drugs, not thinking X% harder about whether a given drug is needed by a given patient)
3. Administrative overhead as a percentage of total cost should be lower given a similar efficiency level, because higher drug prices inflated the divisor (total cost) while having no effect on the dividend (administrative costs)
This is extra rough because Codex defaults to letting the model be MUCH more autonomous than Claude Code. The first time I tried it out, it ended up running a test suite without permission which wiped out some data I was using for local testing during development. I still haven't been able to find a straight answer on how to get Codex to prompt for everything like Claude Code does - asking Codex gets me answers that don't actually work.
Honestly I think React DX kinda sucks, at least in some areas. Performance is one of the worst (`useMemo` and `componentShouldUpdate` are way to easy to ignore, constant re-renders are the norm and writing performant React code requires conscious effort to avoid footguns) but it's also just less self-explanatory than the alternatives I've tried.
I started doing web dev before reactivity frameworks were a thing, and I found Vue to be the most intuitive of the frameworks available when I first needed reactivity. To me, Vue feels like HTML with superpowers while React feels like a whole new way of thinking about webapps. I'm honestly a bit surprised that the article doesn't mention Vue, since Vue is (and has been for a while) the most popular "not React or Angular" framework option. Newer versions of Vue even support the "disappearing framework" feature Svelte was built for, which I'm excited to take advantage of when my biggest work project finally moves to Vue 3.
It's been interesting seeing several comments like this in the comments, since Laravel's docs may be one of the most highly-praised aspects of the framework. I suspect the divide may be that newer developers get everything they need explained in the docs in clear language, but the more advanced stuff requires some digging.
I use Laravel personally, and I've definitely seen both sides of this myself. For basic "happy-path" API reference, the docs are great. If I really need to understand how the framework is doing something, I pretty much always end up diving into the code. Unfortunately the heavy use of Facades can sometimes make it annoying to find the underlying code.
I disagree, at least in this specific context. With Laravel Cloud you build a standard Laravel application which can be deployed anywhere, then use the service to handle DevOps for you. Because it doesn't include any unique services of its own, you can always decide to hire a DevOps team and run all the required services yourself.
You're totally correct in scenarios where you need to build your project around the service, but this service is specifically a DevOps shortcut with no lock-in.
Should your Fortune 500 company use this? Maybe not. Should a one-man dev shop use this? Quite possibly - you pay for the convenience, but it frees up more time to improve your application.
This is true, if you're billing your hypothesis as a hypothesis. The problem is that prominent Republicans billed their "election was stolen" hypothesis as a fact, claimed to have boatloads of evidence in order to convince the public, and then never published that evidence.
In the aftermath of this clearly deceptive behavior, they've maintained the support of Republican voters who still believe the lie despite none of the evidence ever being released.
It's one thing to claim something is true and that you have evidence, then release the evidence and find out that it's insufficient to win in court. It's another thing entirely to make a claim, say you have overwhelming evidence to support it, and never release any evidence at all. In the former case, maybe you got overzealous or maybe you were dealing with an unsympathetic judge. In the latter, the only rational way to interpret the situation is that you were intentionally misleading your audience.
It's well established that adults who read incorrect information frequently don't find out it was wrong and become more skeptical of the source. Some people operate that way, but it's a small minority unfortunately.
In particular, it's been shown that people with dogmatic beliefs strengthen those beliefs when shown evidence to the contrary rather than questioning them.
Moderated media leans left. At least some of the reason it ends up that way is that many of the people who violate incredibly reasonable rules are conservative. Certain groups of hard-right people will say some incredibly bigoted shit that's absolutely out of line and makes it impossible to have a civilized conversation, then they complain about getting banned and drag a bunch of moderately-more-reasonable people with them when they leave. Once those people leave, normal everyday non-asshole conservatives realize the platform has less conservative content and leave in search of spaces that they feel respect their viewpoints more. In some cases entire topic-groups get banned (/r/the_donald is a good example) for legitimate reasons that frequently involve a small extremely-active group of members, and the rest of the members will also leave the platform because all they see is that a group they were part of got banned.
People who lean to the left tend to believe that it's bad to do some of the things that get you justifiably banned (such as intentionally using language that demeans people based on immutable traits). Because of this, it's much easier for them to avoid being deplatformed.
Assuming that random factors like "it rained" or "voters got in car accidents and couldn't make it to the polls" aren't a significant factor, there's always a 100% probability of one specific candidate winning since everyone has made up their minds before the day of the election. What polls do is not telling you the real-world probability, it's telling you the likelihood of a given outcome given known data.
Polls always need to be skewed in some way to be accurate, since not everybody will vote. You can't just get a random distribution of the population's preference and assume the more-preferred candidate will win. Polls can never be truly accurate because people will lie about which candidate they're voting for and whether they're planning to vote, and sometimes people who genuinely intended to vote never make it to the polls. There are a huge number of variables to consider when trying to predict the outcome of the election, but it's important enough that it's still worth trying.
Serious question - what do you think will happen to AI that currently relies on human reporters if everyone switches to getting their news from AI and the reporters lose their jobs?
Morals aside, AI will run into serious problems in 10-20 years when the world has rearranged itself around AI content. With less non-AI content available and no reliable way to differentiate AI vs non-AI content, there will no longer be a dataset to train against.
Individual humans summarizing the news can reduce revenue for news organizations slightly, but AI summarizing every news article is a problem on a whole different scale. Basically the same as the difference between getting a mosquito bite and being stabbed in your carotid artery - both are just blood loss, but one is a minor annoyance and the other is fatal.
