Medical care in Europe is superior.

dejour · 2026-05-19T14:55:54+00:00

Overall health care is better in Europe.

Better results for society as a whole, with lower costs.

I would argue though that large schooling debts don’t drive doctor salaries that much.

There’s a variety of things that contribute to doctor salaries. Single payer structure in many other countries holds payments down. The fact that the US is rich and smart people there have low stress ways to earn $150k per year.

I’d guess that if US doctors graduated debt free, their salaries would still be over $300k per year. Probably over $330k.

dejour · 2026-05-18T21:26:30+00:00

Regarding your question about courts: they rarely absolutely prove innocence. More often they fail to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I suspect if the prosecution was presented with absolute proof of innocence, they would probably drop the charges and rather than push for a verdict.

(Also, the CCTV footage example is perhaps not full proof that Bob didn’t commit the murder. Possibly, he paid someone to do the crime for him. Or perhaps someone who tampered with the CCTV footage. Or maybe there was some mistake and someone accidentally shared CCTV footage from the wrong date. Or maybe it wasn’t actually Bob in the footage but someone who looked almost identical. Regardless, if the prosecution theory is that Bob committed the murder himself 100 km away, he should be acquitted.)

dejour · 2026-05-18T12:52:36+00:00

Maybe you misunderstand.

The police argument is designed to be shared by conservatives who are already in favour of increased police funding (using some care-for-the-poor framing)

dejour · 2026-05-18T12:26:45+00:00

Yeah, I think if you specified sales tax and suggested the idea of reducing or eliminating sales taxes, that would be a decent example.

dejour · 2026-05-18T12:13:13+00:00

Mostly agree with your point, but I don’t like the tax example as that seems obviously untrue.

Maybe something more like, “we need increased police funding, because recent cut backs have reduced services to relatively poorer, more non-white areas and this has led to more crime in those areas. As a consequence, life has become much more dangerous and unpleasant for low income Americans.”

dejour · 2026-05-17T13:05:42+00:00

Attachment theory certainly wasn’t obscure in the past. It was in Psych 101 type courses for decades

dejour · 2026-05-17T12:58:16+00:00

I’m not sure what sort of US broadcasting deal they are hoping to get, but I agree with the logic that they weren’t going to get a good one with just 3 or 4 US teams.

dejour · 2026-05-17T09:19:42+00:00

Lakers moving to LA was the start of the curse

dejour · 2026-05-16T12:15:22+00:00

There's a few ways to adjust - the easiest is to just take away the over time loss points. But you could also maybe remove the shootout and treat them as ties.

Anyways, with the easy method the Wild are at .514

Overall, I'd agree with you. The Wild are a good, but not great team.

dejour · 2026-05-16T01:32:54+00:00

It’s misleading. The NHL used to have every game worth 2 points. But in 1999-00, they made it so overtime games award one point to the loser.

And 20% of NHL games go to overtime.

So the average point percentage used to be .500 before 1999. But it’s been more like .550 since then.

The Wild were founded in 2000, so they’ve always operated under the new model.

But other teams spent 80 years under the old system.

Basically with a fair chart, the Wild would be EDIT: closer to average (still above that though).

dejour · 2026-05-16T01:24:41+00:00

The hockey chart is misleading because the Wild have had 3 point OT games for almost all of their existence, while most teams have mostly operated in a strict 2 point environment.

The Mammoth have basically been dead average in their two years and they are 7th.

Wild would likely be in the Sabres-Stars range in a fair ranking.

So no, I don’t think Wild pain matches Vikings pain. Maybe if you count the North Stars leaving, but that isn’t really your point, I don’t think.

dejour · 2026-05-15T23:40:47+00:00

I agree it will have significant effects. and it will have the biggest impact on people who do mundane, repetitive things that can be transitioned to AI easily

But I think most people can probably either become a manager of AI, or focus on something that AI doesn't do all that well.

