healthetank

Sure, sounds great. But it's the same problem that applies to everyone - all you can do is reduce your own impact and hope they do the same.

The article seems to be basically just complaining about China not doing enough, while not proposing any measures to encourage China to reduce their impact, while also failing to note that the manufacturing China is taking produces resources and goods FOR the west. If we don't want to give them our manufacturing jobs, then pass legislation forcing more manufacturing to be done in your own country.

Just saying "no, we should burn fossil fuels because otherwise it's not fair" is a bunch of bullshit.

FYI they made the Narnia movies from the most interesting and least convoluted boos. Lion witch and wardrobe is book 2, prince Caspian is book 4, and Voyage is book 5. I don't believe they ever planned on doing the rest of the books. Book 1 and 7 both are some heavy allegorical books that probably wouldn't translate well, book 3 has some serious questionable bits that would be seen as pretty racist these days. Book 6 could be decent, but doesn't include the main siblings, so probably less interest from fans of the main actors.

I would agree, except that this has been a problem ongoing for the last twenty years with no progress made by protesting/following legal channels. From my perspective, without the threat of violence, both US parties have too much to gain by maintaining the status quo to respond to general peaceful protesting or trying to legally change things. If your perspective is that these people are causing deaths, and the legal system isn't willing to change quickly enough, an argument could be made that the slow protests/incremental change is causing more deaths.

From nearly all ethical standpoints this murder was unethical and unjust.

Really? I definitely don't agree with that. The starting base that you're likely missing is that this man is directly responsible for the preventable deaths of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. He joined UHC as the CEO in 2021, so has had some time to work and adjust the company. Since he joined, he has changed their policy and implemented measures to deny additional claims (see, chatbot rejecting peoples claims), causing their denial rate to skyrocket to ~30%. Source is here in the XLS files the government provides. UnitedHealtcare claims it pays 90% of claims but hasnt actually provided data showing that.

Since his company posted enormous, increasing profits in every year he was CEO, and the denial rates, I'd argue he's led the company to deny healthcare claims.

Some easy ethical frameworks where this is acceptable?

Utilitarianism - you could argue that killing him has caused companies to back off other healthcare cuts (see BlueCross and their anaesthesia cuts). The ripples it has caused are likely to impact what decisions CEOs of other healthcare organizations make regarding patient care and denials.

Natural law theory essentially argues that law and morality are separate. An example that might be clearer is slavery - I'd argue killing a slaver is morally correct, because I believe that slavery is immoral, even is slavery is legal in that country. I believe that healthcare should not be a for-profit industry, and that denying people care to prioritize "line goes up" is immoral. Those who are making the decisions to do that are thus directly contributing to the preventable deaths of countless people.

Rousseau talks about the social contract theory, and basically says if a government approves immoral actions (which I count for-profit healthcare as), they forfeit their legitimacy, and thus people have the right to rebel.

Retribuutivism by Kant argues punishment should be proportional to the crime. If you accept that he is responsible for deaths (not legally responsible, but morally), then this is definitely moral, though its worth noting Kant though murder is a serious, irreversible action and recommended other options before murder.

I could keep going, but those are the easy ones.

The problem with your "drop them if they don't cover you" bit is that people generally won't find out until something serious happens, and then they're screwed regardless, OR their employer pays a good chunk of their premiums, so they figure they're better off to keep that and hope something winds up covered.

Not American, but we studied this in school. The insurance/free market problem is twofold - healthcare is a captive industry, and the knowledge base required to understand what is and isn't a good plan is well beyond most of the population.

Healthcare is a captive industry in that no one can stop using it entirely. Car insurance? Never get a car, you avoid it. Arguments of car-driven infrastructure aside, that's not a captive industry. So you, at some point in your life, are going to need healthcare. But, you have no idea how bad it's going to be, what's going to be wrong with you, etc. so your needs are extremely unknown. Again, to use a car insurance comparison, your choices are fairly limited here in Canada at least. The govt has set minimum standards that all insurers must provide, and then you can choose to increase above that. But those minimum standards cover enough that you're very unlikely to be totally screwed with enormous debt after an accident no matter what causes the accident, etc.

