greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Can't force fatties to do much now can we. My point is the best solution for those concerned about their health lies within themselves. Great, but what about people concerned about the ballooning federal budget? Once again you're having your own conversation about something nobody else is discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Nearly 75 percent of all deaths in the United States are attributed to basically ten causes, with the top three of these being Heart Disease, Cancer and Lower Respiratory Disease and account for over 50 percent of all deaths and all of which are GREATLY influenced by the choices we make about what we put in our bodies and expose ourselves to. I'll go along with what you say regarding heart disease and respiratory disease, but let's not gloss over the fact here that you lumped cancer in as a preventable disease just by diet and exercise. Yes some types are a reduced risk from diet and exercise this but I think you are overselling the effect. Furthermore there are a lot more environmental factors that go into cancer, and for the most part cancer is still largely an unknown. Just typing GREATLY in all caps doesn't mean all cancer is cured by not eating red meat. Will it "fix" healthcare, no and not one is claiming it would. However, if you seriously don't think individuals could work to better themselves and put a significant dent in the cost of healthcare for everyone then I'm just going to LOL and go detail another cool car, continue to care for myself and my family while you and others enjoy waiting around for politicians and public policy. Don't hold your breath regardless of who is in office though. OK, so individuals could work to better themselves, so what? It still doesn't solve the problem of caring for the elderly or the terminally or genetically ill. It also doesn't solve the access to healthcare problem in poor or rural communities, or the price of drugs which may market adjust to more expensive following the decreased demand if everyone suddenly "got healthy" You aren't wrong about people needing to take more agency over their own health, but you are wrong about using that as a way of justifying that we shouldn't also try to address this at the government level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 You left yourself open there Kerry. It's important to always make clear that the federal government is always going to be in the healthcare business because of the simple economics of aging. So it's not whether or not the government should try to tackle these problems, it's a matter of how to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 You left yourself open there Kerry. It's important to always make clear that the federal government is always going to be in the healthcare business because of the simple economics of aging. So it's not whether or not the government should try to tackle these problems, it's a matter of how to pay for it. yeah I know. But lets be honest, the majority of Tim's "political positions" are Look at how good I am doing this one thing while the rest of you sheeple wait for the .gov to fix it for you. They are not really anything intellectual, it's just the Midwestern way of saying look at how much better I am because I am doing the thing that I think will work. "The death toll from gun violence in america is just the cost of freedom, we wouldn't have a deficit to worry about if we didn't have such a big gubment, Fuck everybody but America - and really only those americans who got here between 1700 and 1990 and for whom english is the first language, and those old people wouldn't need so much damn health care if they just ate right and exercised." Tell me Tim, am I capturing this correctly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Great, but what about people concerned about the ballooning federal budget? Once again you're having your own conversation about something nobody else is discussing. because I'm focusing first on what I can directly control and impact not only for my own good but the greater good too. I'll go along with what you say regarding heart disease and respiratory disease, but let's not gloss over the fact here that you lumped cancer in as a preventable disease just by diet and exercise. Yes some types are a reduced risk from diet and exercise this but I think you are overselling the effect. I have three MD's in my family one of which is an oncologist. We can agree to disagree then if you feel we as humans can't make a significant impact on our lives as it relates to cancer. You work with your source and I'll will work with mine. Furthermore there are a lot more environmental factors that go into cancer, and for the most part cancer is still largely an unknown. Just typing GREATLY in all caps doesn't mean all cancer is cured by not eating red meat. sure environment plays a part but there's more to it in terms of health than just red meat. OK, so individuals could work to better themselves, so what? It still doesn't solve the problem of caring for the elderly or the terminally or genetically ill. all depends on how you look at things, circle of concern or circle of influence. more choices for each of us to make. I think the stats are that about 68% of Americans are considered Obese. Doesn't really matter, just look around no matter where you are and you'll see a sea of fatties. If people just simply focused on not being obese they could impact some pretty major cost-related chronic diseases strokes, diabete, osteoarthriti, cataracts, sleep disorders, gout and many more. If Kirk ever reads up here I'll let him chime in as he's an actual doc. It also doesn't solve the access to healthcare problem in poor or rural communities, or the price of drugs which may market adjust to more expensive following the decreased demand if everyone suddenly "got healthy" drugs aren't the answer for most of the chronic diseases society faces and obviously the personal responsibility we each have in our own health isn't going to impact access to care. although from a supply and demand standpoint doctors are in a shortage largely because they aren't in a situation where they need to go to rural/poor communities. Remove a big portion of what I've mentioned and perhaps they would be able and willing to focus on other areas. Right now it's easy for them to find people in need. You aren't wrong about people needing to take more agency