Most Uber drivers did not "took a job". Uber drivers originally started as self-employed contractors. Part of that is ability to refuse some rides.
Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of safety.
So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start licking me?
I think differentiator will be in modularity and repairability. Like PC has independent parts (PSU, memory, ssd, graphic card), electric cars could be modular in the same way.
I believe low-cost "city shopping bag" is the future of electric cars and biggest market. And if some sort of modular platform emerges, it will dominate the market. It may even be required by law (like EU requires USB chargers on phones).
I am from EU, but I believe China, India, Russia markets are similar. Look at Dacia Spring or Citroen AMI for examples.
We should really stop using the word "increases" to describe a correlation and use "goes hand in hand with" or something like that.
Same for your usage of "decreases". ;)
Respectfully, you seem to be confusing correlation with causation. A very common mistake.
I don't believe that drowning deaths are caused by ice cream sales either, but I can easily prepare the data in a way that makes that appear like a solid assertion.
Edit: I am intrigued by the downvotes. Perhaps I am wrong and ice cream sales actually do cause drowning deaths.
.> Brocoli, cauliflower, lettuce... all highly recommended by every book. You discover the need for fibers very fast when starting keto.
Exactly, as a chef we had to match the fashionable diets to our patrons and if you include brussele sprouts to that you essentially lined out the trend veg of the last ~4 years.
I go into ketosis when I need too, and have found that prolonged states of ketosis to be too limiting for an enjoyable life if you love food. BUut I cannot imagine anyone who would simply remove veg from thier diet and believe they're healthy, their is a reason many body builder guys end up with colon cancer and intestine replacements due to an exclusively high protein based diet.
I read statistics where 40% of young people do not start family, do not date, and basically withdraw from society. In interviews they blame it on long working hours and rigid rules in society in general.
So maybe there is no conflict, but it is hardly functional.
-Fertility rate was actually lower for a time - currently slightly higher.
-People work considerably more hours per annum.
-Average apartment sizes are lower.
I take such statistics with a grain of salt.
I think that currently they aren't significantly different in this regard than the rest of the developed world.
My anecdata from southern and eastern Europe says that things like stable employment and housing are hard to come by among the Ys and Zs and these are both major hurdles towards starting a family.
I've been to Japan and it's a wonderful place with many benefits. Very low crime, polite people, etc. The language is the only real problem.
The US, though, is vastly more heterogeneous. There are aspects that are far worse and aspects that are far better. And you can choose. There are infamous high-crime neighborhoods with gang problems; you don't have to live in them. Meanwhile want a job making very good money and with flexible hours and a boss that treats you like an equal? non-existent in Japan.
Please expand. Japan is much, much poorer. The work environment is awful in at least two different ways, dualisation and insane levels of presenteeism. It’s quite sexist by European or US standards. What makes Japan look good?
The US's appalling lack of basic social safety nets, specially regarding healthcare, coupled with its poverty rate (over twice of Brazil's) and violence epidemic don't make it a shining beacon of a functioning society.
Just because STEM graduates in the US can aspire to live in a comfort bubble due to their access to a cushy job, that does not make it an example of a well-functioning society by no means.
It makes absolutely no sense to claim that a country has a well-functioning society if it happens to have a hand full of ultra-rich billionaires while the whole population suffers to barely make ends meet, let alone have a shot at a decent life.
> It makes absolutely no sense to claim that a country has a well-functioning society if it happens to have a hand full of ultra-rich billionaires while the whole population suffers to barely make ends meet, let alone have a shot at a decent life.
The US is much, much richer than any remotely comparable entity. Americans do not live the lives of grinding poverty you imagine. The only country or region that consumes more per household is Hong Kong[1]. A comfortable life in the US is available to much, much more of the population than STEM graduates as well.
Please provide a source for the claim that the US poverty rate is twice that of Brazil's. You may be comparing the rates of people below the poverty line for that country. Being below the poverty line in the US is still going to be a higher standard of living than being below the poverty line in a developing nation.
These sort of comparisons should always be crouched in specifics. The US is a country, while Europe is either a continent or an intranational union, depending on what you're talking about.
