bobo

This is Seersucker Van Zandt, and I'm asking you to go the phone...

So Musk's salute was really just a demonstration of DOGE's transparency?

Your library may also have streaming services like Kanopy and Hoopla

I was looking at this: https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/publication-msr-hb-accident-health.pdf

And the three companies (kaiser, oscar, ambetter) with lower denial rates than the national average combined have less of a marketshare than United Health. But there are a ton of smaller players in the market. I guess the lesson is the big players pretty much all suck.

I'm curious about the industry average. It seems that the majority of the larger providers deny far more than the industry average. The numbers don't seem to work unless the bulk of the industry is smaller providers that are not showing on this graph. I may be wildly misinterpreting this. Anyone have any insight here?

You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor

It's GPLv3-licensed and they have some pretty easy documented steps for self hosting. Their github page is linked in the article.The per-user cost is for a hosted solution. Which isn't to say they're not going to pull something shitty in the future.

It is at least as plausible as the scenario you made up. And the word you want is "alludes"

You've driven me to this, you monster...

Here's the intersection:

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.0886107,-122.9375641,3a,75y,109.46h,92.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sga-xf00iCI9pRFG2PXNeiw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.5791953070314975%26panoid%3Dga-xf00iCI9pRFG2PXNeiw%26yaw%3D109.45653970185134!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

No stop sign. The cyclist did not have to stop. Why do you think it's more likely that the cyclist was attempting to overtake the ambulance rather than the ambulance overtaking the cyclist?

The article doesn't state much, but you're willing to make a lot of assertions about the situation anyway. In your last comment you said there was no way the cyclist wasn't at least partially at fault. I replied with a possible scenario where the cyclist was not at fault. The bicycle doesn't have to stop at the intersection if there's no stop sign. I don't see one in the pictures in the article. If the ambulance didn't see or otherwise ignored the cyclist, a right hand turn directly into the cyclist is a very real possibility. That happens far too often.

All I'm saying is that there is not enough information in the article to ascertain what actually happened, and yet you're very eager to blame the cyclist. You have a clear bias, and your conclusion, while possible, is not the only one that can be drawn from the limited information in the article.

That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.

I disagree. I think a likely scenario is that the cyclist was riding close to the right curb, and was being passed by the ambulance that then makes a sudden right turn, turning into the cyclist, as the article states. How would that be any fault of the cyclist?

You're asserting your view based on an ambiguity. The picture and story could easily depict the ambulance overtaking and turning into the cyclist. You seem dead set on making this the cyclist's fault when that assertion is just not supported by the facts given in the article.