Your solution depends on third parties checking the script or going based on some knowledge of "trusted sources." That has nothing to do with this hack, which exploits those who are "verifying" the script themselves before executing it.
The simple solution here is not to use curl/execute with a pipe. Just wget to save the file and check it locally (rather than through a browser) before executing.
Tangential, but this is the same reason mandatory health insurance makes sense. We go around living in our bodies, and they break down sometimes. It's the law in this country that emergency rooms can't turn people away without evaluating and stabilizing them, so you're always one accident away from creating huge costs for someone else if you don't plan for these costs with health insurance.
In the case of car insurance, the injured party is the driver you run into, or the property you damage. In the case of health insurance, the injured party is the hospital/doctors.
I always thought it was strange that so many states were totally on board with mandatory car insurance, but not mandatory health insurance.
Yes, but you can only choose to own a car (the logistics of this are hazy, but you still have the option of not buying one). You didn't choose to be an organism that gets sick.
1) The Obamacare mandate is an income tax penalty. If you don't work there is no penalty. Working is a choice.
2) Of course, working isn't a _real_ choice if you value independence. Like you hinted at, unless you live in an urban environment with solid transit neither is owning a car.
3) Also, the limits of our society's moral and legal systems are already tested by the very idea of private property. If you don't own property there's no place in this entire country where you can reliably and _legally_ simply be physically present without paying for the privilege in some manner. And because of property taxes, that's the case even if you were gifted property.
All the griping about the healthcare mandate is simply a failure of people to accept the _reality_ of our modern system, and the privileges they take for granted but refuse to accept the burden of. In any event, we can't roll back the clock. At the end of the day, as long as you're free to leave the country the only thing that has changed is that freeloading becomes more difficult. Which reminds me of another point:
4) The reasons mandatory evacuations are legally enforceable is because society recognizes that people of good will--especially first responders--will always put themselves in harms way to help people in distress. And we don't want to have a system that, to disincentive abuse, discourages help by making it too risky to help others or by making it too costly to ask for help. This is a fundamental conflict between individual liberty and social welfare. Most of the time conflict between individual liberty and social welfare can be mediated by degrees; other times we're faced with a binary choice. Much like mandatory evacuations, Obamacare simply recognizes that in the 21st century, the conflict regarding healthcare has become a binary choice. When the conflict becomes a binary choice, for a civilization it's not really any choice at all.
It's my understanding that having a car in the US is effectively mandatory for the overwhelming majority of the working population, doesn't that effectively make it the same?
I'm not saying you don't need one, I'm saying the option technically exists. (I don't really agree with this line of logic but a lot of people seem to)
I had a manager that loved Java. He wanted to add a new helper service onto an existing service that was written in Python, but the new service would be Java (because Java is the best, obviously).
This new helper was responsible for transforming, combining, and synthesizing large API responses with somewhat variable and highly nested data structures into other large API responses with somewhat variable and highly nested data structures. It certainly was not Java I was proud of, but it would have been trivial (and FAR more readable) in Python. Ugh.
> they've picked the right abstraction for the problem
I hate to agree with you, but "picking the right abstraction for the problem" elegantly expresses what I've been trying to tell people for the last few years now, but far less succinctly (I usually ramble on about "underlying data models" and "what this actually is in the real world, not just how we view it in our application")
The reason I hate to agree with you is that I just became very disappointed that this is a difficult skill to master. "Just use the right model and the code is easy, duh. Why aren't you doing this?" Well. Now I just feel like a jerk. I thought they just gave me the "senior" title because I was old.
It's unfortunate that one of the most important skills in the industry is so intangible and difficult to quantify. Even more difficult to teach.
"If unforeseen complications arose during or after the procedure, the Surgery Center would cover those costs. Villa wouldn't see another bill."
So there is a sort of built-in insurance to this system. Those who don't have any complications are paying more to cover patients who do. They're simply passing the first line of medical costs (known, anticipated, where a price estimate can be created) on to consumers while letting insurance handle un-estimatable medical emergency type situations.
Amen. I rented in Boston, Somerville, and Medford after college, and it's amazing the number of landlords who are just random people who happen to have an extra property, or bought a house with an extra unit, and decide to rent it out. They print a template lease, we sign, and they hand over the keys.
