Anecdotally, proc macros just aren't that common. Almost every Haskell tutorial I read introduces language extensions, and it seems like many users have a set of extensions that they always enable by default. I don't think proc macros are really comparable in that sense, although maybe they will be in the future?
These statistics don't include all the discriminatory interactions with the police that don't end in death. Being killed by the police is only one way that racialized policing can have a disparate effect on policed populations.
Hope you have good margin rates, you could be waiting a long time. A lot of these are steaming piles of shit if you think about fundamentals but the market doesn't care about fundamentals.
Just look at the price action on any big tech stock and pretend you're a tech investor looking for a big exit. People are pouring money into equities, particularly tech.
First of all, "Basic economics/psychology informs" does not constitute empirical proof that UHC leads to decreased "innovation" (which is a weasel word in itself).
Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc.
Third, even if we grant that there's an innovation advantage to for-profit medicine AND we grant that you can predict the future, that still doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm", precisely because "harm" is comparative. I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system.
>First of all, "Basic economics/psychology informs" does not constitute empirical proof that UHC leads to decreased "innovation" (which is a weasel word in itself).
Either you believe humans respond to incentives or you don't. It's that simple.
> Second, even if we granted the premise that UHC leads to less healthcare innovation, this doesn't mean that there's "infinite harm" in to people in the future. Unless you're claiming you have a crystal ball, there is absolute 0 epistemic basis on which to make this claim. For all we know, not having UHC leads to nuclear war and we all die. Or, having UHC leads to the singularity. Etc.
I'm not making a "butterfly effect" argument where there's no obvious direct line between choice A and impact B. The only axiom I need is that humans respond to incentives, and then what happens when you reduce or remove incentives is obvious. You tend to get less of that thing.
>I would argue that we've picked most of the low-hanging fruit of human medicine and that the marginal utility produced by new treatments is far outweighed by the human suffering of our for-profit system.
If you believe we're basically near the end of potential for human medicine, would you support cutting subsidies and funding for research in the healthcare field?
Obviously it's not part of the type system itself, but doesn't the must_use attr get pretty close?