Pain, like sleep, is a super interesting field and specialization, that is somewhat secondary for most medical practitioners.
In physiotherapy, we used to think that structural issues like slipped disks caused pain, but when we started imaging healthy people, we found the same structural issues commonly in the 'healthy' population.
Both how much pain we feel and how sensitive we are to it are things that can be learned. The bullet ant initiation rites of the Sateré-Mawé people are an extreme example.
Apple customers have bought both, even multiples of each, would be willing to pay a hefty premium (e.g. bundle hypervisor entitlement with iPad Pros that have more memory) -- but Apple continues to refuse.
With the recent court ruling that enables non-Apple payment channels, blocking VMs does not protect revenue, but it does hurt Apple customers who want iPads for a quick portable terminal, while using their Macs for extended work sessions.
More cyclists on the road makes it safer for cyclists. Combined with risk compensation, this seems enough to make helmet laws a net negative. Well studied. Wear a helmet though, they work!
A better alternative law would be to provide free helmets. People can choose not to use them out of preference but at least they'll have one to make that choice with.
Everyone that comments that "nothing is free" is just being a pedant in a way that means the conversation can't usually go forward as easily.
People do understand that with government programs, "free" means taxpayer funded. As in, almost everyone understands that. The comment isn't needed. Those comments are the reason I put things like "fare free public transport" - not because it is more realistic, but because arguing with these comments is exhausting.
Society is full of things other people helped pay for - and you most definitely use them. Your health insurance company pools money together to cover everyone's ills, for example. You don't pay individually for your infrastructure use - other people help you pay so that you can get electricity. And so on. You can't have modern society without this.
Saying other things that aren't free doesn't make the first thing become free.
People who don't use helmets don't do it because they are too expensive. They do it because it's not convenient to carry, because it's not cool, because it messes your hair, because you need somewhere to store it. (Not) Free helmets solve zero of these problems, it's just a bad idea.
You are just nitpicking on semantics. If the total cost of publicly funded healthcare is reduced from people using helmets then that could result in not increasing what you are "making other people pay" even though you are also offering helmets at no cost. That is what most people would consider free.
People who don't use helmets for whatever reason would be more inclined to do so if they could just go pick one up, and didn't have to pay for them in a store. Even if those reasons are not that they are expensive. It's a great idea.
Well we disagree. I think there's way more effective things you can do, and this is demonstrated by the netherlands where I live. For an idea to be good it doesn't just have to in theory be net positive, many things can be net positive if you use tax money for them. The problem is we don't have an infinite government or infinite resources or time, so we should pick good measures.
All the cities maintaining a bunch of locations full of helmets for free pickup would just create more waste. I bet people would pick them up and just discard them when it wouldn't be convenient to use them. And nobody wants to pickup and wear a discarded helmet that is dirty and was in the elements so there would be huge waste. You can have a similar effect without any waste by just having a class that teaches children to ride bycicles at school and tells them the benefits of helmets and keeps helmets there for that one class. This memory would be with you for life, and you'd make your own decision.
If helmets were cost prohibitive I'd be with you, I believe in using tax money for that kind of stuff, but price is not the reason people don't use helmets.
I’m not the op of this proposal, I never said it was a good idea (neither that it’s bad, I just don’t know). I just said that IF it was a good idea, it would cost less overall.
Except roads for car drivers and then people wonder about this mysterious infinite latent demand for free roads that they call "induced demand". The demand for things that cost nothing is infinite.
Roads have huge utility to society. Unless you want the ambulance to go get you on a unpaved mess and take you back to the hospital banging all over the back. Or that they fetch you by bycicle.
Well obviously roads have benefits. Nobody is saying to abolish roads. But the marginal benefits of more road density really fall off beyond the minimum of “having a road”. Compare two options within a city
1. Redesign a 2-lane (each direction) highway into a 4-lane highway at the cost of several hundred million tax dollars, over the course of a few years.
2. Leave the highway smaller. Re-zone a city to allow small shops within residential neighborhoods, and up-zone all residential land to allow up to 4-story townhomes and condos. Spend tens of millions of tax dollars building a robust cycling highway, and make it safe for people to accomplish basic errands within a close proximity to their home.
For #2, spending of tax dollars is less and people are healthier. You still have roads, but people need to drive on them much less often.
So when the next city proposes an $840M highway revamp [1], consider how you could spend 10% of that funding to increase mobility around the city for residents ($84M could build a lot of safe separated bike highways). While at the same time allowing private development to make natural improvements to neighborhoods by opening new corner stores and shops along bike routes
Where do you see this convergence? From my perspective, the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis [1] suggests that the current breadth of humanity started from a migration from around 50,000-70,000 years ago. To get from a group that would have probably been quite homogeneous, to the extreme diversity of basically every single thing we see today - physical, ideological, cultural, etc - in such an incredibly short time frame, would suggest to me that even the briefest of moments apart sets us all on radically different courses.
Humans, relatively to most animals, also have an extremely slow generational time, which I think also further emphasizes this divergence. If we assume a low end generational time of just 20 years, even that is as few 2,500 generations, hardly a blink in time on a normal evolutionary scale.
>the near extinction of any professional discussion or capable analysis of design by the people who are doing it.