I'll confess - I have a project that uses Heroku's managed Postgres and my preferred upgrade method is to set the maintenance window to the middle of the night, create a backup, and be awake at 1am to make sure that nothing is broken after they force the upgrade. Their auto-upgrade process hasn't failed me so far, but there's no way to manually trigger it.
Proposal: Apply a ceiling function to your pizza-counting algorithm and always leave the last slice in the freezer. Then simply throw out that slice when you want a new pizza!
Depends how you define "a lot" - rural areas make up 20% of the population of the US, so you might need some rural voters but not necessarily a lot (percentage of actual voters may vary, but I don't have those numbers handy).
I'm not totally sure that your numbers are correct, at least for presidential elections. Philadelphia's split in 2020 was 81% for Biden and 18% for Trump.
I think it's easy to say that as someone who wouldn't vote for them, but the Republican party faces the same problem as the Democratic party there. Many Republican and Democratic voters only choose their party because they think it's slightly better than the alternative. As someone who sits firmly on the left side of the aisle I'm strongly motivated to vote, not because the Democrats offer meaningful progress but because they're holding the line against political actions I see as abhorrent.
I think what Tauri is getting blamed for is the decision to always use the native web renderer, which IMO is fair because that was a design choice they made.
Personally I think the ideal scenario would be allowing developers a choice between:
1. Use the native OS renderer
2. Bundle a specific version of some renderer (most likely Chrome)
3. Use a shared library for the renderer (this gets a little trickier with sandbox-based security models, but allows Tauri to ship a renderer without ballooning the bundle size of each individual app)
As a user, I'd be happy with a combo of #1 and #2. Use the native OS renderer by default, but allow me to install a "known good" renderer if I run into problems. Since it sounds like MacOS and Windows both ship better native web renderers than Linux this would likely be an option mostly used by Linux users, who are on average more willing to poke around in the settings to enable a compatibility option.
Yeah, the anxiety with serious food allergies is real. I haven't had a reaction in nearly 22 years and I don't even remember what it feels like, but religiously avoiding a dangerous food from a young age you can have some long-term mental effects. I was super responsible about it even as a young kid, but now I'm a picky eater and occasionally have a mini anxiety episode after eating new foods.
The question is whether children who are already in school are likely to develop an allergy due to lack of exposure at that point in their lives. If the answer is no, the only downside is parents having to make a different sandwich for lunch.
I'm allergic to peanuts and none of my schools banned peanuts. When I was in elementary school, another kid chased me around with a peanut butter sandwich for a couple of minutes before the teachers were able to stop them. I'm not saying this will happen to all kids, but the options for bullying get kinda scary when an everyday food can kill you. Kids at that age may not understand how serious allergies can be, so there's also the more mundane risk of a child with an allergy trying somebody else's food without knowing it contains allergens.
Later on in middle school there was a single peanut-free table, where kids were eating peanut butter sandwiches for lunch every day before I arrived. Fortunately they were willing to bring something else once I told them I actually needed the peanut-free table to be peanut-free.
A while back I was using Simple as my bank because their app was the best budgeting tool I'd been able to find. Once it shut down I moved to a spreadsheet, and by comparison it was super painful. I basically replicated the app's functionality as a webapp, with a few tweaks to better fit how I was using it. Currently I'm still entering transactions manually, but I'm slowly building a Plaid integration to automatically import transactions. I'd probably have it done by now, but my current bank made some changes that prevent me from connecting it to Plaid so I'll have to change banks again before the integration will be able to pull in 100% of my transactions. I can't say it'll never be publicly available, but I don't have any current plans to release it.
I wonder what the definition of "developer portal" is here exactly... It's definitely possible to make a bad one by requiring an onboarding process to access it and hiding information from the public, but I think there's room for good too. As long as your goal is to make integration work easier and not to gate things behind a registration process, a developer portal has the potential to be a good thing.
A little while ago I worked on an integration where I had to implement API endpoints with specific functionality defined by the integration partner, and I found the test functionality they built into their developer portal very helpful. Rather than having to write tests based on their documentation to verify I was implementing the endpoints correctly, I was able to test against the real code on the other side of the integration.
Honestly for companies that require you to log in before accessing API docs, I imagine the decision is being made by non-developers. I suspect the alternative would be getting a PDF emailed to you after having to ask a real human for it.
Yeah, I think the education system's expectations for reading comprehension went down the drain a while ago. When I was in middle school I scored well enough on the reading comprehension section of my state's standardized test that my guidance counselor scheduled a meeting with my parents to talk about it. All I had to do for the test was read a very simple recipe and pick out basic information (e.g. how many eggs are listed in the ingredients), so I was pretty surprised when the school thought it was a big deal.
I did read a lot as a kid just because I enjoyed it, so I was definitely reading above my grade level, but that performance really shouldn't have put me so far above everyone else on the test.
As I read it, your argument seems to be that American healthcare must be more expensive than similar-quality healthcare elsewhere because we're paying higher pharmaceutical prices to fund research. If we accept that premise, shouldn't that mean that: 1. The "medicine" portion of costs increases, causing the total cost to increase 2. Administrative effort, and therefore absolute cost, remains the same (we're paying X% more for drugs, not thinking X% harder about whether a given drug is needed by a given patient) 3. Administrative overhead as a percentage of total cost should be lower given a similar efficiency level, because higher drug prices inflated the divisor (total cost) while having no effect on the dividend (administrative costs)