I code by hand asking AI specific questions via emacs gptel and claude-code-ide. The ai works in the background as I write. When the answer is complete I context switch back
It is actually not proven that the decimal expansion (or any rational base expansion) of pi contains all possible sequences of numbers. It sounds like it intuitively would be since the expansion is infinite, but it is not necessarily true. For example, the number 0.101001... (i.e., decimal formed by concatenating N zeros and then 1 for all N 0 to infinity) is infinite, never-ending, and irrational but does not contain every sequence of numbers.
Are you paying for the same thing? I can see a doctor or specialist usually within a week. Less if it's urgent. I think wait times in these countries are never mentioned. Paying for a service tomorrow vs paying for one a few months from now are entirely different classes of goods.
> I can see a doctor or specialist usually within a week
That might be true to your specific location and set up, but I have some experience and family in healthcare, both in the US and outside of it, and it is definitely not like that for much of the US.
Possible in some cases, triaging and wait times are a thing in other places too, with the difference being that you don’t get a bill at the end. I have multiple anecdotes from people outside the US having little trouble getting primary care, or even psych care, much faster than what I’ve seen here.
When looking at comparative data, I think it’s worth breaking it down a bit by socio status, for example. In complex systems with a wide spread averages can be misleading. My impression is that we are not seeing the whole story.
Depends on the urgency and the specialist, but generally yes, I can get an appointment in a week. Mental health is the only specialty where I’ve seen multiple months wait times. For a specialist you generally first go through a generalist who gives you a voucher for your insurance. But you can also go directly and pay yourself if you want to skip that step.
Even if you have slightly more wait time, the cost is still way lower. Unless you have a US employer that pays the whole insurance for you (I don’t know if that’s possible)
I'm not familiar with the german system... is it private or public insurance?
As for US employers paying for everything... yes it's common. It used to be that they'd just cover everything via a 'PPO' plan with minimal 'co-pays'. Usually you'd pay $5-15 for a GP, ~$50 for urgent care, and ~$100 for an ER visit.
These days, many have switched to a 'High Deductible' plan, where the insurance comes with a 'max out-of-pocket'. After you've paid that amount, then everything is fully covered, but nothing is covered until you hit the deductible.
My current company has this plan, but puts the entire 'max out of pocket' value in what's called an 'HSA' (healthcare savings account). This money grows tax free and will eventually turn into a retirement account. So, if you have no health issues, then this becomes a free income stream. If you do have health issues, then you just spend this money every year and then insurance takes over and pays for the rest. This is common in the tech world these days... not sure about other industries TBH.
Germany has mandatory health insurances, with both a private and public system. By default you’re in the public system and can opt into private insurances if you have a high income (the threshold increases every year, moving more people to the public system over time).
When you have to pay a co-pay it is 5€ per prescription. You don’t pay for generalists, and do not pay for specialists if you get a recommendation from a generalist first.
There is no deductible.
Not everything is covered though, dental care often has limited coverage (only for the most basic services), so you end up paying yourself.
I never heard of a healthcare saving account, that’s an interesting and strange concept
Because the American Medical Association artificially restricts residency spots in hospitals. There's really not much more to it. This explains the proliferation of NPs, PA-Cs, etc acting as GPs. In reality, we simply need more doctors, so we should uncap the # of spots.
What does the AMA have to do with the Clinton-era cap on federal DGME and IME residency payments? New York spends billions every year, California spends none. These are choices that Congress and California make every year, not the AMA.
This can't be stated enough. I should have my comment w/ citations on standby, but I don't.
The AMA was concerned in the 90s re: "oversupply" of doctors and the impact on doctor salaries, lobbied the Republicans (around the "Contract with America" timeframe) and got language limiting NIH-funded residency slots codified.
The AMA is backpedaling on that stance now but the damage is already done.
A reasonable compromise would be a scheduled increase in the number of slots until it is eventually uncapped. Yes, this will reduce doctors salaries in the long-term. You know what else reduces doctor salaries? Importing medical doctors from foreign countries with worse wages and working conditions, and then grinding these individuals to the ground under the threat of immigration. The market finds a way, whether the AMA wants it or not. As Americans get richer, many are even just going to foreign countries to get treatment. I know several 'third world' countries have fairly good medical care available for very cheap.
Doctors salaries should be reduced, as should nurses and dentists. We pay them nearly twice as much in the US as in countries with socialized medicine.
I mean ... Sure but England has got to stop blaming other countries for their problems too. I mean look at the shitshow that was brexit in which the UK claimed the 20 or so other countries of the EU were at fault for their own issues.
Of course with Brexit bare in mind that the majority of the populace did not vote for it. Many of us are very pro-EU and believe in European social democracy.
Only allow American firms to use H1-B. Most of the H1-B abuse is from the Indian 'WITCH' companies. Why foreign firms are allowed to hire foreign workers in the US is beyond me. For training / administration, there should be another visa type which does not confer family benefits and cannot progress to greencard or whatever.
BUT... at the end of the day, the solution must be passed by congress. Have we all forgotten about Congress since they stopped doing anything?