over their own health, but you are wrong about using that as a way of justifying that we shouldn't also try to address this at the government level. I've never said we shouldn't try and address things from a policy standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 yeah I know. But lets be honest, the majority of Tim's "political positions" are Look at how good I am doing this one thing while the rest of you sheeple wait for the .gov to fix it for you. They are not really anything intellectual, it's just the Midwestern way of saying look at how much better I am because I am doing the thing that I think will work. you are clearly a pretty negative person dude. still not sure why you continue to resort to personal attacks either nothing I've noted in the latest round of my points made are a better-than-thow position. In fact I've been quite clear that my beliefs are exactly that and how anyone else chooses to react as it relates to their health is exactly that, their own choice and responsibility. I've made no opinion on the points others have made as it relates to their comments on this matter either. "The death toll from gun violence in america is just the cost of freedom, we wouldn't have a deficit to worry about if we didn't have such a big gubment, Fuck everybody but America - and really only those americans who got here between 1700 and 1990 and for whom english is the first language, and those old people wouldn't need so much damn health care if they just ate right and exercised." Tell me Tim, am I capturing this correctly? deaths from drug OD's far outweigh guns but yes, you are correct that I don't see guns as an issue and you know why and where I stand on the various groups of dead people with bullets in them. the vast majority are not at all related to guns being the core problem. but if you want to bounce to another topic..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 So Tim, when you vote for your city council members do you not pay any attention to how they're paying for the police department because people should just buy a gun and lock their doors? You can't control the budget directly, no need to worry about how they're doing their jobs. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 because I'm focusing first on what I can directly control and impact not only for my own good but the greater good too. What's good as a personal philosophy is a piss poor excuse for public policy. I have three MD's in my family one of which is an oncologist. We can agree to disagree then if you feel we as humans can't make a significant impact on our lives as it relates to cancer. You work with your source and I'll will work with mine. this sounds familiar.....oh wait now I remember.... I had an uncle went to MIT who is a top professor. Dr. John Trump. A genius, It’s in my blood. I’m smart. Great marks. Like really smart. I've never said we shouldn't try and address things from a policy standpoint. You say it all the time. And when you aren't saying it you infer it, allude to it, and hint at it. If people just did "x" we wouldn't need the government to do "y" is your theme song. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 still not sure why you continue to resort to personal attacks either nothing I've noted in the latest round of my points made are a better-than-thow position. here let me help you find that: I'm just going to LOL and ... continue to care for myself and my family while you and others enjoy waiting around for politicians and public policy. I mean is there another way you meant that? because it sure sounds self righteous as fuck to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 When he turns 65 and goes crawling to the government for health care it's going to be quite ironic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Put your money where you mouth is and promise not to sign up for Medicare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 What's good as a personal philosophy is a piss poor excuse for public policy. because 320M people taking care of their own health is a policy that wouldn't benefit our society at all in any way. gotcha. this sounds familiar.....oh wait now I remember....I'm just going to LOL and ... continue to care for myself and my family while you and others enjoy waiting around for politicians and public policy...it sure sounds self righteous as fuck to me it was a statement more around what I see as common sense vs self righteousness. that the fact that you seem to think that think the betterment of millions of individuals health wouldn't put a significant dent in the cost of healthcare for all is to me LOL silly. If that's moral superiority then so be it. Common sense to me. You say it all the time. And when you aren't saying it you infer it, allude to it, and hint at it. If people just did "x" we wouldn't need the government to do "y" is your theme song.because I believe solutions lie more in the people than in the gov't and the fact that people do need to do more, especially around their health, in order to lower costs for all. I'm a careful driver and have had just a couple minor claims on my insurance in 33+ years of driving thus doing my part to not only look out for myself but in return I'm not adding to the burden of high insurance costs for the drivers around me. Put your money where you mouth is and promise not to sign up for Medicare. why....if it's good for everyone, then it's good for everyone. even Kerry agrees that personal actions are poor public policy so I may as well swim with the rest....in the mean time however, I'll continue to do my best to not file healthcare claims by taking care of myself and my family. let's see if the rest of the country and do the same. the very least they can do is bring their BMI down to non-obese ranges so my trips to the beach are more enjoyable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 How dependent of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Tim why do you think old people should die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Switching gears for a moment..... can we talk about this for a second: https://gizmodo.com/steve-king-demands-list-of-google-staff-so-he-can-check-1831032193 Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) asked Google CEO Sundar Pichai to disclose the names of more than 1,000 employees who work on the search engine’s algorithm to examine for “a built-in bias.” “There is a very strong