> This really, really angers me. Even with people i kind of agree with.
When lazy or dishonest or weak arguments are used, I get more upset if it’s in support of things I agree with than things I don’t.
It undermines the position and makes it that much harder to discuss it in the future because I now have to disentangle from that on top of actually making a proper argument in favor of the position.
This article repeats “安谋科技” so many times but as far as I can tell, doesn’t mention even once how I might attempt to pronounce it or recognize when anyone else mentions it in the future. Can anyone at least provide a transliteration?
It's Chinese, though, not Japanese, and the Japanese meanings borrowed in the Tang dynasty are no longer modern Chinese. (Common words like "to eat" is 食 in Japanese, but in Chinese now that means "foodstuff" and is a noun, not a verb. The common Chinese word for to eat is 吃. There are a lot of these.)
谋 appears to mean more like "plan" as a neutral word. Obviously you could have hidden plans and devious plans as well as ambitious plans, public plans, wise plans, and helpful plans. I don't think anyone would name their company "Cheatful Scheme", even if that was actually their intention. And 谋 is modified by 安 (peace, safety, good health). So it'd be more like "Wholesome-safe plan".
The “nudge” can also come up even with exact starting information. When you calculate the next step and round it to the nearest nanometer, you’ve just nudged the system by enough to eventually make your prediction worthless in the 3-body case.
Personally, I just want to know the cost of services before committing to pay. I have been unable to get that in many situations, even for non-emergency care.
I do too. A doctor should be able to give you the codes for whatever routine or preventative procedure you’re interested in paying for, and you should be able to look up the price on your insurance company’s website.
It's not that simple. Doctors themselves often don't even know which billing codes will be used; coding is done by other office staff. And insurers don't have a single set price list. The patient's out of pocket expense will depend on a medical necessity determination and whether they have reached their annual maximum.
That is why I specified for routine or preventative procedures, where everything is known beforehand.
I also do not buy that doctors do not know which code will be used. I don’t care if the doctor themself does not know, surely someone that works with them knows and can provide it.
It should be dead simple to go to a doctor’s website and find the codes for routine procedure that they will bill. If something in the visit happens outside of that, the doctor can feel free to say that is outside of the scope of the visit, just like a mechanic can tell me he will not fix the transmission if I am in for a brake job.
The “exact” version they wanted was full of approximations too. They just didn’t have enough numerical literacy to understand how to say how much approximation they are ok with.
I guarantee nothing in anyone’s time accounting system is measured to double-precision accuracy. Or at least, I’ve never quite figured out the knack myself for stopping work within a particular 6 picosecond window.
Thinking you can buy a business relationship with millions of people on a network run mostly by volunteers and expect everyone to start operating it and using it for your benefit instead of for the ideals of their 20+ year community sounds a lot more entitled to me.
The whole idea of purchasing a business for its customer base is pretty disturbing in the first place. I as a customer do not consider my relationship with any business to be a transferable asset.
A mechanic is in a good position to notice that when a car fails, it tends to fail in certain ways. Far too often, though, they then generalize to claims that the car is likely to fail in that way, but that is not necessarily the case. It may be that they fail 1% as often as competitors and due to a relatively fewer number of causes. Without being in a position to see the absolute failure rate, a mechanic may incorrectly conclude that those parts they see failing are especially badly designed even if they are more reliable than the industry average.
I understand about the frustration of not being able to source the part, but a change in a single IC or connector’s pin mapping absolutely can be a performance improvement alone.
I’m lobbying at work now for one such case. Sometimes the existing pin assignments are just bad, and that can destroy signal integrity, increase layout complexity (and thus board cost) and negatively affect EMC performance. I don’t know whether that is the case here but I wouldn’t automatically trust someone’s judgment on it without knowing their level of expertise on high speed layout design.
But don't forget this part of the post: "and they have secured exclusive production of this chip, so you can't buy this for a dollar any more". There may have been a legitimate reason to change the pinout, but there was no reason other than greed to prohibit the vendor from selling the new chip to anyone else.
Absolutely agree, but that’s a whole new can of worms and outside the point I was making (which was that it is not obvious that they made this change for the SOLE purpose of preventing repairs). Do we force them to sell the M1 module as well? Individual chips from that module? I’m all for that, personally, but good luck getting that passed. And assuming we can’t make them do that, what is the line between those parts and the less special ones like this one?
When lazy or dishonest or weak arguments are used, I get more upset if it’s in support of things I agree with than things I don’t.
It undermines the position and makes it that much harder to discuss it in the future because I now have to disentangle from that on top of actually making a proper argument in favor of the position.