We could have markets run the hospitals but heaven forbid people would consent to their economic interactions.
“Hello! My mother is clutching her chest. She may be having a heart attack. Could you please email me an estimate for the treatment? I’m talking to two other car dealers, and I’ve read all the posts about the 4 square method online, I’m on to your tricks.”
You do need some checks and balances because what’s to stop a hospital from profiting off the insurance companies by asking for a CT scan/whatever of every single patient just because they can.
I suppose we could have the government run the hospitals too. But noooooo, that’s never going to work out because communism or something.
Maybe we should try effective altruism and accelerationism instead? Let’s just hand over all our money to a few tech bros and then we can go beg them to pay for the scans. And if they don’t pay for it, surely someone will come up with a cheaper technology to do the same. Yes, that’ll definitely work.
Bro, which company expected you to do a take home assignment that took 2.5 months? Name and shame the fuckers.
I said “Oooooh right” before you. What now, buddy?
Oooooh right
Adding to that, the opposition to using “they/them” pronouns seems ridiculous too. There are entire countries where using singular pronouns while talking to/about someone is considered extremely offensive and referring to individuals by using plural pronouns is the norm.
If billions of people can manage without getting confused about whether or not you’re talking about an individual or group of people, I’m sure that even the English speakers who are opposed to this because of the “confusion” it causes can do it with very little effort - especially since third person gender neutral pronouns are already a thing in English!
Lemmunity is a great portmanteau of lemmy + community.
Is it a positive to have pathogens that cause dengue/malaria in your blood? Yet we still say that someone tested positive for dengue if they have the virus.
Static analysis tools don’t test for all known issues either, no?
It’s all just semantics dude. :)
You could say “A static analysis tool is testing for the for the presence of defects” or “a medical test is testing if your body is free of diseases that it can detect” to change how you’re looking at either of the tests in the previous comment.
I’m not from the US so correct me if I’m wrong - didn’t the governments of US and Canada give away land in what was essentially “bumfuck nowhere”? Isn’t land still cheap in comparable locations?
If only people who live on the property are allowed to own it then prices might go down a bit. Say 50%, a number that I’m pulling out of my ass. I genuinely don’t believe that demand in cities will let prices go down by even that much. But even with a 50% crash, a shit ton of people would never get to live in a city (someone who just moved out of their parents’ home, someone who is recovering from a loss due to a bad business, someone who just immigrated etc.)
So what would be the solution to those people? Live in a few hundred kms away from the city and commute every day?
As much as I’d like to own property in the city that I live in, I don’t think banning landlords will lower prices enough for me to buy a house here. So, I’d rather rent and live in the city than go live in some village.
Okay, ignore race, consider only religion.
People are born into a religion and are free to leave it or embraced a different religion. It is completely in their choice.
Similarly, people can be born into a family that owns zero to two properties, are free to acquire more or sell what they have. It is completely in their choice.
Why is it okay to judge one group by the actions of “a few bad apples” and not the other?
No, I’m saying that it’s unfair to criticize an entire group of people for the actions of some people who happen to belong to the same group while the rest are perfectly fine contributors to society.
On the other hand, if the sole purpose of the group is to spread hate/cause unrest/violence then I’d be okay with hating the entire group.
Hating landlord-ism as a concept makes sense to a certain extent, but I’m yet to see a realistic alternative provided by anyone. Hating landlords is something that I don’t agree with. --> this seems to be a controversial stance.
Along the same lines, I hate religion but I don’t hate all religious people. --> this isn’t that controversial a stance. They’re both essentially the same to me.
I’m a renter, and my parents have never owned a house, so I’ve dealt with landlords all my life. I don’t agree with “landlord bad”. Are there shitty landlords? Yes. But it’s a leap to go from that to “all landlords are bad”.
Can you imagine the backlash from the same left-leaning group that goes “landlord bad” if you applied the same logic to a racial or religious group?
Landlords serve an important purpose in the marketplace and any uncontrolled rampant exploitation is a failure of the government and not the entire group of people who sell the service.
Did you just call “family” the “minor part of life”‽ Or am I misunderstanding you?
Yes. Hence the rest of my comment. I should’ve probably put a “/s” at the end. :)