Tag: Premium

That’s how Jonathan Freedland describes the Rosetta space mission:

The narrow version of this point focuses on this as a European success story. When our daily news sees “Europe” only as the source of unwanted migrants or maddening regulation, Philae has offered an alternative vision; that Germany, Italy, France, Britain and others can achieve far more together than they could ever dream of alone. …

Even that, as I say, is to view it too narrowly. The US, through Nasa, is involved as well. And note the language attached to the hardware: the Rosetta satellite, the Ptolemy measuring instrument, the Osiris on-board camera, Philea itself – all imagery drawn from ancient Egypt. The spacecraft was named after the Rosetta stone, the discovery that unlocked hieroglyphics, as if to suggest a similar, if not greater, ambition: to decode the secrets of the universe. By evoking humankind’s ancient past, this is presented as a mission of the entire human race. There will be no flag planting on Comet 67P. As the Open University’s Jessica Hughes puts it, Philea, Rosetta and the rest “have become distant representatives of our shared, earthly heritage.”

That fits because this is how we experience such a moment: as a human triumph.

When we marvel at the numbers – a probe has travelled for 10 years, crossed those 4bn miles, landed on a comet speeding at 34,000mph and done so within two minutes of its planned arrival – we marvel at what our species is capable of. I can barely get past the communication: that Darmstadt is able to contact an object 300 million miles away, sending instructions, receiving pictures. I can’t get phone reception in my kitchen, yet the ESA can be in touch with a robot that lies far beyond Mars. Like watching Usain Bolt run or hearing Maria Callas sing, we find joy and exhilaration in the outer limits of human excellence.

And it’s a scrappy little lander:

Instead of landing on its planned target, Philae took a dramatic double bounce into the shadows of the comet, where only a tiny bit of sunlight can reach its solar panels. The battery, which lasts for two and a half days, was intended to power Philae during its first planned sequence of data collection. After the battery ran out, Philae was to rely on the sun.

Despite Philae’s precarious position on a cliff, it managed to collect all the data that mission controllers had planned for—images, information on the comet’s chemical composition and its surface properties, for example. The spacecraft even managed to drill into the comet’s surface. Mission controllers also rotated Philae 35 degrees in the hopes of getting its solar panels in a more favorable position. It remains to be seen whether the maneuver will pay off.

Joseph Stromberg explains the importance of comet research:

All this data is so valuable because the comet likely formed 4.6 billion years ago, from material leftover asEarth and the solar system’s other planets were coalescing. As a result, understanding the composition of this comet — and comets in general — could help us better model the formation of the solar system. Moreover, many scientists believe that in the period afterward, when the solar system was still a chaotic, collision-filled system, comets and asteroids were responsible for bringing water and perhaps even organic molecules to Earth. By analyzing data collected by Philae on ice and other substances on the comet’s surface, we could gather important clues as to whether the hypothesis is correct.

Rachel Feltman looks ahead:

Several missions in the near future will take us to asteroids, the slower-moving (and easier to chase down) cousins of comets. In 2016, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx will use a spacecraft with a robotic arm to pluck some asteroid off and take it home. And while we wait for another Philae-like comet trip – which probably won’t come in the next 10 years – we still have Rosetta. The spacecraft will follow its comet for a year, studying it as it passes the sun. And during that time, if enough light hits its solar panels, Philae could even make a comeback – reuniting the world’s new favorite pair of space buddies.

(Photo: Rosetta’s lander Philae has returned the first panoramic image from the surface of a comet. The view, unprocessed, as it has been captured by the CIVA-P imaging system, shows a 360º view around the point of final touchdown. By ESA/Rosetta/Philae/CIVA)

Sullum thinks not:

“I think a resolution of disapproval is unlikely,” says Bill Piper, director of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance. “Overturning a ballot measure passed by 70 percent of the voters doesn’t really look good for the incoming Republican Congress. If the council transmits [the initiative] in January, I think that pretty much reduces or eliminates the chance that Congress will overturn it outright. It just doesn’t fit with what they’re talking about doing, which is rebranding themselves as not being obstructionists.”

Yay! Why defunding the initiative is unlikely to work:

Unless Congress is still working on appropriations for the current fiscal year come January, [anti-marijuana Congressman Andy] Harris would have to wait until spending is authorized for fiscal year 2016. “They could do an appropriations rider that might take effect in September, October, November, December,” Piper says, “but Initiative 71 will already be in effect by then.”

