USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Shifty Pony posted:

ExpressScripts and Caremark both released their 2017 excluded medications lists shortly before the EpiPen thing blew up. EpiPen wasn't excluded from either but that might have been a catalyst for "hey random old medications are getting expensive quickly" and the EpiPen was an extremely well know example.

It also might have been due to back to school. Don't most parents with kids prone to anaphylaxis buy an EpiPen to keep at school?

It's so weird to me that insurers are allowed to exclude medications. Why don't they just exclude everything and pocket the money?

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 13:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 02:21

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

zoux posted:

McConnell is killing off Tea Party primary challengers...

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/771335879361236992

Go....Mitch?

I don't know, I kind of wish it would have gone the other way and made the Republican party even more toxic. They're not going to actually work on legislation either way.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2016 14:21

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Hillary issues an executive order for Medicare to accept patients who can never comply with the ACA mandate due to the pullouts. The newly liberal Supreme Court upholds this decision :getin:

# ¿ Sep 4, 2016 17:26

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

You can't invent your way out of something that is fundamentally wrong.

What does this even mean?

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 00:12

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

Self driving cars, as they are being done now using neural networks, are shunned by the controls field of academia for good reason.

Lmao no

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 05:41

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Hyper loop will never happen. Tesla buying solar city or whatever was a bailout and is probably going to tank the company.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 20:21

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Chuu posted:

"Solved" might be an exaggeration, but Google's street cars have been on the road for more than a year now in Mountain View California which is definitely not a "featureless grid".

I see uber self drivers on a daily basis in Pittsburgh. If your self driving car can navigate this clusterfuck it'll work anywhere

# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 02:29

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Eifert Posting posted:

So is there a subject you do know about or is it all out of your rear end?

This is a good post but wow is that dumb. Literally putting "100 feet" means ZERO WATER RESISTANCE PERIOD

# ¿ Sep 6, 2016 02:36

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

The Iron Rose posted:

Lol if you think that denouncing a no first use policy means I want nukes to ever be used.

It's basic IR signalling y'all. Scaling back the nuclear umbrella emboldens foreign threats, limits our credibility, reduces options in terms of crisis management, and signals an American withdrawal. That's actually not a good thing.

And when I say it limits options, I'm not talking about using nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are strategic, defensive - not tactical. A no first use policy leads to a failure of diplomacy and weakens our diplomatic arsenal. It increases the likelihood of needing to use conventional arms when the threat of nuclear use is often sufficient.

DnD - and most people, to be fair - have an understanding of international relations that is incredibly uninformed and dismissive of expert opinion. In no other field is this the case. In economics or history or chemistry or public policy, the opinions of experts are generally listened to, and while there is space for disagreement, they are at least respected aa experts.

Not so when it comes to foreign policy and IR. It's quite tragic, fundamentally ahistorical, and comes out of a deep and profound ignorance of the science of international relations and the ways in which states interact. It's also very dangerous.

It's why I encourage people to at least take a class on international law or international relations, or failing that, read a textbook or something. both fields inevitably teach a significantly more nuanced understanding of the ways in which states interact, and having a conversation on that level is essential.

Boy howdy is this a dumb post.

No first use does not weaken any diplomatic situation because a first use doctrine isn't a credible threat. The US isn't going to strike first under any scenario and everyone knows it.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 06:26

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

The Iron Rose posted:

They might think that, but whether they actually risk it is another story.

So thank you for proving my point. It's pointlessly limiting, and only incentivizes aggression. There is no benefit to a no first use policy.

Ah the old "you completely demolished my argument but it actually proves me right" line. Nice.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 06:31

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

The Iron Rose posted:

You're still missing the point I'm afraid. While it's true that a threat is useful to a large part insofar as it will be followed through, the threat in the first place is still nonetheless an incredibly valuable diplomatic tool.

No sense in throwing out part of the toolbox for no gain.

No gain? So a step towards total nuclear disarmament is undesirable to you?

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 06:37

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

The Iron Rose posted:

Trump's "first use" nuclear policy is very different from the status quo, nor is Noonan's (excellent) rant on the subject in any way in contradiction with the status quo.

Failing to adopt a "no first use" policy does not mean we're going to actually use nuclear weapons y'all. It just means that other states by definition cannot discount that. Actually using nuclear weapons defeats their purpose, but maintaining the nuclear umbrella is an excellent deterrent to not just nuclear war, but conventional war between powers as well.

Paradoxish posted:

You keep saying this, but you haven't established how first use represents a credible deterrent if there's no rational situation where it could be used. If a deterrent relies on an opponent believing that the US government will act irrationally, then how does policy even matter? Why would a government making completely irrational decisions adhere to established policy?

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 06:41

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

The Glumslinger posted:

I normally I would hesitate to jump into a shitpost storm like this, but honestly, any situation that would be bad enough for the US to use nukes as a first strike would probably be bad enough for us to disregard a signed agreement about No First Use.

