🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@trinsec i love zout haring! I miss it!!!

You really want to notice the saltiness of mackerel get it as sushi. I find the smoked stuff its less noticable (but soooo good).

@trinsec i guess its a matter of taste.. they certainly arent anchovy salty.. but they do taste saltier than most fish for me.

@hypolite im not so sure thats true. I mean a lot of data will still get lost but we are coming up with archival backup methods that last long periods of time too, so we may just find out that more is saved.

@trinsec in truth it was more like a healthier version of vietnamese salted fish fried rice.. the first wasnt salted (but tasts fishy and salty) and the rice wasnt fried.. but had a similar vibe to it.

@trinsec they are quite rich together.. which is what I wanted, but not something I'd make for guests.. The thing I love about mackerel is the salty fishiness, but i am well aware it isnt for everyone.

@trinsec the part from the sardines are the long white "hairs" the rest is from the sauce.

this dish is super fishy. Despite being loaded with a TON of fish (same weight as the rice) its mackerel and sardines which are two of the fishiest fishes.. so you really get that fishy flavor for better or worse.

@trinsec so here is the picture you asked for showing how sardines make a meal "hairy"

@LennyGandolphini yea I hate them too, which is why i love the fediverse its so easy to filter out.. Let me know if you ever have any problems I can likely step you through a solution.

@LennyGandolphini From QOTO users or in general?

QOTO will almost never be racist, we dont have much tolerance for that here. However in terms of the wider fediverse (all accounts you can interact with) there are quite a few racist people and servers. That said its easy to address.

So generally each server has its own rules. A few allow everything, and those are the places the racism breeds. The nice thing is here you can block servers not just people. Therefore blocking is far more effective than say, twitter... Just block the 20 or so servers that allow racism and you shouldnt ever come across it in your feed again. Or atleast, very rarely. In fact you could probably block the 5 biggest and eliminate 97% of it.

@LennyGandolphini Remember my proposal was insurance be co-op.. this removes the "greed factor" (what you call accumulation of funds in the private sector).. the insurance poilicy owners are the company owners as well. so any and all profits made go right back to the policy holders.

@LennyGandolphini great... So by that logic my own suggestion for co-op healthcare with strong wefare is also on the table..

I'd argue my suggestion is far superior than universal healthcare as it addresses the problems I mentioned earlier. It also satisfies your priorities (which are also my own priorities)

@LennyGandolphini Ok thats fair then.. so then you dont really support universal healthcare at all, just any system where healthcare is an option for everyone (universal implies there is no option it is mandatory)

@LennyGandolphini Why would I have to provide the funds for other people? Unless you mean specifically poor people, in which case I agree and that would be through welfare on taxes... but dont expect me to fund people who can afford their own.

@mur2501 I love how they answer yes or no with their tail :)

@icedquinn No worries, I have no objection to you having split the thread.

@LennyGandolphini Cant say i disagree.. I see no reason there needs to be equality of service so long as the system ensures everyone can afford all the options.. If i want less coverage and keep more of my money I should have that right. Why should I be forced to have coverage I dont want in some notion of equality.. Thats like forcing everyone to eat vanilla icecream and telling a diabetic they cant abstain just because its more "equal"

@icedquinn Since this was split off the main thread ill repeat my response here:

To me that doesnt solve any of the problems we have with either a free-market system or universal healthcare.

The problems as i see it is universal healthcare takes away choice on multiple levels, both of if you pay for insurance, and which insurance you get, as well as the effects of that (such as selection of medications which wound up being bound to what insurance covers and thus certain medications wont be on the market if not covered), as well as quality of insurance and care which comes from being able to select different insurance, or none at all, if you dont feel you get value. Basically it lacks the competitiveness to bring quality.

Now the problem with free market is cost, there is a greed and profit angle that the owners of insurance companies want to make as much money as they can at the expense of others. Normally supply and demand strikes a balance in other areas but when it comes to health insurance demand is infinite because a dying person will pay anything to live in a healthy state for just a few more days. So with supply and demand equations broken you dont have a healthy free market.

Any solution need to address both of these concerns without compromise. The answer to this is simply in my mind.. freemarket, co-op only insurance with strong welfare to assist those too poor to buy into it with "healthcare stamps" similar to food stamps one can spend on healthcare.

In a co-op system the owners of an insurance company are the people who have policies at that insurance company, and everyone is an equal owner. So the greed aspect is wholly eliminated. Any extra money the company makes goes right back into the policy owners pockets. So the issues with free-market are resolved. Since the system is free market based it also resolves the issue with universal healthcare, that is, there is selection pressure that ensures quality care is given as people can always switch to the insurance companies that provide the best quality of coverage, and has the best doctors within its network.

@icedquinn

To me that doesnt solve any of the problems we have with either a free-market system or universal healthcare.

The problems as i see it is universal healthcare takes away choice on multiple levels, both of if you pay for insurance, and which insurance you get, as well as the effects of that (such as selection of medications which wound up being bound to what insurance covers and thus certain medications wont be on the market if not covered), as well as quality of insurance and care which comes from being able to select different insurance, or none at all, if you dont feel you get value. Basically it lacks the competitiveness to bring quality.

Now the problem with free market is cost, there is a greed and profit angle that the owners of insurance companies want to make as much money as they can at the expense of others. Normally supply and demand strikes a balance in other areas but when it comes to health insurance demand is infinite because a dying person will pay anything to live in a healthy state for just a few more days. So with supply and demand equations broken you dont have a healthy free market.

Any solution need to address both of these concerns without compromise. The answer to this is simply in my mind.. freemarket, co-op only insurance with strong welfare to assist those too poor to buy into it with "healthcare stamps" similar to foodstamps one can spend on healthcare.

In a co-op system the owners of an insurance company are the people who have policies at that insurance company, and everyone is an equal owner. So the greed aspect is wholly eliminated. Any extra money the company makes goes right back into the policy owners pockets. So the issues with free-market are resolved. Since the system is free market based it also resolves the issue with universal healthcare, that is, there is selection pressure that ensures quality care is given as people can always switch to the insurance companies that provide the best quality of coverage, and has the best doctors within its network.

@LennyGandolphini