Two landlords in particular didn't know about things like escrow account and interest laws for security deposits, contact information posting for vacant landlords, who's responsible for things like snow removal and smoke detector maintenance. I left those units in good condition (thankfully for them!) but nearly sued twice and, in one case, received triple damages on my security deposit.
One landlord said "To keep costs low, tenants generally organize snow shoveling" I said "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize we were breaking the law here."
There are some states with very few tenant rights where landlords can get away with a lot. California and Massachusetts are not those states. It's a very serious part time job that requires a lot more than just owning a property.
I had a previous landlord who was a shady motherfucker who wanted to "play businessman" but had no business skills and ignored the law with his various "businesses" and was a general terrible human being. After I moved out I reported him to the town (for violation of various town rental ordinances), the EPA (for violation of lead paint safety statutes), and the banking department (for violation of security deposit collection laws).
I think it's incredible that her health insurance didn't cover electronic prosthetics.
The hook prosthetic is just a simple open/close grabber tool. Imagine trying to navigate through life with two grabbers. The modern myoelectric prosthetics offer way more functionality and freedom. You can use a computer, dress yourself, drive a car, and feed yourself (of course the author can't do all these yet, it does take time to learn). You can't do this at all with hooks.
I fractured/dislocated multiple wrist bones two years ago and it wasn't life threatening but I would have had diminished functionality without surgery -- insurance covered it no problem. My hand is great.
How the hell does it make sense to fix a wrist in order to allow someone to do the activities of daily living but it doesn't make sense to give them a common commercial prosthetic in order to do the same thing?
This is why the entire health insurance market doesn't make sense. Right now, as a healthy person, how am I supposed to weigh the impact of every potential health issue in my life? I'm sure she could've purchased some cadillac plan to cover it, but without experiencing that and with such a minute chance of an accident like that occurring as a teacher of all things, why should she ever buy it? Or even know to look for that kind of coverage? Who can price the repercussions of going without some medical procedure or medicine without ever having experienced that situation? I can understand car, boat, our house insurance and can easily replace those tangible items, but how should I price the risk to my health?
Healthcare is heavily rationed in socialized medicine systems. That's why wait times are so extreme in Canada, and doubled from ~1990 to 2015.
Rationing is the same exact thing as what you're talking about. They're choosing who gets what medical access and when. If you're 92 years old and you want an extremely expensive surgery or treatment in Canada, and it's only going to prolong your life by 18 months, you are not going to get that treatment, period. The same applies in France and Britain. Rationing is a required tenet of socialized healthcare. I'm not saying all rationing is bad, however pretending that under socialized healthcare it's just a free-for-all, is flat out wrong.
A very recent example of the rationing squeeze:
"N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait"
"Cuts to the National Health Service budget in Britain have left hospitals stretched over the winter for years, but this time a flu outbreak, colder weather and high levels of respiratory illnesses have put the N.H.S. under the highest strain in decades. The situation has become so dire that the head of the health service is warning that the system is overwhelmed."
"Some doctors took to Twitter to vent their frustrations publicly. One complained of having to practice “battlefield medicine,” while another apologized for the “3rd world conditions” caused by overcrowding."
Canadian wait times are a bit of an aberration according to a recent survey[0]. According to the same survey, which also includes other developed countries, the US isn't doing better at all on other fields, and significantly worse on things like cost barriers.
The existence of socialized healthcare doesn't preclude privatized healthcare. That 92 year old can get their treatment in the private sector in any developed country, and hope their insurance will cover it.
I'm not sure what that anecdotal evidence means. Just today I drove my mother to the ED after a fall that left the bone peeking through the skin, and we were in and out in an hour. The fact that the NHS has problems now doesn't prove anything.
>> "N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait"
The next line in your comment explains why this is the case: "Cuts to the National Health Service budget". The NHS was a unique jewel of a public health system (from which I myself and members of my family have benefited, as well as contributed to btw). This was until successive Tory governments took a knife to its budget and started making plans to sell it all off.
The fact that the NHS is ailing supports the exact opposite of what you are trying to say: a health system supported by public funds takes good care of its citizens. One that is privatised and whose budget is slashed, does not.
