The thing that make the french government angry is not much the cancellation of the contract, but how it was done it completely in secret behind his back.
You just don't do that to ally on the geopolitical stage.
I do think it could have been handled in a more diplomatic fashion, but there was never going to be a nice way to break the news. Further I think if the Naval Group had been anywhere close to delivering on time and on budget then it would have been a fundamentally different discussion. France would have been at the table and part of the deal.
I think the big problem for France now is how to protect the reputation of the Naval Group. If this is seen as a failure to deliver by the Naval Group then future export opportunities may be threatened. So instead France is aiming to portray as a grand betrayal by Australia and the US.
It is somewhat a betrayal. Secret negotiation is a way for US and Australia of telling to France (after 30 years of collaboration in Pacific) "We don't want to work on strategic stuff with France anymore".
I think the contract was important for France for soft power in the around the Pacific ocean as well. It's probably a very big loss to them in that regard, and I can't see how they can ever make up for that again. They're permanently hamstrung basically.
> "Mind uploading" is the wrong way to look at it. How about "mind copying" for a best case (whether that copying requires the destruction of the original is another issue); "mind simulation" is a less palatable case.
One way we could do it, it's to slowly replace one by one natural neuron by a virtual or synthetic one and by keeping all synapse correctly connected. It should allow an "upload" (well more a conversion) without breaking consciousness continuity.
Their is bodyweight for the posterior and lower body other than air squat.
- Pistol squat, shrimp squat, sissy squat, nordic curl, bridge, sprint and many more.
And the progressive overload can be done by exercice variation, you do an harder one.
Exemple: incline push up -> push up -> diamond push up -> pseudo planche push up -> push up on gymnastic ring -> bulagarian push up on ring -> one hand push up.
The current bodyweight fitness is way way past just increasing rep on easy exercice.
It depend of the context or/and where you use the term. In the US or for social policies, the term liberalism is used for something like progressivism.
In Europe or for economics policies, liberalism means free trade and deregulation.
When an US citizen say liberal, he's talking about society.
When an EU citizen say liberal, he's talking about economics. This make sometimes translation difficult.
In the context of the article, while US, with the focus on economics. They are using the classical or the european meaning.
But yeah Republican are conservatives on social policies and liberal on economics policies.
Democrat are liberal on social policies and less liberal on economics (but still very liberal compared to an socialist party).
It's one of many factors. It isn't the sole factor and it probably isn't the biggest one.
(We have less doctors that we should, there are structural incentives designed to increase access to hospitals and emergency rooms in low population density areas, our insurance system is designed by the insurance companies, there are mandates about providing services that are not fully funded and on and on)
The reason is that somehow business has more political power than patients, doctors etc. That all comes back to the eternal problem of politicians having to have funds to be elected. So everyone in office owes favours to various people and organizations.
If campaigning politicians weren't allowed to accept any money from anyone at all (people or organizations) then a lot of the political problems in the US would just vanish I think. It's somehow so natural that americans tend to not even think that it's odd that personal political campaigns are paid for by donors.
> The notion has lived on despite copious evidence that that the so-called defensive medicine practiced by doctors merely to stave off lawsuits accounts for, at best, 2% to 3% of U.S. healthcare costs. As for "frivolous lawsuits," they're a problem that exists mostly in the minds of conservatives and the medical establishment.
> A new study led by Michael B. Rothberg of the Cleveland Clinic and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association aimed to measure how much defensive medicine there is, really, and how much it costs. The researchers' conclusion is that defensive medicine accounts for about 2.9% of healthcare spending. In other words, out of the estimated $2.7-trillion U.S. healthcare bill, defensive medicine accounts for $78 billion.
Interesting points, but this still does not shed light on the effective insurance costs physicians pay (annually and over the life of a practice), in case a malpractice suit is brought against them.
> Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
> A. That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.
Even at the 10-15% number, that's meaning the vast majority of costs still come from elsewhere.
I'm referring to what are the out of pocket costs a physician pays in malpractice insurance -- the cost they pay, even if a lawsuit is not brought against them.
If there is at least a bit of competition in malpractice insurance "the out of pocket costs a physician pays in malpractice insurance -- the cost they pay, even if a lawsuit is not brought against them" and "the cost of actual malpractice lawsuits" should be fairly close on average.
The debate I always find comical is when you get a healthcare provider and an healthcare insurance provider in a single thread debating who is causing the hike. It can become a lengthy and contentious argument.
