Well, it doesn't have to "depend" on the health insurance plans. But there are definitely ones that reward you in some way for doing some/all of these. Mine literally gives me cash back for doing an annual physical.
The ACA made this standard. It’s been like this for a long time.
When we were hiring a lot of people out of college, I spent way more time than I expected teaching them about how healthcare works and how to find their own information. We found that a lot of them would build their idea about how health insurance works from years of reading Reddit posts: They thought visiting the doctor was always going to be a $1000 bill or a single accident was going to medically bankrupt them, because those are the stories they saw on Reddit. I would explain things like the free annual physical and many just wouldn’t believe me. It’s really tough to cut through the confusion out there.
I would argue this has severe caveats. I knew a girl in college who was billed over 400$ to test for PCOS, which is one of those diseases that 1) affects just women 2) is underdiagnosed but has severe systemic effects like facial hair growth, diabetes and obesity...
But if they do anything other than extremely basic tests, like blood pressure at the "free annual physical" you will be billed, ridiculous amounts you have no way of knowing in advance.
During these "free" preventative checkups, if your doctor asks if you have any other medical issues to discuss, having an answer other than "no" can change the visit from a free preventative visit into a standard non-free office visit.
These are items you receive along with your insurance.
They are not insurable events and they are not “covered” like an insurable event.
Predictable, regularly occurring events cannot be covered by insurance by definition. You can’t adjust it, you can’t assemble a risk pool, etc.
We use the word “insurance” to mean “nice things that I like” but I think we’d have more enthusiasm for socialized medicine if we knew how much of “insurance” was nothing of the sort.
That's not quite correct. Many patients forgo preventive screening procedures even when they're free (to the patient). Medical insurer actuaries are aware of this and price policies accordingly.
I would say that while Google's MediaPipe can technically run any tflite model, it turned out to be a lot more difficult to do in practice with third-party models compared to the "officially supported" models like Gemma-3n. I was trying to set up a VLM inference pipeline using a SmolVLM model. Even after converting it to a tfilte-compatible binary, I struggled to get it working and then once it did work, it was super slow and was obviously missing some hardware acceleration.
I have not looked at OP's work yet, but if it makes the task easier, I would opt for that instead of Google's "MediaPipe" API.
Right now China is meeting all of its increasing energy demand by building more renewables (in fact more than rest of the world combined). Their citizen buy electric vehicles at a record rate. Yet I don't see Chinese people starving.
Climate change caused by burning fossil fuels is what has the potential to cause a mass starvation, not getting rid of oil where possible. It should be also noted that all fossil fuel is just sun's energy stored in another form, although I can understand some of you Americans may think it was magically created by a god. Why not use that sun's energy directly wherever possible?
There will be no need for fossil fuels in energy generation and transporting stuff. Whatever use cases remain are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and many of those have alternatives too.
That's a lightweight comment given multiple things can be true.
The claim you are responding to is contempory, "Right now China is", and concerns "its increasing energy demand" .. a response about total existing use twelve years past is no rebuttal.
and maybe recommend diving into the ongoing series of IEA global energy generation and consumption reports.
China's coal consumption is for a purpose, it has a projected wind down, and it represents not just the per capita coal consumption of China's people but also the coal consumption of the world that avails itself of China's solar panel and battery technology.
With a small amount of effort you can create a better comment.
None. The point is not to shut off oil as a energy source instantly before alternatives exist. We should quickly move off of oil as a fuel/energy and build out alternatives as we go (as we are in most parts of the world). Using solar/nuclear/wind for energy does not mean people suddenly start starving. This may surprise you, but your food will be just as nutritious even if it was not delivered to you by burning oil products.
Keep the oil infrastructure for petrochemicals which cannot be easily replaced in the near term.
The point being made is that nobody needs to starve.
Pesticides and fertiliser may be derived from fossil oils and methane, that doesn't mean a single drop has to be burned in the engine of the combine harvester or the tractor.
Electronics - I recently bought a decent DSO, the "Pinecil" soldering iron, a whole bunch of components. I had some ideas but then sort of hit a wall and lost interest. So now I have a workbench with tools that I will hopefully get back to some day. I think my starting projects were either too difficult, or not that interesting after I implemented them on a breadboard.
Plasma simulation - I really want to understand how fusion and advanced propulsion systems can be simulated and maybe even contribute in some way. E.g. The fusion propulsion being developed by Helicity Space is very interesting. I wish I knew enough to understand their work and maybe do some simulations myself. I tried doing this "Particle In Cell" course I found online but quickly lost interest after a week or so.
I guess I just have a wide variety of interests that come and go. Some of these just seem to be passing interests. I have sort of learned to live with that.
> Maybe if it wasnt suck by funding hyperinflated bogus military tech… there would trees.
US military spending for 2024 was approximately $850 billion. Let's say we put all of that money into one of those $1-per-tree charities. That is 850 billion trees taking up around 7.98 million km^2 at typical planting densities. This is about 2/3 of total US land area. Maybe we can get some more value for money at scale and plant 1.275 trillion trees covering the entire US land area instead.
Once all those trees are grown, they would absorb anywhere from 10kg-25kg of CO2 per year. That's about 12 to 31 gigatons per year for all of the US land area.
The world currently generates ~41 gigatons of CO2 per year.
The just-plant-trees "solution" doesn't really work.
Who is "they"? It makes no sense for Openrouter to allow providers that do not conform to the API. They profit from the commission from the fees and not providing inference.
https://huggingface.co/mlx-community/Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Ins...
https://huggingface.co/lmstudio-community/Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3...
The one you linked is not the "coder" model.
reply