There is no acceptable use to nuclear weapons ever. It woild literally mean the end of the world. If Russia launched all of their ICBMs right now the only morally acceptable thing the US could do would be to stand down so that only 300 million people would be exterminated rather than 7 billion

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 06:48

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

[quote="The Iron Rose" post=""463979087"]
We live in an time of unipolarity, a time of unprecedented peace and stability.
[/quote]

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 06:54

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

The Iron Rose posted:

You should. Better a million dead in the global south than a hundred million dead elsewhere.

It's a viewpoint entirely neutral of national character. I'm a patriot, but that's almost beside the point! It's a numbers game, pure and simple.

Fewer people die under American hegemony than would in a more multipolar world. It's as simple as that.

Your posts are filled with the kind of jingoism hitherto reserved for caricatures. Your opinions are so completely morally and ethically bankrupt that I believe if Richard M Nixon were alive to read them would cause him to blush. The things you type are almost exclusively complete fabrications lacking any connection to reality whatsoever. The world is a worse place with you in it and I hope you get to spend an eternity experincing the nuclear fire you so desperately wish for.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 07:09

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

dogs named Charlie posted:

I don't have the plat or the $10 to helldump your Romney post. I don't have to, it's clear who you want to rule.

Yo if anyone else can find this I would like to peep it.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 07:24

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

If only they were real

https://mobile.twitter.com/onlxn/status/773709725644890112

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 05:25

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

FairGame posted:

Here's the disconnect, though.

1.) I'm saying that using ad block is stealing, full stop. If some site has something YOU REALLY WANT TO READ, but it's also got some lovely loving malware ad on it, then you have to make a decision. You can either not read it. Or you can read it and get malware. Stealing is a third option, and all that does is compound the problem because the site then needs to run MORE ads. You're making it worse for the fellow man you clearly care so much about given that you like to share your content.
2.) Sharing a newspaper is inherently different from turning on ad block.

Newspapers make money from ads (and also from subs, but let's table that for now). The ads are seen by multiple sets of eyeballs when you share your newspaper. Probably not enough to offset the cost of your friend not buying one of his own, but it's something, at least, and something that newspaper ad sales folks can go to advertisers with. "Our circ is only X, but thanks to sharing, your ads will actually be seen by 1.3X."

Turning on ad block, or finding a way to get beyond someone's gate, or posting gated content on a non-gated place...nobody ever gets ads. The ads don't serve. The content creator gets nothing out of the transaction.

You're trying to wedge newspaper sharing into a conversation about ad block but the models are sufficiently different that it's not a great analogy.

Sorry. Online advertisers had their chance, and they decided to cram popups and viruses down peoples throats and have proven they can't be trusted.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 21:52

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Maybe we could have some kind of national tax, like on televisions or something. And then use that to fund some kind of media apparatus.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 21:54

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

BiohazrD posted:

Maybe we could have some kind of national tax, like on televisions or something. And then use that to fund some kind of media apparatus.

And you could call it, for example, Public Broadcasting Service. Or, PBS for short.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 21:55

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Ads as revenue are dying, anyways. Nobody clicks them and buys poo poo. People aren't browsing the Something Awful forums, see an ad to buy a $4000 Samsung TV and saying "yeah actually I had no plans to buy a {THING} but now that I saw this ad I guess I really should buy {THING}"

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 21:59

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Lightning Knight posted:

Subscription models are bad and dumb.

I don't have a problem with ad driven journalism if they actually still do good journalism and the ads aren't super obnoxious. But they clearly can't manage either of those simple loving tasks.

I mean it's not like print where you have a department soliciting advertising and selling full page/quarter page/whatever. You set up a site and you contract that poo poo out to a third party (Google) and they host the ads.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:01

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Most ads are not Flash. Flash is essentially EOL at this point. It's a vulnerability ridden nightmare and new browsers are actively blacklisting it from being installed.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:03

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Lightning Knight posted:

SA manages to have non-intrusive ads I always see. I even read and click some of them. Because they aren't super loving annoying.

Really? Because last I checked it was 95% Aggro Gator poo poo.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:04

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Lightning Knight posted:

Most of them for me seem to be from goons. Also some Donald Trump and Johnson ads.

But always simple banner ads at the bottom and top.

That's the point though. Small personal ads that are (I believe) manually approved. They are also outrageously expensive compared to advertising through Google.

http://adage.com/article/digital/google-q4-2015-earnings/302462/

Cost per click is way down. Revenue is up, but only because they keep expanding. Eventually there won't be any more sites and services to add Google ads to, and then it's a race to the bottom. They've staved this off for a while by ad targeting and mining every bit of personal data ever but even that train is going to derail eventually.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:08

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Lightning Knight posted:

Then it sounds like it's a failed model that should go away.

We can't put the genie back in the bottle on post-scarcity information. We should embrace it as a net positive for our society and work to improve on it.

You know what makes advertising revenue go up? When people have money to spend on luxuries.

FairGame posted:

Nah, the commercial still airs and whatever television station airs it still gets to count an impression against the advertiser.

In the case of ad block, the ad doesn't serve and the publisher gets nothing.

