I was a proponent for cannabis legalization several years ago.. but seeing it in action, not so sure anymore. And I don’t even live in a state where it’s legal. But seems like half the work force is stoned now. Doesn’t bother me if you want to get high at home. But shouldn’t be high in public if it’s going to inconvenience others or put others at risk.
> But shouldn’t be high in public if it’s going to inconvenience others or put others at risk.
Laws vary, but public intoxication is usually a misdemeanor. Driving while intoxicated can be a felony. Working while intoxicated can be a fireable offense. We have existing frameworks to deal with these cases.
Babies and small children are sometimes sources of inconvenience in public. As are people who walk slowly. And tourists. And photographers. And dogs. And (especially) the people who think it is reasonable to push their cart down the middle of the aisle and leave it there while they decide which of "fifty kinds of breakfast cereals, with different names, whose ingredients all read exactly the same", they will choose to ensicken their children with.
The convenience objection sounds like a slight incremental discomfort to me.
I get it though. I am pro-legalization also. I believe it's proper and correct for government to have no role in the freely-chosen personal and private activities of competent adults. But I don't want to deal with people in public being any stupider (more graciously, "less conscientious and aware") than they are already.
That said, I'd much rather deal with a hundred people high on cannabis, lsd, mdma, and/or psilocybin, than a dozen people who are noticeably drunk on alcohol. I'm hoping for social preference to shift to newly-legalized intoxicants, which are better for everyone in all respects, than the status quo. And that these early years are just a period of adjustment and recalibration.
Yes, children can sometimes be an inconvenience, but sort of a necessary part of our existence. Tourism brings in money. Dogs are limited in where they may go.
Getting high is literally just to get a buzz. So pretty self indulgent.
Agree the laws on the books should help protect but unfortunately they are not consistently enforced.
Cannabis and other drugs can impair from a single dose. One quick edible before going to your shift. Whereas it’s difficult to slug a 6 pack or chug a bunch of liquor. So people pop an edible before going to work and don’t think anyone can tell they’re high, but next thing you know there’s a line wrapped around the block because they’re doing everything at the speed of molasses. There’s just no fear anymore and limited social taboo.
I tend to lean more libertarian but I just don’t think we’re on a good trajectory with this one.
> next thing you know there’s a line wrapped around the block
Poor work performance is always a solvable problem.
I don't think this objection is a significant concern in the complicated social response to the legalization movement.
> There’s just no fear anymore and limited social taboo
I'd hesitate to use such moralistic language. I don't care why an impaired person is impaired. I care that they are not doing things that endanger others, or themselves.
> Getting high is literally just to get a buzz. So pretty self indulgent
I think that's overly simplistic. My point was that a lot of things people do end up being inconvenient for others. Tourism brings in money, sure, but so does cannabis sales.
I can't justify having an opinion on how other people choose to enjoy their day. Tourism, standing in line at the brunch place, dog parks, lazy strolls along the riverfront, recreational chemistry...it's all good.
I'd always prefer that they didn't impede my plans for the day, but I, and my day, are not more important than they and theirs. I would like to have social/legal support for controlling their actions if they endanger others. This is established though, so I don't see an issue.
>But seems like half the work force is stoned now.
I live in a legal state and I haven't noticed this. The only place I've heard of any significant amount of people working stoned is Colorado and it was that way decades before legalization.
There is no test to determine whether someone is currently high from THC. They’re simply testing more people and finding positive THC tests, which means they’ve used THC in the past 1-4 weeks.
This study is complete horseshit, a more accurate title is “Car crash deaths involving people who may have consumed cannabis in the past month are on the rise”
"According to several traffic experts I spoke with, the explanation for the 2020 fatality spike is relatively straightforward: With fewer cars on the road during quarantine, traffic congestion was all but eliminated, which emboldened people to drive at lethal speeds. Compared to 2019, many more drivers involved in fatal crashes also didn’t wear seat belts or drove drunk."
Economic ideologies undergo natural selection too. If one population is operating under principles that lead to more efficiency and thus greater production then it will dominate groups operating under less productive ideologies (e.g. the Cold War).
Actually just started on a new project with fast api last week. Really liking it!
I think some of the other frameworks I’ve worked with in the past have too much of their own abstraction built in to the point that it’s difficult to understand the fundamentals of how the application is working. Fast API excludes unnecessary abstractions, makes it easy to use outside libraries, and feels a lot more intuitive. Less learning the docs and more coding.
To the creator: since most (all?) of the beetles are symmetrical, couldn’t you generate left halves and then reflect it to create the right half? This could help you prevent asymmetric generations
The network should just learn that they all have symmetry and only encode the unique information. Once you start hand-coding priors like this, where do you stop? Maybe also constrain the range of colors? Size? Other geometric features? Eventually you're just doing old fashioned programming, not ML. And since generating beetle images isn't really the important goal anyway, why would you use dirty tricks to achieve it?
Fixing the US healthcare system really is not that hard. Just low incentive for the upper crust with plans that subsidize 90%+ of their healthcare through their companies/employers.
How to fix it:
1. Single payer - hard to maintain equality without it, insurers are not incentivized to lower healthcare trend due to max MLR rules
2. High OOP plans for all - force consumerism, sliding scale of ded/oopm based on income so poor are inherently subsidized more than rich
3. Easier path to becoming MD - more docs, more competition
4. Higher standards for maintaining license to practice medicine - more pressure to provide high quality care
5. Transparent prices - ability to shop for healthcare like any other good, prices will naturally hit an equilibrium due to consumerism and increased competition
6. Add a steerage layer to the system for all - call med-help line or go to web/app for care - type in symptoms, it gives you options with distance/prices etc to allow people to make more informed/economical decisions
7. Better Interoperability in EHRs - easily share medical records with a new provider, reduce duplicative care and waste
Just these items would help bring trend back in line with CPI. I like this solution because everyone gives a little - providers and consumers and the insurers and brokers give a lot (but eliminating their costs alone would be a boon). The biggest risk would be the ability of a public entity to implement and enforce such a system and to keep incentives high for providers and researchers
Under the ACA, in and out of network must have the same cost sharing for ER care. It’s the risk you run having such a high deductible plan. But I’m sure you’ve saved monthly by paying lower premiums for such a low coverage plan.
? When you pay a % of the allowed amount that’s called coinsurance (not a copay). This is paid after deductible in most cases. So he would owe up to his deductible ($7,900) before his coinsurance would kick in.
A minimum value ACA plan must have > 60% AV and cover the essential health benefits. The coinsurance % is irrelevant so long as it meets those requirements.
I was a proponent for cannabis legalization several years ago.. but seeing it in action, not so sure anymore. And I don’t even live in a state where it’s legal. But seems like half the work force is stoned now. Doesn’t bother me if you want to get high at home. But shouldn’t be high in public if it’s going to inconvenience others or put others at risk.