Most llms can equally engage with text in picture form as text in token form. In fact my initial research on this (later corroborated by actual published papers) indicate that this is a cheap way to save on tokens.
Oh interesting and good to know on the token savings with this technique. My test with claude had it use vision and then programmatically test different variable font input variables (mimicking the user scrub interaction) until it was able to OCR it.
I mean I can't know for sure but I'm pretty sure that by the time the upper layers of the network are reached the lower level networks have already transformed the image tiles into proper position encoded embeddings of the tokens in the words in the image.
This is why I disagree with the zeitgeist that says this is due to economics. We have less kids because people don't want them. If you wanted them you'd have them.
To make sure that wasn't an anomaly or misrepresentative, I also checked https://www.nerdwallet.com/cost-of-living-calculator for Austin vs San Jose and got similar numbers: $150k in Austin requires $288k in San Jose.
You can argue that the Bay Area wins on weather, politics, startup ecosystem or whatever, but comparing taxes or cost of living is not where California wins.
True, but in my experience grandparent is a bit full of it. Yes property taxes are higher, but what op leaves out is that the values of homes are like for like 2-3x more expensive in California. So in the end I would probably pay around the same tax for a like for like home in California as Texas, simply because of the value of the home. Then we must consider the state income tax of California, which is a nonzero differential to that of Texas’ state income tax
Yes people in Texas have to move a ton because as property prices go up so do their taxes. With California, you control how much income you earn. In Texas, people moving to your neighborhood can price you out even after you've bought .
A move for a family can cost thousands. Since the higher moving rate is due to the tax system these costs ought to be counted.
“A ton” is carrying a lot of unverified weight here. Do you have demonstrable evidence that move rates are higher in Texas AND that it’s a result of this AND that people hit this with an actual interesting frequency?
My experience supervising employees in CA and Texas. It's also just an inconvenience on businesses. I'd be giving my Texas employees grace time off all the time to move. My opinion. Sucks to not be able to live in your home
Indeed, but circa 2019 the max taxable amount that the value of the home can rise any given year is capped in Texas. So if you are in that situation yes eventually the taxes will “catch up” and you will pay more every year, but that catch up is capped every year and you know what it is capped to and can plan for it
Because it's cheaper, partially because yes taxes are lower but also because it's just cheaper. The weather makes Texas less desirable than California, and it's almost as if they tax based on that.
So they move to the complete opposite end of the spectrum where not three years ago Texas was human trafficking migrants to other states? Quite the change of hearts.
Even when you look at those rankings that take property tax into consideration, CA is way higher than TX. And the people who see a dime from the CA safety net aren't the ones paying property tax.
Don't take into account the higher appreciation in California .
I disagree about the safety net. I was a high earning California resident (mid six) and when I was laid off, I got my unemployment and my kids got free Medicaid that ended up paying out quite a bit. The safety net is pretty nice.
Since that payout from insurance, my total tax burden in California was actually negative. Had I been in a state like Texas I would have paid less in tax but more overall.
Property taxes are relatively high in Texas but houses are so much cheaper. Also, the cost of living in Texas is far lower than in CA. From an economic perspective, living in Texas is a no brainer.
Texas has high property taxes. This causes people to need to move. It also spurs construction causing prices of homes to stay flat. For the typical homeowner, the total combined appreciation of your home in CA combined with the savings from the no moving property tax once you've been there a while more than covers the California tax burden.
My colleagues and direct reports in Texas constantly have to move as their property appreciates. This alone results in excess cost that is essentially a tax on not being rich.
Lots of states have high property taxes. Texas does not have "insane" tax that's more than California. Everything is cheaper, like gas, food, real estate, etc., in Texas than it is in California, and so California has that additional tax.
> This alone results in excess cost that is essentially a tax on not being rich.
That's everywhere in the U.S. right now. Texas is not an outlier.
How many homeless people in California are actually from the state? Cause it seems like within CA, they move to big cities. Democrats then say that high-valued real estate is causing homelessness, and Republicans blame lack of law enforcement, but I don't see how it's either of those.
Almost none are from out of state. 90% were living in California when they became homeless, and 65% were born in California. It doesn't even make sense as to why a homeless person would voluntarily move to California where literally everything, including food, is more expensive and housing is impossible. Plus, homeless people lack the means to easily move around. California's housing situation is the worst in the country. It even has the lowest percentage of homes actually owned by homeowners.
Not disputing any of the statistics cited, but there is one advantage of being homeless in California compared to other places: favorable weather, especially along the coast. Snow is a once-in-a-generation event outside high-elevation areas, and while it does freeze on some winter nights, it’s rarely below 30 F. There are many parts of the country where temperatures sometimes get low enough to be life-threatening for those with inadequate shelter, heating, and clothing. The coastal areas of California also typically don’t get too hot. Heat is more of an issue inland, particularly the Central Valley and the desert.
This. It’s simply much easier to be homeless in California, one of the easiest places imaginable. Do people think if the state was red that suddenly all those homeless people would become homed? A ridiculous notion.
reply