In this particular case, only "está" (instead of "es") is correct. Otherwise it means that the person is an active person, instead of meaning that at the present period of time, the person can be found active/online.
I am pretty sure that it was meant "unintentionally". I would say that nobody has killed another person with a shovel unintentionally since shovels exist (maybe injure). OK maybe one since shovels exist /s
The first one is just the binary sum without carry (x xor y) and then adding the carries of that sum (x&y) shifted by 1 bit (2*(x&y)), still the addition of the carries can in turn produce carries, but that is taken care of by the normal "+" which is addition with carry.
That's correct, and here's a further illustration.
Consider adding two single bits, X and Y - you'll get the following sums, denoted in binary (column CM):
X Y | CM
----+---
0 0 | 00
0 1 | 01
1 0 | 01
1 1 | 10
As you'll note, the M-bit is just XOR and the C-bit is AND (google "half-adder" if you're into hardware).
And as we remember from school, the carry (C-bit) always has to be added to the next column to the left, that's why we shift it by one bit (aka multiplication by 2).
The Power7 (2010) already had a very powerful prefetching engine (also programmable) able to detect a multitude of patterns/striding supporting even 12 different streams. Its design, composability and not only automatic detection but its programmability, allowing you to drive its behavior or change according to different computation phases made a fantastic piece of engineering for its time: https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg248079.pdf
Just pointing this out (there are several generations of Power's with improved design) as you mentioned memory controllers. The problem in the blog post is different (aliasing) and I guess that all I can say is that unless some randomness is introduced, every design will have a "worst" access pattern.
Air also has inelastic demand.
It is just that it is too cheap (that doesn't mean that the producers make a good profit) to produce an enormous quantity of it (even though fresh food is perishable), so much, that even the US and the EU agree on agricultural quotas and/or increasing tariffs over a certain quota of imported quantity.
For Switzerland & Germany the way the incentives work are different than in the US, but the market for compulsory health insurance is very strictly regulated and the cost distribution for healthcare is distributed across public and private entities (particularly for very expensive treatments, rare diseases, treatments involving machines of great complexity/cost [like for proton therapy]).
Switzerland has very strictly and non-deniable obligatory minimum (very broad in coverage) insurance, with regulated yearly price adjustments and on top of that, publicly funded hospitals and clinics (mostly unprofitable but of high quality and offering treatments that would not be profitable for private hospitals) that issue their bills to the health insurances. And, to put the icing on the cake, there are treatments and operations (e.g. congenital defects and invalidity-related) that are directly billed to the public social insurance (funded by salary deductions) to help health insurances reduce their risk.
Switzerland's compulsory private health insurance is nothing comparable to other countries' private insurance. There is "additional private insurance" in Switzerland (covering alternative medicine treatments, access to single bed rooms in hospitals, etc.) which do operate as private insurances elsewhere.
> there are treatments and operations (e.g. congenital defects and invalidity-related) that are directly billed to the public social insurance (funded by salary deductions) to help health insurances reduce their risk.
> Switzerland's compulsory private health insurance is nothing comparable to other countries' private insurance. There is "additional private insurance" in Switzerland (covering alternative medicine treatments, access to single bed rooms in hospitals, etc.) which do operate as private insurances elsewhere.
You're mistaken, Switzerland has no centralized social insurance — it is fully privatized (for real medicine as well as alternative medicine), and is decentralized among its Cantons. It's just that the private Swiss insurers tend to be non-profits (same holds true for the US, e.g. Blue Cross, Kaiser, etc) and the for-profit insurers' profits are heavily capped/regulated (same holds true for the US).
Social insurance is covered by AHV/SVA/IV (funded by salary deductions and cover congenital defects, invalidity, some rehabilitation therapies and other non profitable coverage) and of course healthcare is not fully privatized as you say: private insurances are private, offering highly regulated compulsory insurance and can offer less regulated additional insurance. Some hospitals/clinics/health and elderly centers (cantonal) are kept with public debt & public donations even if deficitary because private clinics would be unprofitable otherwise.
I don't know if you legitimately do not know that.
I did not talk about federal/cantonal to avoid writing a thesis in a comment. I never said it was centralized.
You're conflating Switzerland's social pension with the Swiss health insurance system. Swiss pensions do not subsidize the cost of healthcare delivery, and are not used to cover health costs at the point of service (for real or alternative medicine). The payment of healthcare at the point of service is facilitated by a fully privatized industry of insurers.
Salary deductions pay for subsidies to lower income beneficiaries to purchase the same private health insurance (KV) as everyone else. This is more or less identical to the US's ACA, and in fact the ACA was modeled after the Swiss healthcare system.
The one big difference between the US's ACA and the Swiss healthcare system is that the ACA also included an employer mandate and stimulated a regime in which the majority of working-age adults receive their private health insurance from their employers as opposed to the individual market, which is not how the Swiss KV works.
I guess that you don't know that, for example, if you get operated of a congenital defect in Switzerland, the bill goes to the SVA instead of to your private insurance (and so on for specific cases)
I am not conflating anything, you have a superficial understanding that makes you think it is privatized. If you dig into the spending public & private and the actual details you would see that Switzerland is not privatized as people generally think.
I'm referring to the majority of working age adults.
Even the US uses Medicare for certain congenital diseases as well (as well as end-stage renal disease).
