"UnitedHealth uses AI model with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit alleges" Also "The use of faulty AI is not new for the health care industry."

FWIW, I _think_ I'm not just pedantically correcting a particular number. I think I'm asserting that keeping track of n organizations is roughly O(n^2), so it's not 4 times as much work to keep track of them all, but more like 56 times as much work. I think that's a real difference that requires a different approach.

I get that _you're_ not saying anything re: approach, just terminology. But I think the number matters to this subthread.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_systemically_important... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_systemically_important...

Well, among other things, if anyone makes money selling colored water, it encourages others to sell colored water. It also encourages companies that are trying to sell actual drugs to skip that expensive "testing" phase. Bad money usually chases out the good (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law) so it's likely that we will devolve into a system where very few drugs are adequately tested.

I'm not saying it never happens, but if a law, policy, or agency reduces big corporation profits, then it's almost always because lots of people were dying.

I just can't imagine that people would widespread start using drugs that aren't approved though. That's definitely something to watch out for though.

Or, it might indicate a financial incentive to get consumers to mistrust a barrier to profit. People in the aggregate are not the most rational actors, in no small part due to information asymmetry. Self interest does not necessarily yield optimal or even good results.

For example, take the new trend of waiving inspections when purchasing homes to outcompete other buyers. This is legally allowed in some places and is getting more common in places where it's a seller's market and there's lots of potential buyers.

Now I'm not so pompous enough to think that even after reading a few articles or books that I can reliably tell structural damage from easily repairable shoddy work. At least not enough that on a million dollar home purchase, I could risk being out of a home for a while or a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

But there are some buyers for whom this is not an impediment: ones who have enough capital that a bad house or two wouldn't make a big dent in their bottom line, and ones who don't truly understand the kind of risk they're taking and think they have a decent deal on their hands.

The result is that waiving inspections to buy homes is the new standard to be able to compete as a buyer at all, meaning there is now incentive to not fix serious issues in homes or even patch over them to make them less visible. Financial incentive for selling a better product reduces because the bad ones will sell. Quality of homes on the market goes down. Meanwhile those who can compete to buy the better deals are now a smaller population, but they still need homes. Price efficiency goes down because on average people are buying worse homes for more money.

I mean, I know a bunch of authors. All of them wrote because they needed to write (even the textbook authors). And almost none of them earned much of anything from it (even the textbook authors). One English prof told me that he received almost enough for his morning coffee for about three years. Then he didn't. And he drank just plain coffee.

"The problem for most artists isn't piracy, it's obscurity." "Less copyright" != "piracy", but I think it has the same effect in this case (theoretically less value placed on the work of an author, but not practically).

Also, this might be coincidence, but copyright has gotten extended at the same time as most authors have received less from publishing.

All that said, I want society as a whole to be better, people to have more opportunities to grow, good ideas more of a chance to flourish. I think that overly strong copyright fights against that. And IME (ok, secondhand experience) that 99.9% of the profits added by strong copyright goes to the publishers, not the authors.

A reverse motte and Bailey, if you will. There's a perfectly objectionable issue that we can band together to solve, ignored in liue of the extreme argument that'd take decades in court to resolve.

But aside from that, and the two examples above, 1. x.com (the original) 2. tesla has been killing way more people since he retroactively became a founder (there was a delay while existing products moved through the pipeline) 3. solarcity 4. optimus 5. neuralink (well, ok, it hasn't failed yet. But _I'm_ not betting on it...) 6. the Tham Luang cave rescue 7. crypto 8. his relationships with his kids / exes

TBF, spacex appears to be his baby, and it has done _much_ better than I ever thought it would. There are rumors about the existence of a whole team there preventing him from breaking things, and personally, I believe them. But I have nothing _remotely_ like proof. And even if those rumors are true, spacex appears to have been his idea, he hired the first batch of people, etc. He can definitely take loads of credit for it, even if I don't think he deserves as much of said credit as he clearly thinks he deserves.

These days they have plastic (I'm sorry "composite") gears, and do not appear to be designed to be serviced, just replaced. My ex broke three of them attempting to make bagel dough.

There is the supremacy clause, but goodness knows where that would end up here. _Everything_ involving real money or power seems to make it to the supreme court these days, and who knows what the political landscape will look like by the time it does (yes, I am asserting that the supreme court has become more political than it used to be, _and_ that it used to be pretty political...).

The First Amendment as it is literally worded is, since it specifically says "Congress shall make no law...". But the rest of the amendments have no such restriction; they just say certain things shall not be done, period. Given the Supremacy Clause, that means those provisions should apply to all levels of government, not just federal. (Granted, the courts originally did not interpret them that way, but IMO they should have.)

That said, current jurisprudence, regardless of the literal wording of the bill of rights, is that they apply to the States, even the First Amendment. IIRC most Supreme Court decisions along these lines have cited the Fourteenth Amendment.

Taken literally, yes. But legally, many (but not all) for the rights have been 'incorporated' to apply to the states. This includes First Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

That hasn't been the case since the ratification of the 14th Amendment way back in 1868.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Courts have repeatedly held that the Bill of Rights does apply to the states, by means of this so-called "due process clause" in the 14th Amendment.

Edit: changed "incorporation clause" to "due process clause", as that seems to be the name under which it is more generally known.

> “We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.

The media simply doesn’t cover this for obvious reasons.

The media is corporate and pro union actions aren’t good for them either.

Note that the "Known for" section on his main page has 119 elements. But they're not all named after him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Leo...

"In an effort to avoid naming everything after Euler, some discoveries and theorems are attributed to the first person to have proved them _after_ Euler."