InexSquirrel

Interesting - that's actually the hardline for me I refuse to cross. I will just refuse to use a service at that point if it 'requires' me to hand over a government ID.

I get pissed off enough when I have to do stupid anti-money laundering facial scan BS.

I feel like the >(cost!!) factor can't really be overstated there. IF you have money then you can get healthcare, if you don't, then you're out of luck. It's a massive gate which needs to be passed, and if you can't pass, then you're locked out with no alternative.

That doesn't sound great to me (read: broken), because it means its not evenly accessible across your society. I wouldn't count that as a good system to be honest.

I have limited experience with the New Zealand and Japanese medical systems, and from a similarly arms-length engagement with them, I think I would prefer them over everything I've read about the US system. You still have the same issues with having to advocate for yourself, but you can at least get access to good healthcare across the board - and if you go private (which as a late 30s / early 40s guy, cost around NZ$60 / month), you can get access to care at private facilities much faster than via public.

It is most definitely imperfect, but it _is_ designed to be accessible to everyone.

Haha I think you're correct there.

I've had the opposite experience. I've found more middle class people who have a broader education (art, science, technology, literature, etc), than supposed 'elite' people.

I remember a particularly fun conversation where a very wealthy individual (one of the said 'elites') was in a conversation with a lead scientist from one of the CRIs here, and starts going off on a tangent about the energetic components of ley lines and their personal significance to him. Similar views against vaccinations etc etc.

Because of the definition of elite centering around money, power and 'hard' education (e.g. a PhD in a hard science), I've found those people to generally be more shallow but hyper-focused in fewer areas. They may very well achieve highly in that given area, but tend to be uninteresting and unbalanced in most other areas.

I've similarly observed those people to as emotionally unbalanced as the rest of us, but in some cases more childish and petulant when they feel they've been wronged in some way.

Maybe what we're both describing are the extremes of the curve, I'm not sure.

Interesting - you're correct. And the definitions say nothing about morality or ethics, only 'hard' factors that include intellectual pursuits, wealth and power.

Dunno. Just feels like it reinforces my view unfortunately. But a good call out anyway.

I see, thanks.

Personal gripe - but I absolutely despise the term 'elites'. The emotive implication is always that there is a group of people that are just categorically better than everyone else, but on closer examination you find an equally (if not more so) flawed group of people which exhibit some of the worst traits and characteristics towards their fellow humans.

Beyond their ability to extract money from anyone around them, I fail to see what is 'elite' about the group of people we currently assign the same classification to.

I'm probably just salty that I'm not rich, is all...

> as a woman, you can't quickly assess whether a partner will be compatible with you or not without investing substantial time and effort.

I... don't understand. Why do you think this is true for women but not men?

That's because the hate is often from different groups of people. I think it's rare really for people to universally align on any stance, given what we've been seeing for a while now.

Was thinking this too. My parents are both avid birders, and I think it would make a fun addition to the house.

Did... you read the article? I get the feeling you just heard the word 'wild dog' and assumed 'feral domesticated canine'. That's not what they're talking about. They're talking about a dog species native to Southern Africa (not Europe, and certainly not in Bulgaria) and there long before humans turned up. Think of it as the African version of the wolf. In terms of being a natural predator in the area, they sit in line with leopards, cheetahs, lions and hyenas - not domesticated dogs.

If wolves started encroaching on human settlements and were attacking life stock or worse people, I don't think the solution is 'kill all the wolves'. It's about re-location, better boundaries, and honestly stopping expansion-at-all-costs as a societal philosophy.

If you're talking about feral domesticated dogs - which tend to roam urban areas, then I'm largely in agreement with you. However we're talking about native species which is currently threatened and without intervention will be driven to extinction.

Interesting, I'd kinda lost interesting in the last few seasons were Rick was just a straight asshole with no real growth (or even teasing of growth). Just watching characters treat each other poorly isn't a particularly fun pass time.

That said, I'll try a few new episodes and see if it clicks.

I think NPC is the wrong terminology here - everyone should be the main character in their life - to have meaning and agency. But I think the problem arises in how 'main character' is defined and expressed - having the idea that you're supposed to 'do great things' and live this larger-than-life, life.

You don't have to save all the rhinos, defeat every poverty, slay every social cause or overthrow every tyranny. If anything it's arrogance to assume you can, or even should - that your specific brand of saving anything is even correct.

If you look at most people that do well for themselves and have good lives, they live narrow focused lives in domains they care about. They're very much the main characters of their own lives, but also recognize there are other characters running around doing their own things as well.

I think using the term NPC would be more apt if you're referring to someone that's purely on autopilot and not making any effort to ensure that they're leading a life that is meaningful to them.

Does typing count? What does it mean to not work with one's hands in this context?

I think this is a bit of cynical take, but that entire article to me seems to be the author as trying to just say "you didn't want it bad enough". A position I've always hated because it makes every failing a personal one. If that's the learning took away from their wrestling career, it's the wrong one.

But I did like the idea of them not being entirely clear about their own motivations, even to themselves - and that is a dangerous cave to play it.