In many jurisdictions in the US, there is a requirement for the casino and lottery operators to pay a certain percentage (typically 90+%) back as winnings.
Do health insurance companies have to follow similar requirements? If so, individual cases of insurances denying insurance would be bad, but would indicate that the overall system is still working reasonably well.
Unfortunately unintended consequences have resulted in that meaning it benefits health insurance companies to increase the cost of care so their 20% share is more.
Health insurance companies conspiring with each other and with providers to drive up costs is not an unintended consequence of the ACA, it is a predictable consequence of monopolistic collusion. Imagine saying "all the grocery stores are intentionally increasing the cost of eggs in order to increase their cut" -- that's just straightforward illegal behavior that should be a slam-dunk anti-trust suit. Don't blame the ACA for that.
The tragedy at the heart of this "hate health insurance companies" is that they aren't even very profitable businesses. Their margins are actually below average, and pretty poor investments compared to things like tech and finance.
Tor fundamentally doesn’t work unless it’s 3 hops though, or am I mistaken? The anonymity comes from the middle-man node? That’s why I said it seems a bit like a VPN because you have to trust a server to not log your actions
I don't think there is anything magic about three hops. You need at least two so that no single node knows both the source and destination. With a third node you are able to isolate the first and last hop from each other to make it more difficult for collusion, but needing a third hop is probably outside the threat model for most people. With Tor what is usually more important is making sure the nodes span different providers and jurisdictions.
I do not think Tor necessarily requires 3 hops. See https://tor.stackexchange.com/a/497. It's just that 3 hops provide significant incremental benefit over 2 hops.
Right, but what Google did was to slow down only the non-AMP ads. If the goal was to build a better user experience, they should have slowed ALL the ads.
The challenge is that the notification acceptance rate is so low on mobile devices that it makes it meaningless to implement such features [1]. Practically, user is most likely to accept notifications from sites that they interact with a lot. Those also happen to be the sites whose app user is willing to install. Thus, the notification feature on web is not something that a lot of users require.
> This is a reasonable feature to exist on the web platform
Not really? [1] indicates that notification prompts actually result in users navigating away from webpages clearly demonstrating that this is a user hostile feature.
As pointed out in the linked article, the stats conflate unwelcome/unrequested notification prompts (e.g. Reddit, which pops up the prompt the first time you open the website (or used to anyway)) and cases where the user explicitly requests/opts in to notifications. I feel like the latter is something that proper web apps that don't utilize dark patterns could make very good use of. Consider the 85% acceptance rate for the camera/microphone prompt; few websites request camera/microphone permissions in the same intrusive way as they request notification permissions, hence it's not declined as often.
As a user, I think what's holding back web is not the lack of APIs but how much web and browsers have repeatedly ignored user preferences, and optimized for tracking and ads.
Go to any news website and it contains tons of trackers trying to fingerprint you. Then, of course, they also have to show you tons of ads leaving at most 30% of the viewport to read any content. The web is user-hostile.
And the leading browser (i.e., Chrome) has not really done anything to solve this problem. While Safari had cache partitioning enabled for 5+ years, Chrome has still to deliver it to users even though it's a clear privacy and security win. Not just that, Chrome repeatedly keeps making decisions that hurt user's privacy and expectations [1][2][3][4].
One simple rule of thumb that I use to compare Safari and Chrome is that Safari cares about users (privacy, gating out APIs that have risk of being misued for fingerprinting), while Chrome cares about web developers (trackers, ads, More powerful APIs). As a user, my expectations align better with the former model. I would be happy if Chrome took a step back, acknowledge user's expectations and focus on progressing the privacy on the web instead of engaging in twitter wars.
As a user, I think what's holding back web is not the lack of APIs but how much web and browsers have repeatedly ignored user preferences, and optimized for tracking and ads.
Go to any news website and it contains tons of trackers trying to fingerprint you. Then, of course, they also have to show you tons of ads leaving at most 30% of the viewport to read any content. The web is user-hostile.
And the leading browser (i.e., Chrome) has not really done anything to solve this problem. While Safari had cache partitioning enabled for 5+ years, Chrome has still to deliver it to users even though it's a clear privacy and security win. Not just that, Chrome repeatedly keeps making decisions that hurt user's privacy and expectations [1][2][3][4].
One simple rule of thumb that I use to compare Safari and Chrome is that Safari cares about users (privacy, gating out APIs that have risk of being misued for fingerprinting), while Chrome cares about web developers (trackers, ads, More powerful APIs). As a user, my expectations align better with the former model. I would be happy if Chrome took a step back, acknowledge user's expectations and focus on progressing the privacy on the web instead of engaging in twitter wars.
Can anybody explain why Chromium tech writer chose to sprinkle "up to" everywhere in the numbers? For example: "we’ve improved browser responsiveness by up to 9%".
This makes the article so confusing to read. Does it mean browser responsiveness improved by 0.1% on average, and in some very edge case, it improved by 9%?
Do health insurance companies have to follow similar requirements? If so, individual cases of insurances denying insurance would be bad, but would indicate that the overall system is still working reasonably well.