Not only drug costs. I’m being charged 1300$ for an STD test because my insurance company and my doctor can’t agree on a “code”.

It’s totally fucked.

The claim is anecdotal and thus insufficient for statistical analysis, as expressed by the previous response. What did they miss exactly?

The claim that statistics are flawed is not something you can respond to with by saying that the statistics say otherwise.

But the claim specifically, was that the statistics are flawed NOW with an implication that they were not flawed before.

Not sure you can do much with that in a discussion/argument when there is no proof of that provided other than a personal anecdote.

Edit: Actually maybe I misread it, they are saying its always been flawed. But still the general point of the thread still holds I think.

I really appreciated this little topography lesson; ty friend

I've noticed something else particular to my native tongue. It lacks emotion. I just don't really know how to express myself in English. I can speak very technically and logically, but I'm stumped when it comes to matters of the heart.

My Japanese, on the other hand, isn't fluent, but I'm able to tap into way more emotion. It feels as if I'm singing when I nail a great sentence in nihongo. It really lands with the listener and I feel emotionally connected in that moment.

Could this be related to the increased brain activity required for foreign language?

I think it might be that English isn’t very expressive. It’s much more technical and to the point. I find Greek and Spanish significantly more expressive when I speak them and particularly when I hear natives speak the languages.

I use maybe functions a lot for things like "maybeShowReminderDialog". The conditions for displaying the reminder are wrapped in this maybe function.

Surely that's simpler than specifying those conditions before every call to show this dialog, resulting in plenty of duplicated code. And if those conditions change, there is only one place I need to update it.

Of course I can make a single operation to check those conditions like "shouldShowReminder", but that too is doubling the surface area of this code.

I see the merit of the argument here but disagree with the absolutist stance against "maybe" functions.

There's that. And it also reduces the chance for race conditions:

    if ( shouldShow() ) /* state changes here where it should not show */ doShow();

Can you list some of those shops? I'm hard pressed to find one that isn't selling items that were drop-shipped to them from Aliexpress/baba and then marked up. It may not be direct from the manufacturer, but going from N-middlemen to 1-middleman is about the best you can do right now.

Anna wasn’t a birder though. She was royalty given tribute by Rene Lesson. Anne d'Essling‘s only connection to ornithology is through marriage. So why does she get a bird?

This is the only example referenced of which I know its origins. However it illustrates an issue with names that have no connection to the science of birds. The naming as tribute was surely transactional in some way (to curry favor perhaps) and really should be replaced.

“With autism”

A large portion of the autistic community is very against this phrasing. Autism is not a disease you carry, or something you “have”.

It should be used as an adjective to describe a person:

“Autistic people less likely to succumb to bystander effect”

Edit: If you follow through to the actual paper referenced you can see they use the correct phrasing.

And yet, the clinical standard has been to use the "with" terminology for a long time now. For exactly the general reason that you present, just with your grammatical paradigm inverted.

The fact is that anyone can copy and paste "offense" complaints and insert any grammar that they want into ad-lib spaces.

What the ASD community could use less of is individuals utilizing it as their political arena.

> And yet, the clinical standard has been to use the "with" terminology for a long time now. For exactly the general reason that you present, just with your grammatical paradigm inverted.

If that's the clinical standard, why didn't the cited paper use it that way? From the research paper:

> autistic individuals

> autistic employees

> autistic participants

The peer reviewed research paper uses this standard. Only using "with" in reference to diagnoses.

It is "Science Daily", a news site, who skirts the standard by changing the paper's wording.

I'm a brown haired person. I'm also a person with brown hair. Neither phrasing makes my brown hair a disease I carry.

This is my take too. Ultimately the precise language used is immaterial. It is the intent behind it that matters. The precise language used may be indicative of intent, but that should be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming "phrasing X good, phrasing Y bad", which will lead to both false positives and false negatives.

There's no point in arguing about these interpretations. Some people get convinced that "X with Y" means that X has Y, and since this is used in sentences like "X has cancer," autism is portrayed as a disease. There are other people who oppose the adjectival phrase for similar reasons.

IMO, the point in these cases is more that a certain phrase has obtained a negative connotation, and should be avoided, but it is framed in some Sapir-Whorf-like style.

Euphemism treadmill, etc.

But are you an entity with Person or a Person with Entity?

If one cannot analyze words to w/i an inch of death, what is one to do on the internet other than speak in the 3rd person?

That’s a totally false comparison. Brown hair is something you physically have.

Technically so is autism if you want to go that route. It's something that is physically different in your brain, at least different enough that you can spot it with a scan.

I am a person with empathy.

I am an empathetic person.

While I can see where you’re coming from, I don’t believe those around me or the community I live in see it as such a dire designation and of a disease. It’s a common term of phrase that doesn’t really need to be picked apart.

Your community may not be the problem. There are other communities (such as Autism Speaks) which do view it as a disease. And the popularity of this viewpoint is evident by the number of jigsaw puzzle piece bumper stickers around.

Most people with autism don't care at all.

I've been told to use both "autistic person" and "person with autism", and that the alternate phrase is bad. For any individual I'll use whichever they prefer, but there is no consensus of this whatsoever.

The "with autism" stuff seems to be pushed by relatives of autistic people. I doubt most autistic people would care.

The journalists and corporate communication people seem to be in disagreement with this. There has been a big push to change everything to be "person of" or "person with". "Person with vision impairment" rather than "blind person". To emphasize that they are regular people first.

Those have very different meanings to me. "vision impairment" suggests at least some degree of vision, while "blind" is basically "can't see at all."

> "risk of firearms being diverted to entities or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities."

The hypocrisy of the United States government saying this...

Yeah after operation fast and furious it’s like a cheating partner accusing you of cheating. Firearms makers should halt sales to police and governmental agencies for 90 days and see how fast they pass a law banning such a thing.

No, it’s not like a cheating partner. The United States is a country. It’s not a single person. It can’t be hypocritical the way a person can.

Different people get elected and are in charge of the US at different times. This is why a country like the US doesn’t behave consistently the way a person does. Judging countries as though they were people is committing the fallacy of composition.

One decisionmaker within the country can still see what others have done, and act as-if-one.

Eg. the statement could have said:

"We have realised that some actions we have taken with weapons have promoted regional instability, but to prevent others making the same mistake as us, we won't export weapons to other countries."

This is very insightful. Still, there are central policies and various mechanisms by which people have to obey them.

Do you have an email address where I could ask your opinion about something privately? (Or could you email me at mine, it is listed in my profile.)

Thanks.

Is that reasonable? It's bad for entity to prevent bad if entity did bad?

EDIT: -3? For an innocuous query? :|

They want to direct them, not divert them!

Very cool! As a novice painter who can’t mix colors to save their life, I’m very excited about trying this out next time I’m in front of the canvas.