Since the District already will have eliminated penalties for marijuana cultivation, possession, and sharing within the limits set by the initiative, telling it not to spend money on doing so will be ineffectual.

W. James Antle II wants Republicans to stand aside:

Congress would have to move quickly on a resolution of disapproval, making it one of the new majority’s earliest priorities. They would probably have nothing to show for it in the end, as President Obama has suggested his signature won’t be forthcoming. Even the frequently PR-challenged Republicans can likely sense this would be bad symbolically.

Where opponents could do the most damage is attaching riders defunding legalization’s implementation to must-sign appropriations bills. While it’s probably too late to stop legalization’s initial rollout, putting together the necessary tax and regulatory regime will take a couple of years. That’s plenty of time to gum up the works.

But this would be a step backward.

Perfection. RT @MattBors: Come at me, garbage boys #gamergate https://t.co/BT9s0fP7ho pic.twitter.com/bTUElkiJDn

— Jaclyn Friedman (@jaclynf) October 29, 2014

A little house-cleaning on the last week’s WAM/Twitter thread:

I’m @srhbutts, the person you quoted the tweet of. You make a claim (out of nowhere, apparently) that I said @nero should be banned for being homophobic. I never said any such thing. I’m curious why you said this, and would appreciate it either being sourced or retracted.

Here’s the tweet to which I was referring:

more of @nero‘s homophobia. he wrote a piece called “the lingering stench of gay marriage.” https://t.co/QQweQ9Jwbn #gamergate

— srh (@srhbutts) November 10, 2014

If srhbutts’ issue with @nero were simply harassment, I don’t really understand why he was subject to that kind of criticism, as if his views had anything to do with his right to tweet freely. Another emailer close to the issue:

I am the Twitter user and YouTube video-maker mentioned in the second part of your post “The SJWs Now Get To Police Speech On Twitter“. I have no doubt you’re a busy guy, as am I, what with my campaigns of harassment and general shit-lord behavior, so let me make this as brief as I can manage, which is not at all. The description of me as a “critic of feminism in the atheist and skeptical community” is more or less accurate. The usual caveats apply: I’m not against women. I’m not a misogynist, except in the stupid Fashion Victim Feminist expansive definition of “someone who disagrees with them”. Although that’s not even strictly true.

By most measures my positions could be considered well within the scope of Second Wave Feminism that sought to redress social and legal inequality faced by women and most definitely solidly First Wave Feminist where, straight out of Mary Wollstonecraft, I believe in the social and moral equality of men and women.

What I do not support is the dishonest and manipulative “Fashion Victim Feminism” and invasive species of online Social Justice Warriors that barge into communities they had no part in creating and attempt to co-opt those communities with an agenda.

I am especially active where this concerns the online Atheist and Skeptic community. I have been a member of the Skeptical community from way back, am a member of the National Capital Area Skeptics and it’s only through the Social Justice Invasion that they attracted my attention at all.

For the past few years, beginning about the time of “ElevatorGate” in 2011, I’ve been having it out with these clowns. I’ve been incompetently doxed, laughably harassed and had people such as Greg Laden of Freethought Blogs and Melody Hensley of The Center for Inquiry make half-assed attempts at interfering with my employment. I have responded by punching them in the nose with a series of YouTube videos such as “Creepy Clowns: Freethought Bullies and the Threat Narrative Clown Horn” and “The Block Bot and the Dumbification of the Beeb”, which are far too long for me to recommend. After which I was often referred to as “He Who They Dare Not Name”, after proving direct intimidation wasn’t a course of action that would work against me.

But now, it seems, Women in Media have given the harassers another tool of harassment on the pretext of preventing harassment. Just to show how generally uninterested I am in the politics of these thing, I wasn’t even aware of WAM until someone directed me to your posts. I am now fairly convinced that my Twitter account was suspended as the result of a fraudulent mass flagging effort. Here is the only information as to why I was suspended I have received from Twitter:

Hello,

Your account was suspended because it was found to be violating the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules), specifically our rules around participating in targeted abuse.
If you would like to request your account to be restored, please confirm that you’ve read and understood the Twitter Rules.

Please note that future Twitter Rules violations may result in permanent account suspension. We appreciate your cooperation going forward.

