I tried using Takeout but the exported file structure and various metadata files were almost incomprehensible. This is likely partly my fault because I didn't download the full 100+ zip files, but I suspect there would be so many files scattered in too many directories to be much use.
Huh. My wife is actually having the same procedure done for the second time after Christmas. Naturally the doctor is in-network, but his surgical facility (on the same floor, immediately adjacent to the doctor's offices) isn't. So it's fork out $1500 and fight insurance to reimburse us after the fact.
In her case, the epidural really does give her life back by completely killing the pressure and migraines that otherwise plague her daily. Insurance can kiss my butt. Single payer would be fabulous in this case.
Does the NHS not cover treatment for documented, debilitating migraines? I would be shocked to hear that it doesn't. In fact I think I would be surprised to hear if the NHS doesn't cover anything as long as it isn't something like cosmetic surgery.
There is no reason single payer shouldn't or couldn't cover 99% of most medical needs.
While being only slightly sarcastic, maybe it's time to put a sign on the door "If you're not covered by health plan XXX, please do not come in this room." That we have to even joke about such things is beyond ridiculous.
Be careful with the mint, but you already know that. I have a bunch of CA poppies in my yard, which I only discovered by letting everything grow after we bought the house. Imagine my surprise and delight when the "wild carrots" turned out to be beautiful poppies! They continue to spread and make the yard a wonderful place in the spring.
Or you could go into the "blue collar" trades like plumbing, electrical work, etc. After you get some experience, the trades can be a very lucrative line of work. Albeit you have to sweat and get your hands dirty. Mike Rowe has a few very persuasive thoughts on the subject as well, and can do it much more eloquently than I can.
It's also dooming yourself to a life of little mental stimulation and lots of repetition. I have no problem with physical labor (love house projects and hobbies), but these jobs would suck the life out of me for that reason.
My father was an electrician by trade, but generally very capable. He loved the problem solving aspect of his job. Wiring and code are not so far apart as you might think.
I've often felt, given the pedestrian nature of the problems I have to solve in code, he got the better end of the bargain.
There was an article I read recently about this fight where Khosla said he's now continuing the legal battle simply on principle. He doesn't actually care (that much) about public access any more.
The "principle" he's fighting for had already been fully vetted by the justice system. He didn't have a leg to stand on, and any competent lawyer would have told him so. His position is literally "your laws don't apply to me."
A mixed record? He has literally lost every single argument he's made, most of which had already been thoroughly litigated in prior. The very few novel arguments he's made were just legal fanfic like "well I have rights because of Mexican law before California became part of the US."
I think the principle that he is looking at is like this, someone please correct me if something is factually incorrect:
He didn't buy the beach, you can't own beach in CA afterall, but the beach truly is inaccessible by any means other than through the private property which he does own. The previous owners of the property allowed people to enter the private property on their way to the public property, and had done so for so long that people have never had to think about it, but the new owner doesn't feel he is obligated to do that, so the loss shocked a lot of people who have been using the private access road. Their supporters feel that because the previous owners allowed it, that the future owner should be obligated in some way to allow it as well. Khosla disagrees.
It's more than that. The previous owners didn't allow unfettered access to the beach. Sometimes the gate was closed. And when it was open they ran a for-pay parking lot.
And Khosla's dispute isn't just about access. He also wants to stop running the for-pay parking lot and restrict access to the sandy beach above the high tide line (which marks the border of his property with public land). His argument seems quite strong on these latter two points imho.
That's a silly dispute. Any change in access and any change to a coastal property has to be approved by the Coastal Commission under California Law. And under California Law, the Coastal Commission is required to force the land-owner to provide beach access in order to gain permission for a change.
While at first glance that may seem unlawful, it has been thoroughly tested in the Courts. This is not an unusual occurrence; everywhere along the California coast you will find land and businesses who provide coastal access as a routine matter.
I assume Khosla has competent legal counsel who would have told him all this before he bought the property.
That's interesting, and we'll see what CA gov does and how far the CA politicians think they can go with this. If they mandate simply that Khosla must ALLOW access, how much can/will he charge for that access, lets say something stupidly large like $200? Would he be within his rights to do so?
And since it is his property, he should be able to close the parking lots, bathrooms, and general store too, especially if he were to be liable for maintenence, upkeep, accident liability, etc?
20Mb speeds are on the low end, and has no future upgrade path (speedwise). My cable modem allows up to 200-300 Mb service, and DOCSIS is improving with every new version.
