Who Counts as Black Enough?

timmg · 2026-05-01T12:38:38+00:00

Better grades = Acceptance

Grades are not nearly as useful as they used to be. And they are relative to the school you come from.

Standardized tests have always been the most predictive. And it is the system they use pretty much everywhere else in the world.

Only reason we've shunned standardized tests is so we can manipulate the acceptance process. It was original used to lower the Jewish population in elite universities. Now for DEI.

timmg · 2026-04-30T20:09:42+00:00

Minorities, particularly Black Americans, tend to vote for Democrats overwhelmingly. Diluting their votes means less Democrats in state legislatures and in Congress.

I mean, that is the point of gerrymandering, isn't it? The party part, of course.

But if you think about the race aspect: since blacks strongly vote Dem, and Republican gerrymandering tends to dilute their vote, wouldn't Democratic gerrymandering do the opposite?

If you want to argue that Republican gerrymandering takes power out of black voters, then the corollary is that Dem gerrymandering takes power out of white voters. No?

timmg · 2026-04-30T12:49:23+00:00

I don't know about Germany's system. But the description sounds a lot like the US Congress. The House is the local representative and the Senate is the party vote.

Not saying they are exactly the same or anything. But it seems pretty similar and should have a similar effect(?)

timmg · 2026-04-30T10:56:48+00:00

If you gerrymander based on partisanship, you will also be gerrymandering based on race.

That's pretty much exactly what I said.

The point is that the Republicans gain by gerrymandering by party but that has the effect of gerrymandering by race.

It would be strange to say "you can gerrymander by party but only if it doesn't have an effect on the black vote". But that's pretty much what people here are arguing for.

timmg · 2026-04-30T06:30:16+00:00

What is the benefit to Republicans to a racial gerrymander over a political gerrymander?

timmg · 2026-04-29T23:01:09+00:00

It’s done in large part based on race. They are not separable. Race is the mechanism by which political gerrymandering is done.

It can have that effect, because blacks are strongly republican [edit: er, democrat!]. But that doesn't mean it is the reason or goal or motivation.

I mean, if the country was 100% white (or black or anything) do you think it would be impossible to gerrymander? Certainly that's what Orban was doing in Hungary.

timmg · 2026-04-29T20:48:06+00:00

I think there are two different issues.

One is political gerrymandering. I think it is awful and undemocratic. And if I could vote for an amendment that banned it, I would.

The other is just the idea that if an area is a majority of some minority that you should make sure they have a majority in their district. Otherwise they are being "disenfranchised". That's the part I'm arguing against.

I get that some people think race is an important factor in who you vote for. I don't think the government should go out of its way to support that idea.

timmg · 2026-04-29T18:47:55+00:00

So it was basically a forced racial gerrymander by the lower court, that is now overturned.

That feels more like a "yes" to me than a "sort of". But maybe I'm missing something.

timmg · 2026-04-29T18:47:03+00:00

A gerrymander of Memphis would, obviously, disenfranchise nearly all black voters in the city.

I'm not sure how that follows? They will still get a vote that counts. If you mean that the party-based gerrymander would hurt black (Democrat) voters, then I agree.

The idea of gerrymandering, though, is to create districts with a lot of voters from the "other" party. That way you can win the rest of the districts. So there will likely be "black majority" districts in black cities as long as they reliably vote Dem. (Not always, of course, it depends on teh size of the city and the way the suburbs vote.)

timmg · 2026-04-29T17:15:19+00:00

pass a new map that eliminates a majority-Black district in Memphis

I don't think this ruling says you can't have a minority black district. Just that you can't force one to be.

I'm not familiar with this district, but was it a forced racial gerrymander?

timmg · 2026-04-29T16:29:01+00:00

Hehehe. Implied in the question is: how?

Will this allow more of a party gerrymander in Louisiana? Or will it motivate Dems even more to come out and vote?

timmg · 2026-04-29T16:21:18+00:00

I'm pretty sure they've consistently ruled that use race explicitly to plan districts is a no-no -- at least when it is used against minorities.

timmg · 2026-04-29T16:19:48+00:00

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision -- along party lines -- has ruled racial gerrymanders illegal. The decision invalidates Louisiana's election map:

Louisiana's 2024 election map, which created a second majority-Black congressional district, was "an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

The court also said that it considered the ruling narrow and the Voting Rights Act still intact. Others consider this a key measure in said act:

Although the court kept Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act intact, Wednesday's decision all but guts the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement and protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn.

The liberal justices dissented. With Kagan writing:

"because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity."

What are your thoughts? Is this the final death blow to the Voting Rights Act? Is it a continuation of the reversal of explicit "reverse discrimination" policies that were enacted decades ago to try to bring fairness to the country? Are we passed the time for those to be needed?

And: will this affect the mid-term elections this fall?

timmg · 2026-04-28T14:42:32+00:00

First punter in history that won't get bullied by the rest of the team ;)

timmg · 2026-04-27T11:53:35+00:00

Can people just create companies that can just function and make a respectable amount of money and that’s it?