"Half (51%) of underinsured adults reported problems with medical bills or debt and more than two of five (44%) reported not getting needed care because of cost. "
Who said the US system was better? You're attempting to stand up a strawman counter.
I said socialized medicine requires heavy rationing of care. The comment I replied to was implying that somehow the selection of and or limitation of care is wrong (eg under the US health insurance system): all socialized systems depend on that exact approach, aka rationing. They limit access, they restrict types of therapies based on age or expected outcomes due to cost, they extend wait times dramatically based on what they decide is more or less important, and so on. Socialized medicine would collapse instantly without such aggressive rationing.
And nowhere in the above paragraph did I say the current US system is superior to alternatives in the developed world.
Poster anecdote describes vet who has more leg prostheses than he is able to use. Article anecdote describes cost-cutting to the point that prostheses which adequately replace the function of hands for a quadruple amputee are considered a luxury. Compassion is a cost; cut it.
That makes a pretty wide range of outcomes. We even have a dolphin that has a state-of-the-art tail fluke prosthetic. I doubt it had insurance. If it did, I doubt it would pay out without a 3 tuna deductible, a 40 sardine co-pay, and a 15 sailfish lifetime maximum.
Do these insurance companies think we're paying just for our own sakes? Do they think we should breathe a sign of relief for not having to pay that $260k in increased premiums? Every one of us that's not a sociopath can empathize with the woman who got shot twice in the chest and as a result woke up one day not even able to pick her nose by herself. That could have been me! I, for one, love picking my nose by myself. And I am super pissed that the sole reasonable outcome to this story was achieved only through the wish-granting generosity of a passing fairy godparent.
Good for that guy in private life, but his day job is actually making more difficult several of the more reasonable paths to that outcome. What about all the people who will never get a fairy wish?
Nobody is ever going to take $260k worth of pity on people like me. I really need all this to be a matter of enforceable contracts or laws, rather than what charity may grow in the human heart. Any safety net based on that sort of goodwill simply has me-sized holes in it everywhere.
I didn't do that in any manner. I brought up the fact that socialized medicine depends on restrictive filtering systems - rationing - to strictly control for costs. It can't function otherwise.
The argument in favor of socialized medicine isn't that it enables any care you need at any time you need it. It's that it's supposed to be a morally superior distribution of resources.
"Sleeping with a guy is a built in option women have to better their lives, that men don't have."
This is a complicated issue, and there's a lot to unpack here.
That technique may be used for women (and, heck, men too -- I'm the female 'breadwinner' of my household, although I didn't meet my husband at a sex party...) to better their lives, but those gains may be sporadic, and they depend on the continued cooperation of the man they're sleeping with.
I was in a "trophy girlfriend" relationship when I was young and my entire life revolved around "keeping" this guy. After a while, he broke up with me, I had to ask my parents for rent money (I had taken a first class trip to Europe the month before, but what was I going to do, ask him to put the money into my emergency savings account instead?), my entire life sort of fell apart. I went to parties with his friends, lived in his apartment, had a credit card on his account. Making sure he was happy was a job, but the skills weren't entirely transferable and there was no security. Not a situation I wanted to be in again, and I didn't.
Having a job, skills are easily transferable between employers, resources in my own name, and a relationship built on mutual respect and kindness, gives me far more freedom and security than sleeping with guys for the lifestyle perks. Even with alimony and child support in the picture (in which case you need to "get him" to marry you and/or have children) there is no facet of your life or lifestyle that is insulated from the whims of a single person. No, you may not starve after a divorce, but, especially if there's a pre-nup involved, the "betterment" in your life will always be temporary gain during the length of the relationship while his will be a permanent one.
Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't go to these parties or sleep with these men if they want to, or that considering a man's private jet ownership when debating about whether or not you want to sleep with him is an immoral choice. But saying "This is a built-in option for women that men don't have... the rest of us poor schmuck dudes actually have to go to work everyday" is an incredible simplification that makes the two choices sound like equivalent things, when they're absolutely not.
On a side note: The presence of these particular sex parties, and the fact that they're so closely intertwined with business in Silicon Valley, I think is an problem. As the article paints it, there's sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" issue that they're introducing for women working in certain companies or who are seeking VC funding.
The simple solution here is not to use curl/execute with a pipe. Just wget to save the file and check it locally (rather than through a browser) before executing.