The Swiss private KV system accounts for the vast majority of health expenditure, even more so than the US where half of health expenditure is nationalized in Medicare and Medicaid.
But another way in which Switzerland maintains its healthcare system with public money is through the -often deficitary- cantonal hospitals/clinics/health care centers (also helped at the municipal level)
As a heads up, ‘deficitary’ doesn’t mean ‘deficit running’ in English. It is closer to the word ‘deficient’ which I don’t think is your intended meaning. Thanks for the insightful comments.
Thanks for the comment! I was meaning the former (under debt).
The intention of my comments was to make clear that in that regard, Switzerland is not an efficient free market private insurance paradise. There are lots of nuances to it, and the private insurance system in fact brings in inefficiencies, namely, a very complex and costly cost itemization and enormous amounts of paperwork and stress for doctors, customers, employers, and the insurances (for example, if there is an accident in a public place involving a car, there are at least one or two days worth of people's times just filling in forms)
I'm not sure that your argument makes the case you think it does. The majority of Swiss health expenditure is in the private sector (which differentiates it from many other healthcare systems). Subsidies and municipal market participants do not change that fact. In every industry in the world, the government may play a participatory role within a greater market. We see this in the US in the food industry as well (food stamps, food banks, etc) — but that still doesn't change that it is essentially privatized. If the US adopted, like-for-like, Switzerland's healthcare system, the US's public spending towards healthcare would decrease, not increase.
Fortunately, life-threatening, chronic, bankruptcy-inducing, rare-and-disabling conditions represent a relatively small portion of the total healthcare spending (removing the most widespread chronic conditions). Those are also the least profitable things to insure (require a constant and sustained spending to maintain the knowledge/capability and fund research even if underutilized) if we want to ensure that any human can get reasonable access to those treatments regardless of their wealth. For this reason, countries like Switzerland or Germany maintain a "healthy" public (with lots of adjectives) healthcare system alongside.
This is where you might be out of your element, it seems. Life-threatening / chronic / bankruptcy-inducing conditions do not represent a "relatively small" — at least in the US, 90% of health expenditure is on chronic health conditions (https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm) — this includes heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes. I work in the industry and this comports with what I see on the ground as well.
In Switzerland (and also the Netherlands), the vast majority of this is covered by private health insurance, not via any sort of public health insurance. That's what sets Switzerland and the Netherlands apart from other peer developed countries, and they have results to show for it.
Regarding rare conditions, we agree — even the US has a public healthcare system alongside which covers rare conditions (e.g. end stage renal disease). US's Medicare Advantage system of private individual health insurance for senior citizens (with Original Medicare as a public option) is also a proven model with results to show for it. The CBO expects that by 2032, 61% of health insurance expenditure for senior citizens will be by the private sector (https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-...).
OK - sorry then! That makes total sense too; I was simply reading too much into the payments discussion happening. Thanks for being polite and for your contributions.
But that’s the same as the US. If you are born with a disability you can get social security insurance (SSI) payments that can also qualify for public (Medicaid) insurance.
Blue Cross is sort of a franchise system with different regional/state franchises. All of them were originally nonprofit but many have changed over the years to be for-profit (notably BCBS of California, for example). My local franchise, BCBS of North Carolina is still not for profit: Blue Cross NC is a fully taxed, not-for-profit North Carolina company with major operations centers in Durham, Fayetteville and Winston-Salem.https://www.bluecrossnc.com/about-us
If you are a non native English speaker you will notice shifts in how things are pronounced when put together, some of whiicht are just not written down, like pronouncing "a" as "ei" or "a" or "an" (this one written down )
English or Finnish? English pronunciation is insane, you have to memorize spelling and pronunciation independently because how a word is written is just a vague approximation at best, or an intentional attempt to mislead at worst, of how the word actually sounds.
It's not only not a 1:1 mapping, and not only can wildly different spellings sound the same, but wildly different pronunciations can be written the same. It's crazy.
There is a simple way around that argument; instead of getting some random (according to whatever distribution) characteristics, be bound to have higher probability of obtaining those characteristics you would be the least bound to be fair to (as individuals). So, if one considers that slavery or torture is perfectly OK, then that person will become a slave or tortured.
The value is not in how often one revisits the past, but on how important (and I mean from a personal point of view mostly) a billionth of that stored past might become in the future. If you can, why not?
True, a for a good part it is that "maybe" that makes me (and others) do it, but I can see how it's akin to choosing not to make a choice. There's a tangible cost to this however… which is manifested quite clearly in this very comment thread.
All I am saying — to myself mostly — is that to learn to be OK with skipping a few beats when it comes to archiving digital artefacts is just as important as the archival strategy.
I get your point, in fact, I don't put a lot of effort in getting things organized to any degree of "good". I "invest" in archiving (I almost never wipe a memory card, a floppy disk, or a hard disk, I just store it. I do copy CDs into hard disks though). If I had, let's say, two months just to organize the data, I would, and to me, it would more than compensate the time doing it. Every time that I had to look for something I had done 10, 15, 20 years ago I find, in the process of searching for that specific thing so much gold, so much joy, that it paid off. But of course, I do not obsess with categorization. I have two axis: the "technological age" (dictated by the kind of storage device) and the way I categorized it then within that device. I think I have been more or less consistent with how I name folders, where I put things, etc. over a long time.