Thanks,
Twitter

As Twitter seems intent on playing tag with me on this issue, and will not tell me what exactly the “targeted abuse” I engaged in was, my best guess before I read your article can be found in this relatively short (less than 15 minutes) video. Because Twitter’s protocol seems to be “We won’t tell you what you did, so just admit to it”, I may have been unconvincing in my prostrations and it seems that my Twitter suspension is a permanent state of affairs. Which means in one fell swoop and without anything like due process, I have lost my entire Twitter presence, complete with tweets, followers and those I follow going right down the memory hole.

I suspect my YouTube channel will be hit with bogus claims of inappropriate content and false DCMA claims. These people, soulless bastards that they are, are ruthless. Your post was one of the few that clearly detailed what is going on with WAM and these mass flaggings and as unresponsive as Twitter is, and they seem to be of the mind that a massacre of their users is a small price to pay for pandering to the right people. It’s only through efforts such as yours that these silencing tactics can be derailed.

Another story:

One of my viewers informed me of your recent call for anyone who suspects that they might have been suspended from Twitter as a result of WAM’s recent actions.  I was recently suspended from Twitter despite not having harassed, threatened, or otherwise violated the Twitter ToS, but my work gives me a unique reason to suspect that I was suspended due to WAM’s influence.

I’ve been a YouTube blogger since 2007 and started making it a semi-professional endeavor in recent years.  In addition to using it as a venue for my artistic endeavors, I also frequently comment on matters of gender politics, sexual freedom, and philosophy from a libertarian, free-market perspective.  Since 2012 I have devoted a large part of my video presence to commentary on the Social Justice Warrior influence on video game culture, which I consider myself a part of.

In August of 2014 my colleague Davis Aurini and I announced that we would be crowd-funding our new documentary, “The Sarkeesian Effect,” which will be a feature-length film aimed at a theatrical release.  It covers the last two years of video game culture that began in the summer of 2012 with the launch of media critic Anita Sarkeesian’s video series “Tropes Vs. Women in Games.”

The day we launched the project, the crowd funding website we were using, Patreon, was deluged with emails demanding that our project be pulled from the site.  This was spearheaded largely by Samantha Allen, a prominent SJW voice.  Patreon has received hundreds of emails on this matter, and on October 1st of this year we spoke with Patreon COO Jack Conte to discuss the matter with him directly. Funding has continued through the website, but they continue to receive demands that it be pulled.
Additionally, our project has been the subject of hit pieces and misinformation from news sites sympathetic to the SJW agenda and we have received intimidating tweets from various journalists, such as persons from BadAss Digest and the Guardian among others.

So, bringing this around to WAM and Twitter, I recently came home from the second leg of filming for the doc and woke up the next day to find that my Twitter had been suspended.  At first I figured it was the result of the usual false-flagging trolls, but then I noticed that it had come alongside another public push to have Patreon defund our project.  My followers on Twitter and viewers on YouTube noticed that WAM had recently partnered with Twitter, and my suspension came about two days after the announcement.

Well, I don’t have any hard evidence as yet, but I’m highly suspicious that this was done by WAM since Sarkeesian is a VERY close chum of theirs.  I outlined it in this video on my YouTube channel.
As someone who, because of the film, is becoming an increasingly recognized part of the #GamerGate movement, it’s more than a little curious.  Thank you for taking the time to read this, and feel free to discuss my concerns on your site and contact me if you have more questions.

They’re going up:

The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing that many Americans with health insurance bought under the Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases next year — in some cases as much as 20 percent — unless they switch plans.

Sprung calls a foul:

Unless they switch plans is the key. For the 85% of buyer who qualify for federal subsidies, their costs will not go up at all if they buy the benchmark second-cheapest Silver-level plan, or a cheaper plan — except insofar as their income rises. Their share of the premium is a fixed percentage of their income. In fact, if their income is flat they may qualify for higher Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) benefits, since the formula for determining those benefits is adjusted yearly for inflation.

Sarah Kliff, who passes along the above map, adds that premiums “on Healthcare.gov will increase slightly in 2015 — but vary a lot depending on where you live”:

A new analysis from health research firm Avalere Health showed that, on average, premiums for bronze plans (the skimpiest products) will go up by 4 percent next year. Silver plans (which offer middle-of-the-road coverage) will have a 3 percent premium increase.

But those averages mask huge variation. Average silver premiums are falling by 18 percent in New Hampshire — but increasing 28 percent in Alaska.  There are two states where average premiums are going up by more than 10 percent (Alaska and Florida) and two where they’re dropping by double digits (Mississippi and New Hampshire).