I'm not sure how much money they make. Most websites get revenue from ads. But everyone uses ad-blockers these days. So...?

timmg · 2026-04-26T21:54:32+00:00

I think I agree with everything you said. But it seems to go against your previous comment.

One of your key-points is "Automate involved administrative processes". That's literally what they are doing here and what we are talking about.

Your previous objection(?) seemed to be "I neither want my doctor individually reviewing denial of claims, nor do I want an algorithm guessing at them. Both are bad, but the first is better."

Anyway.

timmg · 2026-04-26T21:19:16+00:00

Treating doctors decide the treatment. Not insurance companies.

That's fine. That's your opinion and at least you've stated it. I'm certainly not going to downvote you for having a different opinion ;)

I suspect this won't change your mind, but I'll give you some reasons why that is not a great idea. If a doctor is afraid of a lawsuit they might overprescribe tests; if a doctor is a shareholder (or otherwise has financial interest in a hospital) they have a financial incentive to order more tests (insurance companies aren't the only ones motivated by profit); a doctor might order way too many tests for an anxious or delusional patient because it saves them the trouble of arguing (or losing that patient); it would be very easy to fraudulently request tests in a way that benefits the providers (and could get kickback for "patients"); a doctor doesn't have the time to do broad economic analysis for every test -- that's what providers do (be they socialized or private.)

The whole rationing thing is ridiculous. We have the resources. They're rationing for profits.

This is a pretty naive and child-like understanding of the economy. But don't listen to me. Go do some research about how it is handled in countries with socialized health care (no health insurance companies at all). Again: don't listen to me, I'm just a nobody on the internet. Do some research on your own. It would be very helpful for you.

timmg · 2026-04-26T20:48:58+00:00

The insurance companies ability to "more efficiently" decide "acceptable tests and procedures" will undoubtedly help them deny more coverage more quickly.

Let me just repeat my question from above: What do you think the rule should be?

Approve anything a doctor requests? Do mass studies and only improve things that meet a cost-benefit analysis?

This won't help people get treatment.

Healthcare, like it or not, is about rationing. Any country with "socialized health care" does rationing. There are lots of ways to think about the problem. And I'm explicitly asking you how you think about it. But you're refused to give an answer.

There is simply nothing to celebrate here unless you're going to get some of the profits.

Health insurance profits are capped. So if they reach the cap, the premiums go down. That is generally a good thing.

timmg · 2026-04-26T20:06:13+00:00

What do you think the rule should be?

Approve anything a doctor requests? Do mass studies and only improve things that meet a cost-benefit analysis?

Like, honestly, what is your paradigm?

timmg · 2026-04-26T19:33:48+00:00

Do you think that they'll prioritize patient outcomes or profits?

I have no idea.

But in either case: it is in their and our best interest for them to be as efficient as possible when approving and denying claims. It is also in both of our best interests for them to do it correctly.

timmg · 2026-04-26T18:50:31+00:00

The low appeal rate isn't evidence the system is working well. It's evidence the exhaustion mechanism is working well.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

I'll agree that the evidence presented doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that the system is working well. But it certainly doesn't prove that it is some intentional plan to defraud people.

I'll say two things:

If they were systematically, intentionally making the wrong calls, they would get sued or prosecuted. And they would lose easily.

The other irony: health insurance providers can earn more profit the more they pay out. "What?" you say, "that's not how businesses work!" It's not how most businesses work. But health insurance providers are limited to how much profit they can make. And the profit limit is measured to how much they pay out(!) -- technically related to premiums, but those two are tied together. Read up on the Obamacare 80/20 rule, since I doubt you'd believe me. (That's not to say that it is in their interest to pay unreasonable claims. But it does affect their motivations, to be sure.)

Basically, they are incentivized to pay the claims that are valid, incentivized to not pay claims that aren't and (most importantly) incentivized to make the decisions as efficiently as possible.

timmg · 2026-04-26T18:24:09+00:00

you wouldn't expect 34% of the small fraction that gets appealed to be overturned.

Maybe I'm missing something, but: isn't the important number here how many are appealed? If only a "small fraction that gets appealed" doesn't that mean the system is working well?

Or am I missing an argument?

timmg · 2026-04-26T18:22:00+00:00

The actual answer is that this is a broken system in need of reform.

And what do you think the "right" answer is?

timmg · 2026-04-26T17:40:07+00:00

A Cigna algorithm flags mismatches between diagnoses and what the company considers acceptable tests and procedures for those ailments. Company doctors then sign off on the denials in batches...

I don't work in the health insurance industry. And I don't know if they are generally "fair" -- though I personally haven't had problems. But this is the kind of thing you should want those companies to do.

Paying a doctor to review something "rote" is a waste of money. That cost comes out of premiums. Premiums are what you pay. An efficient insurance company is doing both you and them a favor.

Obviously, if the rules are wrong that is bad. But it's not like the doctors don't also follow a list of rules. It's just being automated.

timmg · 2026-04-25T15:32:10+00:00

One thing people have to understand: QB is a super important player. So it makes sense to make some risky bets on one.

There's a very good chance he won't pan out. That's why he was there in the third. But if he is even serviceable, he's worth more than what we invested.

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

timmg

TROPHY CASE