Would the average person rather live in, say, Belarus or Nebraska?
Why would you give up on freedom and live in a society as rigid (not in a derogatory sense) as Japan's? I'm also European, but I would rather live in US than in Japan. I believe opinions on US differ in Europe, you should have said that it's your personal opinion, if you dislike US that doesn't mean that it has any correlation with the fact thay you are European.
Not OP, but I would guess the simplest formula is to total up (Heath care - gun violence). i.e. the more likely you are to have health care for whatever happens to you, and the less likely you are to get shot, the better.
It's a case of what exactly you view as "Freedom". Are medical bankruptcies freedom?
YMMV, you are welcome to choose otherwise. But I put it to you that this costs vs. benefits is a valid, consistent and informed point of view. If you're asking "Why would you?", then that's why.
> Not OP, but I would guess the simplest formula is to total up (Heath care - gun violence). i.e. the more likely you are to have health care for whatever happens to you, and the less likely you are to get shot, the better.
What in the world does that formula have to do with freedom? If anything, you are trying to maximize for security with it, which is generally in opposition to freedom.
As for bankruptcy, it depends on whether you are talking about chapter 7 or chapter 13. Just kidding, that question was nonsense too. I think you're just trying to shoehorn zingers into the response.
> you are trying to maximize for security with it, which is generally in opposition to freedom.
So you're saying that employees who don't dare leave the corporate job because they really depend on the company's healthcare plan are more free. Cool.
> medical bankruptcy ... was nonsense too. I think you're just trying to shoehorn zingers
Great zinger yourself, bro.
You're welcome to equate a growing precariat who are vulnerable to exploitation as "Freedom", but don't expect that opinion to be universal.
Mine was a meta-zinger, apparently. Though I have no idea what you are trying to say with that multi-fragment quote
So if I read between the lines it seems your ideal is some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare. You're still cool with needing a corporate job for food, clothing and shelter? And you left out the other factor in your equation, which was gun-related stats. I'm still not seeing a coherent definition of freedom there. Still sounds like you want security to me.
> some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare
Heathcare is a good example, but it's hardly the only want. It's worth raising when comparing countries, because it's a notable difference: different flavours of state run or state mandated healthcare is common in the developed world, USA being notable exception, and universal coverage gives people more ... "independence" if you like a different word to freedom.
I think you're assuming an entirely false dichotomy between "security" and "freedom". Along these lines https://www.adammcfarland.com/2017/10/18/would-universal-hea...https://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/why-medicare-for-a... Not to mention the entire notion of "precariat" - e.g. zero-hours contracts are means of control, yet they arise from lack of job security. So lack of security leads to lack of freedom, and presence of security (of healthcare, of income, of whatever) leads to freer choices in these cases.
The original question was "Why would you give up on freedom" not "define freedom!" and I'm not going to focus on a debate on parsing the definition of "freedom", or drawn back into the assumption that there is a single definition, which I rejected above. As far as I am concerned, that is a nonsense-making, derailing tactic.
But losing or gaining healthcare will be a consideration when I decide where to live. Regardless of a "coherent definition of freedom", that is a big Quality of life factor that I will look at. As I mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660947
I haven't posed a definition, just questioned yours. For example, as for healthcare not being the only "want", that is indeed my point. Yes one might twist a definition to make freedom about the ability to freely spend the wealth of other people in a country, without working for it (hence no one in a undeveloped country or primitive lifestyle is ever free, apparently). But the rest of the safety net is obviously more important to that agenda than the difference between voluntarily buying health insurance versus being forced to pay for it. Lack of more basic needs will kill most people much faster. But what is unusual about the need for healthcare is of course the fact that it is unpredictable. Just as with guns and crime (which again, you haven't given an alternative explanation for how it fits in). This is an equation based on fear of danger, i.e. a desire for security. There's nothing wrong with that.
> Yes one might twist a definition to make freedom about the ability to freely spend the wealth of other people in a country
I honestly don't know where this "freely spend the wealth of other people" thing came from. If it's about heathcare, then it's a particular extreme political framing, to which I strongly disagree, but that seems to be missing the point.
> rest of the safety net is obviously more important to that agenda than the difference between voluntarily buying health insurance versus being forced to pay for it.