This leads to the fact that healthcare is so ridiculously complicated that sorting out what is and isn't covered by various insurers (who regularly change their plans) is beyond the average person. They have no way of knowing how much a surgery for appendicitis might cost, and if the 2mil max Plan A covers will be enough. Now multiply that by a thousand illnesses.

Healthcare should not be left to the free market - at a minimum, there needs to be a robust, extensive, and functional public insurance to avoid stupidity like bankruptcy from basic, lifesaving surgeries.

Nah things just got bumped till post holiday :(

Even then, that would not make that businessman the most knowledgeable in the world about medicine

Our 200 kyr track record of survival **cannot rule out much higher extinction probabilities **

I mean the video shows him going into an abandoned mining town they're now using as a military training ground, not like he walked into a military base

Egg birds take 6 months from hatching to laying

Civil engineer with a number of courses in building science (aka this).

Can't tell for sure without seeing what kind of insulation it is, but there are a few factors.

First, as other people have mentioned, having temperature gradients cause moisture issues. Typically, in modern construction in cold weather climates like Canada, we install a single waterproof layer. Cold weather, this goes inside of the insulation (between the insulation and the drywall), and in hot weather places, it'll be installed outside the insulation.

Explanation why

The reason (simplified) for this basically boils down to hot air holds more water. As the air cools, it drops off the extra water it can no longer carry on nearby surfaces. You want to make sure hot air stays hot, and cold air stays cold. If you allow air that is hot to cool down, it will create moisture.

My understanding of the houses this is being done in, there is no vapour barrier, meaning damp+ moisture can accumulate.

Second, new houses in NA have a "minimum air exchange", which is a specific amount of air that needs to move through the house within a given time frame, typically air changes per hour (ACH rating). This is usually accomplished by means of a central heating/ductwork units, and bedrooms are generally somewhere around 4-8, meaning all the air in the bedroom should be refreshed 4 to 8 times per hour. My understanding of many of these houses is that there is not central air system. Before the insulation, it is likely that small gaps or holes in the walls/exterior siding were sufficient to allow enough air to move through, however that air slows down when there is insulation sprayed into the cavities. Any slowdown will exacerbate moisture problems, as still air is bad. More air exchanges also would allow the house to dry out more, as evaporation would help.

Those are the general situations that would likely be a problem.

In this case, from reading the article, it seems like she has a hole in her roof, which is either new or was not caught by the installers. ANY source of water ingress would cause mold problems. The issue here is that previously, it is likely that the water trickled down the inside of the cladding (likely brick), and out at the base of the wall. Once you add insulation to that cavity, it'll hold water and cause mold problems. Seems like a shitty spot to be in.

People who go hunting don't go by "off the top of their head".

Now I can't speak to the laws in California for hunting, but in Canada they have pretty crazy strict laws regarding illegal hunting, including seizure of anything used in the act (trucks, atvs, guns, boats, etc), removal of gun license, and huge fines.

A quick google search shows the method they've used, and have been using for the last decade as an attempt to stop the spread: Barred owls are much more aggressive, and playing their calls can lure them in to fight, in a way the spotted owls don't, so you don't need to just go based on visual differences. Here's one article about the removal process up to now with an interview of a biologist who's pro-hunting.

Relocation of the barred owls isn't feasible, because no matter where you send them, there's probably already owls there, and relocation often results in the animal dying off anyway.

What's the alternative? Watch as the spotted owls are out-competed and go extinct due to human development and habitat destruction? To me, that seems worse. We already hunt to maintain populations of animals in other species - deer spring to mind. Since we've eliminated many of the deer's predators, we need to maintain that role, which includes setting hunting targets each year. Why are these owls different?