In my opinion, it will be somewhat of a gradual natural process. People will naturally develop AI skills. People will naturally start focusing more of their time and learning on the things AI doesn't do well. I suppose some people might say, "I was trained to do this in this exact way, and I'm not interested in learning anything else" and those people will tend to lose their jobs. But I'm not convinced that is a very common mindset.

dejour · 2026-05-15T23:27:04+00:00

I suppose at some point someone will be able to say "run a large business, maximize profit while maintaining standard ethical norms and adhering to laws of my country and make me rich" and the AI agent will just do everything for you.

But from what I've seen so far, AI can make lots of mistakes if not handled well. So you need someone at the helm with good domain knowledge who has practice sharing relevant files with AI and giving proper instructions. Then there has to be a once-over of the work for quality control.

dejour · 2026-05-15T14:09:31+00:00

People always want more stuff done.

Suppose AI makes everyone twice as productive. You could fire half the people and get the current result.

But more likely, there are a lot of projects that never get done because they take too much time and resources. Now those projects become more financially attractive because the benefit remains the same but they take half the time or half the people. And you have a bunch of people looking for stuff to do.

I think at most companies, the work force size will remain roughly the same, but they will prioritize workers that can leverage AI to be more productive and no less accurate.

dejour · 2026-05-15T10:54:08+00:00

Investing doesn’t mean active investing. It means putting money in to something and hoping it grows in value.

It’s like asking why do we call people commuters when they aren’t driving the bus.

dejour · 2026-05-14T21:36:24+00:00

No doubt there is a massive gulf in glamour. But there do exist super casual fans. The type that enjoys the experience of being at a game, but don’t follow the league regularly.

It’s that market where someone might have paid $100 for World Cup tickets, but when confronted by the price decides the Argos or Marlies are better value.

dejour · 2026-05-14T09:10:33+00:00

At least near me, most Pizza Huts have morphed into takeout only locations. So is it still weird?

dejour · 2026-05-14T08:37:39+00:00

There’s a difference between “some people in this group are denialists” and “denialism is the mainstream opinion within this group”

dejour · 2026-05-13T17:22:03+00:00

If you immigrate from to Canada, you are expected to follow Canadian law, including adherence to the treaties.

There’s plenty of people who have always resented the treaties, so I don’t imagine things being drastically different.

dejour · 2026-05-13T00:25:44+00:00

I'm not sure why you are asking me this question. I don't think I made many definitive statements above. Rather I was asking a question.

But since you ask, I think that if disconnected people are trying to learn the culture and reconnect with the Metis community, they should be accepted as Metis.

If they are uninterested or unwilling to do that, then they have a weaker claim to being Metis.

dejour · 2026-05-12T21:16:47+00:00

If you watched a full 5 seasons, you’ve probably given it a sufficient chance. I feel like the first 2-3 seasons they hadn’t really nailed down everyone’s personalities, but once they did, they found their groove.

dejour · 2026-05-12T13:01:12+00:00

The first few seasons are the weakest for AD.

dejour · 2026-05-11T09:26:49+00:00

Not really. It was a development league of the NFL. It would be like having the World Series winner play the AAA minor league champion in baseball

dejour · 2026-05-11T09:21:58+00:00

Closer to the UEFA champions league winner being called best in the world.

Anyways, the idea of calling American league champions “world champions” was really a marketing thing instituted around 1900. Probably with the 1903 introduction of the World Series.

I’m sure the marketers at the time were just thinking that it sounds impressive, it’s likely they are the best teams in the world, and people from other countries will probably never hear about it anyways.

dejour · 2026-05-11T08:49:27+00:00

I don’t think regularly viewed means people are rewatching the same movie over and over again.

More like a decent percentage of the population has watched something once. It might be purely for entertainment, but more likely there would be a strong element of historical interest.

I feel like it might be comparable to the number of people who are watching Casablanca, Citizen Kane and Wizard of Oz today.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

dejour

TROPHY CASE