If you're saying that healthcare access isn't an important issue in the developed world today - in the midst of a pandemic and given the disparities - then again, hard disagree; to the extent that IDK, maybe something is very wrong with your thinking. Maybe it isn't important for you and you can't extend your view past that?
> no one in a undeveloped country or primitive lifestyle is ever free, apparently
My first issue with that is the binary framing, "free or not", no shades or grey or qualifiers, no degrees or kinds.
Then, I have the ability to contemplate changing jobs, changing locations, taking holidays in faraway places, so if you're asking "is this more free than a person in undeveloped country who doesn't have those choices?" It's self-evidently: yes of course.
Access to healthcare is not that different really. Nor is access to education. Or if (true story) you're relatively well off, in a third-world country, and you're going to live with private security, electrified fences, alarm systems etc. You're getting security, but you're less free to come and go. You feel it, constantly. You'd be freer if the crime rate was lower, and the crime rate would be lower if there was less abject poverty. Join the dots.
As for the tradeoff between security and freedom with the guy in the third-world country, absolutely. This is key. To make this point you implicitly agree that the ultimate metric is freedom, however. Crime is just a proxy variables that may or may not relate via second-order effects like the choice to hide behind fences. Sure, if all things were equal a desire for the same level of security as a safer country may lead you to live a life with less freedom. But it also may not. It has been pointed out multiple times here that you don't need to live in a electric-fenced compound in the inner city, you can just move to a safe suburb across town. And all things are not equal. Japan can have lower crime yet be different in enough other variables that, at the end of the day, you still have less freedoms. Hence the parent poster's argument must be addressed with a direct definition of freedom.
Freedom does not translate into gun ownership. That's a very leftist/right-wing thing to say. Seems like people have been hardwired by the media to only think about America in terms of gun violence. When a Yakuza mobster terrorizes a small business in Kyoto, I wonder how a guaranteed medical insurance will help then. Don't forget that Japan is the country with the highest mob involvement in the legitimate economy. If the US gov would shake hands with the Irish/Italian mafia to keep the crime rate low, we would call it a feudal alliance but if Japanese government does systematic coverups, we just call them EFFICIENT.
I am not going to move to Japan for a number of reasons (language and ethnicity for a start) and sure that society isn't either objectively perfect without corruption or prejudice, or perfect for me. So I don't feel the need to defend Japan here (I hope to visit Japan some day!)
However I have seriously considered moving to places in the USA, and I assure you that the question "what is the gun violence to healthcare ratio of that state?" was one of the first questions in my mind. It seems relevant, even though you did not raise it. Both guns and healthcare are representative of a group of related features of the society, of which they are only the most noticeable examples.
> So maybe there is no conflict, but it is hardly functional.
You do realize this is a pretty condescending and closed-minded statement to make no?
It's been said that any developing country going through accelerated economic improvement will have their birth rates reduced by quite a bit. That doesn't make it their society any less functional than say the NRA vs mass shootings, or political gridlocks between parties.
And last I heard Japan was opening up to foreign sources of labour. They are slowly changing their minds and adapting.
In west birth rate declines because people have more options and want to enjoy life. That was not my experience in Japan. They have rigid culture of corporations, education, hard labor and over achievement. Some people just do not like that. There is no communication, because society does not like conflict!
US politics is other extreme, there is no communication, because society loves conflict! It will get started whenever and wherever possible.
I just had a job interview with Deliveroo. There is over 100 programmers in central office, they pay better than some banks. I dont think problem they solve is that difficult.
Are you sure that trend is towards more tolerance? New generations have less sex, are more conservative... And governments are less and less tolerant to anything "disrespectful".
Lysenko was scientist with stellar credibility, he was wrong, but that happens in science. Main problem was not "anti science", but turning science into religion. Unproven theories were implemented too fast, without enough tests and verifications.
Most dog owners have no control over their animals. I have PTSD from dogs, if dog would touch me, I will go into panic attack, and it will not go well for anyone. It is question of safety.
So I have a question for you. As a driver, do I have a right to refuse a drive, if I am concerned that customer will start licking me?