Nobody is getting paid for impressions. Like ever.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:12

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

FairGame posted:

That's all people get paid for. Click rate on ads is hilariously low since virtually no one clicks on them--at least not intentionally.

My statement was hyperbole, the revenue from impressions is minuscule. We're talking 2-3 bucks per 1000 hits.

The reason for this is because nobody clicks ads. If nobody clicks your ad, they don't buy your product. If they don't buy your product why are you spending money on ads? You keep people buying your advertising service (even though nobody clicks) is by making it dirt cheap.

This is exactly why you start to see pages with 10, 15, 20 ads. Without them the revenue from impressions isn't enough.

The internet ad bubble is bursting and we are watching it in real time.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:20

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Homeless Friend posted:

They can just block users that use adblockers simply enough it would seem.

There isn't some magical way to tell if a user is blocking ads. It's done on your web browser, and will only work as long as the web browser allows it. That'll never go away on Chrome because it is a web browser made by an advertising company, but you can bet on it eventually happening in Firefox/Safari/IE

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:25

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

FairGame posted:

You're talking about programmatic ads. The CPM for direct-sold ads (the poo poo you'd see on NYT, WSJ, etc., is easily as high as $40. Probably higher right now because advertisers are weird as hell and blow all their budget in Q4 even though they're not advertising consumer goods. Which is staggering and stupid.

Most of the sites we're talking about using ad-block on in this discussion are big sites that have a dedicated digital ad sales staff. Not places that are just set-and-forget with google adwords.

You're spot on if you're talking about google adwords poo poo, though.

Some sites are doing this, yeah. I expect more to follow suit.

Yeah, ad targeting is a totally different beast.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:26

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Anti ad blocking only works as long as the bro

Ciaphas posted:

On the other hand, I cannot view some sites that do this at work despite not personally running an ad blocker, probably due to proxy settings

The practice isn't widespread but the instant it is you can expect ad blockers to have anti-anti-adblocking

# ¿ Sep 8, 2016 22:47

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

This is dumb and not a story but having grown up in Houston lmao at New Yorkers saying 80% humidity at 90 degrees is inhospitable.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 17:27

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

what i would really like to see is an ad that is pictures of people like david duke, preferably in full kkk gear and then quotes underneath them saying how much they love trump

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 14:52

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

botany posted:

yeah no poo poo if you defend the completely unnecessary war crime that was the nuclear bombing of japan, we're not gonna see eye to eye on this and you can go gently caress yourself quite honestly

yo read this

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 19:41

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Haha holy poo poo

https://twitter.com/seanmcelwee/status/776168838538858496

So loving shameless.

can someone explain to me why people dont screenshot tweets? someone get ZDR in here to make it so that when you post a tweet link it takes a screenshot and posts that instead

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 22:41

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about your hobby or seemingly niche issues. I'm still on the fence between Hillary and Gary Johnson, but the one thing keeping me from going to Hillary is her attempt to impose censorship on video games and her assertion that they are not art under the first amendment.

If that is her instinct, then where is she going to fall on future cases with internet freedom and other forms of interactive and digital media? Being able to vote in Florida means that making a statement vote actually matters and Johnson has been very supportive of digital rights and even namedropped Oculus Rift as an example.

give me bideo james or give me death

# ¿ Sep 15, 2016 18:19

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

WampaLord posted:

Haha, no. The debates are huge, huge stories that get ultra-analyzed for days afterwards. There's no way to shift the story away from the debates with some fluff piece, he'd have to do something ~shocking~ which generally has not worked out for him.

I'm sure CNN will find some way to lick that boot

# ¿ Sep 16, 2016 14:30

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

blunt for century posted:

A guy on facebook posted this.

How often do cops in the real world run into situations where 10 year old girls are trying to kill them?

Don't redact names of people like this

# ¿ Sep 16, 2016 15:44

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

hexenmexen posted:

Well you have to have growth alongside of enforcing equality in the workplace, and continual reform of the prison system. The prisons expanded under the previous Clinton years and I'm supposed to believe the woman who mouthed "super predators" is genuinely interested in prison reform?

You know people's opinions can change over 20-30 years right? I mean, except for yours, obviously.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2016 15:55

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

hexenmexen posted:

But you still didn't address Ireland, and with a flat reform of the tax code close the loopholes and change it to territorial instead of worldwide.

Are you illiterate? Is that why you quote a Republican to misrepresent what I said?

Improved infrastructure, and improved K-12 would incentivize employers to return to the US. Many communities particularly black ones don't have access to the developed parts of metropolitan parts of cities. This was due to local governments shutting them out. Making broad infrastructure repairs would make it more affordable for business to operate in the US.

This in combination with the reformed tax issue would bring growth to the US.

This person is allowed to vote lmao

# ¿ Sep 18, 2016 16:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 02:21

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG: Mar 2, 2005

The concept of nuclear waste is a little silly. If it's dangerous then it still has energy that can be harvested (lower energy densities, however). Refinement can turn waste into fuel again, but alas.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2016 21:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

«‹›2 »