And even these state figures likely mask a lot of local variation, with premium changes likely varying from city to city.

Samger-Katz examines other research on Obamacare premiums:

The studies suggest that, in large cities, at least, the new health insurance marketplaces are working as intended: Health insurers, competing for business, are keeping prices low. That’s great news for the federal budget, since the government is paying subsidies to help some 85 percent of people on the market pay their bills. It’s also good for consumers who will be coming to the market for the first time during open enrollment, which begins Saturday.

But just because the type of plan that the researchers examined — the second-cheapest plan in the “silver” category — is showing modest changes, that doesn’t mean that every plan is a great deal. The Wakely analysis highlighted that many of the most popular plans from 2014 are getting much more expensive, while many of the cheapest plans will be new to the market in 2015. That means that consumers who simply renew their plans without shopping could get stuck with a substantial increase.

Drum encourages Obamacare enrollees to shop around:

Even if you can navigate the website yourself, be careful. Not everything is obvious at first glance. And if you’re not comfortable doing it by yourself, don’t. Get help from an expert in your state. You have three months to sign up, so there’s no rush.

Last week, Damon Linker listed the “3 best arguments against legalizing pot – and why they all fail.” His main point:

As with the lightning-fast evolution of the country on gay marriage, the change in judgments about pot use has been accomplished because of the rise of moral libertarianism. Americans increasingly believe that individuals should be free to engage in behavior that harms no one besides the person who consensually chooses to engage in it, especially when the harm is either minimal or wrapped up with traditionalist religious convictions that (supposedly) have no business being backed up by law and the coercive power of the state. Once the solvent of moral libertarianism is applied to just about any contrary argument, that argument’s cogency dissolves right before our eyes.

And then we are left with an absence of reasons not to engage in behavior that was once presumed to be both immoral and justifiably illegal.

Noah Millman responds:

[W]hat is Linker referring to when he talks about “behavior that was once presumed to be both immoral and justifiably illegal.” What, exactly, is immoral about smoking pot as such?

I can only understand that view within a framework according to which a wide variety of other worldly pleasures – drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, probably even wearing fancy clothes and eating fancy food – are grouped under the rubric of “vice.” Now, that’s a perfectly fine framework; it served our Puritan ancestors well, and it serves the LDS Church, the various Anabaptist sects, and other groups pretty well today. But it’s simply not true that we must choose between this kind of framework and “moral libertarianism” according to which “do what thou wilt” is the only law (provided you’re not hurting anybody else directly). There are a variety of moral frameworks that view the enjoyment of fleshy pleasures in moderation not merely not as vice, but as essential to health – while still caring about the health of the individual, and not just his or her freedom of action. …

Burke, who did not oppose all change, is more readily enlisted on the side of decriminalization than on the side of prohibition, for the same reason that he is more readily enlisted on the side of same-sex marriage: in both cases, the law would not be driving social change but recognizing a social change that has already occurred. There’s nothing particularly Burkean about using tradition as an excuse for refusing to face that fact that a given custom is now honored largely in the breach.

The ACA remains unpopular:

As the Affordable Care Act’s second open enrollment period begins, 37% of Americans say they approve of the law, one percentage point below the previous low in January. Fifty-six percent disapprove, the high in disapproval by one point.

But Obamacare enrollees give the insurance high marks:

Over seven in 10 Americans who bought new health insurance policies through the government exchanges earlier this year rate the quality of their healthcare and their healthcare coverage as “excellent” or “good.” These positive evaluations are generally similar to the reviews that all insured Americans give to their health insurance.

Cohn celebrates that news:

You hear a lot about what’s wrong with the coverage available through the marketplaces and some of these criticisms are legitimate. The narrow networks of providers are confusing, for example, and lack of sufficient regulations leaves some patients unfairly on the hook for ridiculously high bills. But overall the plans turn out to be as popular as other forms of private and public insurance. It’s one more sign that, if you can just block out the negative headlines and political attacks, you’ll discover a program that is working.

Drum agrees:

Republicans can huff and puff all they want, but the evidence is clear: despite its rollout problems, Obamacare is a success. It’s covering millions of people; its costs are in line with forecasts; and people who use it think highly of it. There’s no such thing as a big, complex program that has no problems, and Obamacare has its share. But overall? It’s a standup triple.