People don't think through the designs then launch a poorly designed test that can't produce meaningful results. Copy the competition, latest designs, or hope the customer can do it. It's easier to do and defend. Put in the minimal amount of mental labor required to get paid.
Not assigning blame here. These folks all work in an oversubscribed field subject to the whims and opinions of execs focused more on delivering visual appeal or feelings than usability.
It's marketing. It doesn't really matter how usable your product is if people don't want to use it. Many industries make very usable things. Notably the military. They're just ugly.
So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features? Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?
You make a common argument that's deceptively anti-consumer.
Yes, this can be abused - but that's a different argument.
If they sell you a car with heated seats, you should have heated seats. They already sold you the heated seats, you already have the heated seats, and they just want more money for something they already got money for, and you already have.
But they didn't get money for it. They get money for it from the people who enable it. If they didn't get money from people paying for it the effective cost of manufacturing the car they sold you would go up (and they may need to raise the price they charged you to cover it).
Imagine that 1/2 of the owners want heated seats. It is more cost effective to just install the hardware in every car rather than creating a new production line. These owners now need to pay 2x the raw cost of installing the seats (because they need to cover the cost of installing the hardware in the car that won't purchase it) in order to cover the cost (and of course there is some profit margin on top). But this can still be much cheaper than the extra overhead of setting up a second production line. But in this model the price of the car that didn't pay for the seats hasn't changed. The cost increase is covered by those who do pay for the seats. Making two separate production lines would raise the cost (of both models) for no benefit. Adding the feature to all cars would necessitate raising the price for the base (and only) model to cover the additional manufacturing cost.
(Ok, money is fungible so it is a little hard to say anything for certain, but in theory it is rational and fair)
If their business model is broken, it's their problem.
You bought a car, paid for the car, and that car has heated seats. Now they want more money for using hardware you already bought, paid for and received.
I would understand if they had recurring costs with your heated seats (like they do with eg. a music streaming service or something like that), but nope, they sold you the hardware and now are blackmailing you for more money to use something you already own.
Not adding heated seats does not mean a different production line, just one skipped step for the seats without heating, and this was done on every car before they started with this subscripton and "pay extra" crap. This would also reduce e-waste for those who do not want and/or need heated seats.
Do you really want to live in a world, where you have to pay extra to use something you already bought?
You paid for a car with non-functional heated seats. You got a car with non-functional heated seats.
I agree that if people figure out how to easily enable those seats they have a problem. Because now they are getting less payment for those seats (as some people are using them without paying). But that doesn't make it wrong to sell you a car with non-functional heated seat hardware.
> blackmailing you
They aren't blackmailing you. There is no threat. They are making you an offer. They can turn your disabled heated seats into functioning heated seats.
Skipping a step effectively creates a different production line. Now you need to track these inventories separately, ensure stock of each, schedule the production and ensure that various stockpiles around the world have each model. There are very significant cost there. It is entirely possible that this complexity and cost results in more e-waste. But it definitely increases cost.
> where you have to pay extra to use something you already bought?
But you didn't buy it. You bought a car without heated seats. (or with disabled heated seats if you prefer). You got exactly what you were promised and what you agreed to pay for.
You bought a car with functioning heated seats, where the manufacturer intentionally implemented a lockout system, so you can't use them unless you pay. This is like buying a house with an extra room, but the door is locked until you pay. Yes, you own the house, you own the room, you can break the lock, but if a shitty timing chain breaks within the warranty period, the fact that you broke the lock on that room will cause the manufacturer to complain and not want to fix the timing chain because you supposedly voided the warrantly.
>So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features?
They should, it's called buying a different car without those features installed.
>Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?
You are already paying for those features upfront as part of buying the car - there is no recurring expense to the manufacturer. If you do not want or are unable to pay for those features, you buy a different car without them installed.
What you're arguing for is for everyone to have to pay another monthly subscription, and conflating "paying more for a car" with "paying monthly for non-consumable resources for a car".
But this would simply result in both groups paying more for no benefit. Due to less volume both models would end up costing more.
I do agree that making this a subscription is ridiculous, especially such an expensive subscription. But I think making two models of car and raising the price for everyone is illogical.
I'd be happy paying less for less features. Or paying less and then hacking the features in. It's kinda like ad-supported YouTube, pretty nice for me cause I just ad-block.
> So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features? Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?
Yes. I'm sick of concern for the value-conscious dragging down the entire market.
I connected ELIZA to a chat client in the 90s, forgot to turn it off, and someone had a 6 hour conversation with themselves. Their persistence was impressive, and I had no idea how to break the news to them. It ended our relationship.
Hahaha! I'm sorry to laugh at your misfortune, I'm sure it seems very much different to you, but to me: It's hilarious that you stopped communicating with this person because of the awkwardness of the "dramatic irony" that you knew they'd talked with a bot for hours but they didn't.
Dude, you shoulda just told them! Hahaah. But thanks for the laugh, that's classic. Kind of tragic tho :.(
In physiotherapy, we used to think that structural issues like slipped disks caused pain, but when we started imaging healthy people, we found the same structural issues commonly in the 'healthy' population.
Both how much pain we feel and how sensitive we are to it are things that can be learned. The bullet ant initiation rites of the Sateré-Mawé people are an extreme example.
A decent book on this is 'dopamine nation'.