I obviously don’t know the specifics, but US healthcare plans only let you change during specific enrollment periods or qualifying life events. It’s possible he wasn’t able to.
Additionally, it sounds like he picked what appeared to be the best rated plan available to him on the market. Others may have been even worse or prohibitively expensive.
Yes I know it’s hard to cancel outside of enrollment periods, you can still have multiple
Adding in the last minute flights and commitments throughout this article, I would say for other people that at some point the calculus can be re-evaluated to find that paying the premiums would be worth it. The loved ones can pay for that instead of last minute flights and time off
The man in the article was living in a studio apartment. I doubt he was in a position to be paying the equivalent of a mortgage for many insurance options. Even if he could, I’m not sure that’s the system/solution we’d want.
This can’t be for real. The only reason you pay for insurance is in case something happens. It has no value outside of that. That’s why it’s called insurance. And medical insurance in the US is very expensive, so much that a large part of the population can’t afford it. If you don’t get care when you need it, it’s worse than no insurance - now there’s less money left to pay out of pocket to the only places that will take you on in time. The solution to being scammed is not to sign up for another scam.
Aside from how ridiculous it would be to buy double coverage, it can just make the problem worse with both companies trying to argue they aren't the primary and that their doing anything may be duplication of coverage. But some more paper work should resolve that once you are dead.
>>> The departure cost is always exponentially higher.
And yet no one is going to give you a substantial salary rise unless you sign a resignation letter.
All that questions about the reason why someone wants to leave during recruitment or exit interview are a ceremonial, and people are answering with polite bullshit.
Yes, I'm looking for a new job to get more experience, to grow, to get new challenges. Not because I want more money and we all know it is the easiest way to get it. Not because I have an idiot manager. Etc..
> Yes, I'm looking for a new job to get more experience, to grow, to get new challenges.
Indeed. There is no upside to provide any criticism or leave on a negative note. It's the other side of the coin why companies don't provide feedback after interviews, there is no upside for them. Same here. What if some coworkers start another company, or the winds change, etc. It's always better to leave on a positive note regardless of reasons.
Of course when 20% of the team leaves in 3 months "to get more experience and jump on an exciting new opportunity" it would be silly not to read between the lines.
Except where they weren't. The German borders after 1945 or after 1990 are unlike any other shape of any German nation (or collection of German states) before.
This is the exception, not the rule. And if a cat that's escaped and spends a couple days outside is going to destroy a wildlife ecosystem, then that ecosystem was probably already on the verge of collapse anyway.
I think we have much lower hanging (and more impactful) fruit than "ban even indoor-only cats because sometimes they escape".
With document DBs you still have "schemas", they just won't be explicit at the database layer. If you rename a field your app uses, you will end up having to either rename that field in every document, or punt on migrating and instead ensure that your app can handle either field name when reading.
While the latter may sound easier (and often is easier when you're starting out and iterating quickly), you will soon start to feel the pain of managing dozens of different versions of your "schema" at the app layer. I've always found it easier to only have to deal with a single schema at a time in any situation where you can't just regenerate all records on the fly, like a cache, and for which you don't care about what the specific schema was at a point in time.
If you actually do care about what the schema was at any point in time at the app layer, your app WILL need to account for any version of the data—but if you need this you're accepting the tradeoffs of the additional complexity.
Definitely more nuanced than "no migrations = easier" though.
It certainly does look bad for self driving vehicles, and I definitely feel terrible that a life was lost from this.
However, how does one develop a self driving vehicle that’s 100% automated without the ability to test in real driving conditions? Despite this accident, self-driving vehicles have a fairly safe driving record for the number of miles and time they have been active.
It's a difficult question. Because we cannot just dive into it assuming that the toll (in life/safety) of beta testing AVs on public roads will result in a net benefit within a reasonable timespan. The human driving fatality rate is ~1 death per 100 million miles. Uber has 2 million miles driven and 1 fatality. It's obviously unfair to extrapolate and say that Uber has 50x the fatality rate of normal driving. But that means we have to keep testing Uber AVs on public roads.
What if an Uber AV accidentally kills someone at the 2.5M mark? That's still not enough data to statistically compare apples to apples. Maybe the next 100M miles of Uber testing is fatality free...that still wouldn't be completely enough (right? I'm not great at stats but I would think we need at least a billion?). Of course, it could go the other way, with Uber AVs killing someone every 1M miles.
As a general tech optimist, I'm inclined to think tech will get better, overall. But let's face it, that's not a given. And in the meantime, it's likely the tech upper-class won't be the ones who suffer the most while tech improves. The case at hand being the prime example: a homeless recently-imprisoned woman was killed.
Earlier today someone submitted an interesting RAND study that argued that the testing time for autonomous vehicles to meet statistical reliability for safety testing would be on the order of decades, or even centuries, and there would still be no guarantee that AVs would be safer. I'm hoping RAND is just being really pessimistic here...
Build quite large test facility with diverse artificial scenes. Pay people to walk/bike/drive around. Use external motion capture, GPS, stationary radars, etc. with additional offboard computation to act as a watchdog and step in when the onboard systems fail. Would be expensive, but the companies pursuing autonomous driving can afford it.
There are several parts here: the hardware a self-driving car uses to "see", the software a self-driving car uses to process sensor input into a representation of the vehicle's surroundings, and then the software that makes decisions and issues commands to the car to actually "drive" it.
You have a car with all of this running but a human driving while you drive around for hundreds of millions of vehicle miles. You then review the data for these trips and use it to assess both the ability of the hardware/software to maintain a meaningful degree of "situational awareness" as well as the reasonableness of the software to control the car if it had actually been doing so. From this you can determine how good of a job the system is doing and build a fairly good idea of how much you can actually trust the car to drive on its own. Then you can let the automation drive the car with a human behind the wheel and actually paying attention. From that you can further improve your assessment of how well the car operates under realistic driving conditions.
However, if the human isn't paying attention then you potentially significantly increase risk. Especially if you short-changed the previous step of monitoring the automation's performance while "side seat driving".
In the case of, say, Waymo, they've done a fairly good job here because they've been careful and thorough in each step. In the case of Uber, as is reflective of their corporate culture, they have rushed ahead and taken on a lot more risk than they should have, in this case putting bystanders in harm's way.
Additionally, it sounds like he picked what appeared to be the best rated plan available to him on the market. Others may have been even worse or prohibitively expensive.