yes you need ,sorry for being late too the the part, you don't use salt water and contaminated water source because they damage the machine faster , the only example in function was a showcase from Microsoft few years back when the put few servers running, but it was most expensive than consume the clean water from the same source we do so mostly a stunt, maybe a preview.
You don’t, but I’m assuming that many companies which either sell or does water cooling may still use municipal treated water because doing it differently requires quite a lot of corporation.
What we try to do here in Denmark, which is a small country and why we do this, is that we try to use the water cooling for both cooling and heating. I’m not completely sure if the correct English term is district heating, but it’s where you cook the data centres with water that is then cooled down in a long circuit where it’s used to heat nearby homes. It’s basically what we do with excess heat from fossil fuel plants and garbage burners as well (we also use the heat to generate electricity in some cities). I believe some of the data centres build by companies like Facebook and Microsoft are working on this with the local cities, but it’s mainly done because of regulation and political demands and not so much because the companies themselves want to do it by default.
There is so much data because of insurance. Insurers are in the business of declining claims. They have discovered that the best way to decline claims is to create byzantine rules while offloading all the work to comply with those rules to healthcare providers. The only way to fix it at this point is to nationalize the system or to exclude all routine care from the insurance system. Something like a legal ban on deductibles smaller than 20k/year would work.
Per federal law (ACA), health insurers in the US are required to spend 80% to 85% of revenues on healthcare expenses. Their profit margins are 2% to 6%. Therefore, the higher the revenue, the higher the profit.
Competitive? In every job I've had it was basically the same 3-4 HMOs: Aetna, Bluecross, Cigna, and United Healthcare. If you are getting employer provided healthplans, as most Americans are, those are your options, 4. With so few options you aren't choosing the most competitive, you're choosing the lease worst.
That is because the messed up pre-tax benefit the US gives to big businesses so they have (another) advantage over small businesses, so you are buying from whoever your employer chooses to let you buy from.
Ideally, everyone in the US would have to buy health insurance from healthcare.gov, and can choose whoever they want with zero input from their employer.
I would prefer to buy my health insurance on the open market. But without the subsidies its pretty uneconomical. The fact that your employer offering it automatically locks you out of the best plans on the marketplace is anticompetitive and anti-labour.
Oscar I've never heard of but appears to be only available in NY/NJ and is operated by Cigna in other states. Kaiser operates primarily in the west coast. And Humana doesn't have much presence in Florida. They primarily do Medicare Advantage, AFAICT.
Is that real profit or profit after a bunch of accounting sleight of hand? Are they cutting their "profit" by taking heavy debt burdens via leveraged buyouts or other schemes, pulling way more than 20% off the top for their shareholders and then making it look like much less?
I trust the financial figures filed with 10-K reports and the US SEC enough to not worry about that. If one does not trust those figures (for multiple different companies employing tens of thousands of people each), then further conversation cannot be had.
For sure, and that is where the government should be handing out heavy penalties. There supposedly is an appeals process, but obviously not enough auditing is being done:
In Switzerland, healthcare is somewhat private. The legal framework is enacted by law, and the Confederation decides the types of claims, prices, conditions, etc..
Every hospital (public or private) must follow the prices decided by the Confederation, and every health insurance must reimburse following the same prices, not more and not less.
I wonder how you deal with the usual problems of price fixing. What services aren't done because they pay too little? How do you lure doctors into fields where the pay is terrible? What about rationing of procedures that are costly but pay too little - is the scheduling delay so long it impacts your health?
I think a key point in the 'WFH bad' discourse is that while WFH is great for engineers, the experience is pretty similar for managers. Managers are still in meetings 8-10 hours a day even with WFH. A manager doesn't really see a big benefit from WFH, he is just attending the same meetings remotely.
It can be pretty similar for ICs too though. Even if everyone came into the office, there's almost no one I regularly work with who is in the office I would go into.
> there's almost no one I regularly work with who is in the office I would go into
Then you already fundamentally have a remote job. A non-remote job would organize business units / teams by location so that you're in the same office as people you're working with. And yes, this would require relocations and imply a smaller hiring pool. That's the tradeoff of not having remote work, not just spending more time in the office. You're not comparing remote to non-remote work, you're just comparing two flavors of remote work.
At large companies, co-location seems to drift over time. My company has long been pretty remote-friendly and I expect most teams are pretty distributed at this point.
ADDED: You can force co-location but, as you say, it reduces company options as well as employee options. And may not even be very practical; I work extensively with other teams both in another state and in Europe.
As a manager I love WFH for myself and based on feedback I love it more than many of the ICs at the company. No walking between meeting rooms, no taking notes on a tiny laptop screen, no forgetting someone's name (or role), no sitting in uncomfortable meeting room chairs, no ad-hoc conversations taking up my limited non-meeting time, no juggling being even more late to a meeting versus using the bathroom, etc.
The real difference in my experience is that extroverts prefer WFH and those tend to more often become managers however plenty are ICs as well.
This article basically says 'these 5 common claimed causes do not correlate with homelessness, while housing does correlate with homelessness'. Also I suspect there is a bit of world play here with the terms 'chronically homeless' and 'homeless'. If you showed me a 'chronically homeless' person and a 'non-chronically homeless' person I would likely only detect one homeless person. What percentage of homeless are chronically homeless? And if we ignore non-chronically homeless people what happens to the 5 non-causes?
I've read before that the most common amount of time for someone to be homeless is one day. Temporary homelessness is comparatively common. If they are grouping the temporary homeless with the chronically homeless, that would totally invalidate arguments like, "only a third of homeless people have serious mental illness".
