tylervigen

It’s odd that someone would assert that a legal action would be successful while citing no legal precedent.

All of the facts presented could be true, but what law is broken? What harm creates the basis for a civil suit?

Probably he meant the same thing as the parent post, chop it up into volumes?

I think for the math to work you have to consider the bigger bulk of work that could be eliminated by universal healthcare: the payer industry. Insurers, PBMs, and all the smaller sectors that support them. The utility provided to society is fairly low — basically, just selective claims denial.

Any model that gets rid of these frees up a huge swath of capital and work from society, and can use that work elsewhere. Of course, that is easier said than done.

Right but the “certain regions” were affluent metro areas, the control group was rural counties, and the timeframe was the Great Recession.

Even the study authors acknowledge the severe risk of the huge confounding variable.

No, arbitrary decisions would defeat the point of indexes.

But they can and do add systematic protections, like only buying based on the free float to avoid a short squeeze.

Thanks. Is it not annoying to play Civ with a touchpad vs a mouse? Or is this just a convenience for situations where you can’t use a mouse?

Can anyone share their experience enjoying the two pads they put on their controllers?

I have a Steam Deck and love it, but the only experience I have with those pads is “dammit I accidentally touched the pad again.” If I want a mouse, I just connect a Bluetooth mouse.

I thought for sure everyone knew it was a flop and we’d never see it again, but obviously that’s not right since they are back. What am I missing?

The other answer (staff who use Westlaw) is right, but critically this is the point of adversarial litigation. The justice system doesn't hang on that judge finding the precedent; it assumes that the highly motivated lawyers on either side will find the relevant precedent that helps their case and highlight it for the judge.

I have never played it, but I could imagine a scoring mechanism that would make it interesting, and perhaps is implied by the rules:

The score value starts at 1. Every additional "check" multiplies the score value by 2 (so 2, 4, 8, 16...). The first player to say "checkmate" receives the score. Track your summed score between games; the player with the highest overall score at any given time is "winning."

Perhaps also worth noting that you generally shake the die before releasing it. Thus even if you drop it straight down through a vacuum, you would have done the center-of-mass-impacted-tumbling in your hands first.

...is that really the story? It feels like these are two related, but different things.