conviction on this side of the aisle that the algorithms are written with a bias against conservatives,” King said Tuesday during a House Judiciary hearing. “What we don’t know are who are these thousand people and we don’t know what their social media looks like I kind of feel like this crosses a line, esp since Google is a private, for profit company, and not a public utility. Although the source is somewhat inflammatory (unusual for gizmodo but not for it's related publications), I don't think it is wrong in drawing the Mccarthy parallel. How do you feel about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Steve King was out of line. Google is absolutely biased in favor of the left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 How's Kansas doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 How's Kansas doing? Better than France Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Google is absolutely biased in favor of the left. What do you base this opinion on? And is there an "acceptable bias"? What do I mean by that? well let's assume that it is as Sundar Pichai says and the algorithm does not contain inherent bias on it's face and draws its information from the popularity of searches and effective SEO. Well then, if there is a left "bias" it is because more people are searching for things that seem politically left of center and there are more politically left things that have effective SEO. Google isn't "steering", it is reflecting the pool of its users - do you think that is an acceptable position? Or do you think Google has to get into the content steering game to give equal air time to a less popular ideology? Personally, this whole thing looks to me like a bunch of old men with unpopular opinions who are struggling to find someone else to blame for their opinions being unpopular. Is google really responsible if fewer people are searching for conservative sites and fewer conservative sites have good SEO? How much and when is "bias" acceptable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentStateTsi Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 Google is absolutely biased in favor of the left. +1 I’ll base my opinion on word of mouth from military friends that work on project wing and waymo. Whether or not they built a bias into the search engine, conservative employees are treated differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 ITT a bunch of people who think they know how Google's search engine algorithms work. Hint, even Google doesn't know how Google's search engine algorithms work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 +1 I’ll base my opinion on word of mouth from military friends that work on project wing and waymo. Whether or not they built a bias into the search engine, conservative employees are treated differently. ok, but the congressional hearings are not about whether the company is biased, just whether the search engine is and the conservative message is being suppressed. For the most part the tech industry leans liberal as a whole with the exception of their position on government regulation, so it's not unusual for a conservative to feel outnumbered at google and companies like it. Also I have to imagine it depends on the type of conservative we are talking about - if you are James Damore then you kind of bring it on yourself, but if you keep to yourself and don't write anti-women manifestos then a lot of the treatment might just be in a sense of failure to relate to your co-workers. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/silicon-valley-politics.html https://www.seattletimes.com/business/google-vp-denounces-employee-memos-views-on-female-workers/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 ITT a bunch of people who think they know how Google's search engine algorithms work. Hint, even Google doesn't know how Google's search engine algorithms work. I'll own that, I have no idea how any of it works, but I did read quoted excerpts of what Sundar Pichai testified to in congress: Any time you type in a keyword, as Google we have gone out and crawled and stored copies of billions of [websites’] pages in our index. And we take the keyword and match it against their pages and rank them based on over 200 signals — things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it. And based on that, at any given time, we try to rank and find the best search results for that query. And then we evaluate them with external raters, and they evaluate it to objective guidelines. And that’s how we make sure the process is working. https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/11/18136114/trump-idiot-image-search-result-sundar-pichai-google-congress-testimony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 But he keeps saying "we," which erroneously implies some sort of human intervention. It's all machine learning algorithms, the test for fitness is [probably] which results get clicked on the most. It's so abstract that it doesn't make a lick of sense to talk about "bias" in the search results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 But he keeps saying "we," which erroneously implies some sort of human intervention. It's all machine learning algorithms, the test for fitness is [probably] which results get clicked on the most. It's so abstract that it doesn't make a lick of sense to talk about "bias" in the search results. The "we" is the Royal We as in google. It gets programmed into employees, even the CEO, to think of google as a collective of "we" if you work there. I left my old job 2 months ago and I am still saying "we" for chase in conversation - a couple of other former chase people and I joke about it because our new place doesn't do that. I will agree it is confusing but it is also understandable to those who work for large multinational hive minds...um....I mean corporations. I agree, and I kind of think this is a bit of a waste of time on the part of republican senators to be chasing this conspiracy theory to ground and threatening google to tilt things in their favor. Also Shame on Ohio Rep Steve Chabot - first for going against net neutrality, second for voting yes on giving the telecoms retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretaps, and now for being part of this looney cabal that is accusing google of search result bias. Dude has been an Ohio rep since 1995, time to retire his jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.