fweespeech

> I don't know, is everyone's LinkedIn experience as miserable as mine was?

I just ignore my feed and rely on it as an address book of people I can contact in my industry / previous places of employment. I don't really want 3000+ phone numbers without the related metadata of where we overlapped.

> I don't understand why we're talking about spending trillions so flippantly and none of it has anything to do with health care.

Private health insurance has its bribes paid up.

The corporations this bill has a negative impact on are pinning their hopes on Joe Manchin because they can't afford to bribe the entire Democratic party.

> Are bipartisan bills a thing of the past?

Did you ask this question about all the partisan bills passed by the GOP when they were in power? And if so, was the answer not the same?

> I don’t have any sources, but I thought a sizable segment of the voting public in the US favored bipartisanship.

In the abstract, yes. In reality, politicians get punished for failing to deliver on campaign promises and the GOP obstructs campaign promise success using any means possible. So its political suicide for a Democrat to rely on that. Which leads to:

> Just wishing we weren’t so polarized…. Also wishing I better understood what interests were pushing the polity towards polarized ideologies. I’m not convinced it’s a completely organic phenomenon (rather, that there are special interests benefiting from the polarization).

Yup. Its called oligarchy and its the real government model of the US at this stage. Polarization is really just two camps of rich people fighting it out with PR/political campaigns. More polarization leads to better viewing and better base turnout.

One group of rich people who think the rich should be taxed more, that climate change should be tackled, etc.

And one group of rich people who want lower taxes and to obstruct the first group.

> 1. I don’t want my healthcare to be provided by the same people who brought me a lifetime of experiences at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The public option still doesn't create that situation because its health insurance. They still aren't going to be healthcare providers.

> 2. Healthcare is expensive. I’m already paying for healthcare for my family; why would I want to pay for healthcare for others as well?

You already are through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Hospital System. In the articles example, you have people waiting until 65 to get more expensive surgical intervention that is less likely to preserve their life due to the wait.

> 3. Good healthcare is expensive and I can afford and buy the best health insurance. I don’t want the best to be unavailable to me and my family because we’re all on a “just OK” government system.

Under a public option system, you'd still be able to buy private insurance. No one is banning this.

I think its misguided because the quality of insurance doesn't guarantee the quality of doctor and frankly, unless you are a specialist in their field, its unlikely you'll be able to accurately gauge the quality of care you receive. I've known plenty of people in the profession of manufacturing dental implants/equipment who thought they could judge the quality of their dentists and failed miserably to the point of needing to switch dentists due to poor workmanship.

> 4. I’m a medical professional and think that I will make less money under a government-provided system of care.

Alright, how do you feel about lowering the federal tax rate for me personally? Not everyone else, just me.

Seems a bit unreasonable when phrased that way doesn't it?

Is Amazon going to screen for counterfeit medical professionals on this platform? Their track record in this regard isn't great.

> Have a Gitlab instance or similar that you can pull from instead for CI?

Gitlab, mirrored repo basically.

You cannot reason people out of a position they did not reason themselves into. These people are not thinking logically and reacting to facts, they are reacting to what influencers in their sphere say and accepting that appeal to authority as fact.

Tbh, its lack is why I don't use Google or AWS for projects.

> edit: after a little thought it seems that moving to RHEL might cost us the least amount of money and downtime. Still sucks and not what we need to be working on right now.

And that is exactly what IBM is counting on. Vendor lock in.

We are switching to Debian-based distros because, frankly, we don't trust IBM not to knife us in the back even on RHEL for more money. Of course we have the advantage of being able to take the time to convert.

Not everyone uses EC2 which is prone to fall over.

And the disciplined single dev documents their changes. That is why it works in a 1 man shop but not at scale, there is always someone who is unreliable once the group gets large enough.