No CGI isn't a valid replacement for live action films that involve animals used in scenes and stories that Hollywood traditionally writes. I don't think its beyond them to actually create movies that allow for full CGI animal usage.
In fact I'd say Life of Pi basically crossed that threshold. Before I had seen the published spoiler lists telling which was which, I couldn't have accurately discerned which scenes were a real tiger and which scenes were CGI.
Same, I was shocked when I heard that 2/3 of the scenes weren't a real tiger.
There might be some types of scenes it's still uncanny valley territory on, but we're certainly not far from tech overcoming even that.
That's a tough read. Clearly they're going for a PETAesque sensationalist version - I'm curious how frequent and severe thesecases ereally are, and how many are deemed negligent vs understandable errors like are expected/allowed with stuntmen.
Thankfully as you mentioned already CGI is over the uncanny valley for the most part, so CGI isn't impossible as a replacement.
People that do it without context I'd agree or repeat it to someone repeatedly I'd agree as well. Debate however picks up newpeople all the time, forums and RL don't align much with it - more like a house party, where you have to repeat stuff because of people not being involved earlier or noise drowning the previous statement out.
Not to mention speaking as a person with a hiring history - people that claim 100% anything and have previous employers backing them up on such always are something suspect.
Either because: a) Luck is going to run out or b) It's so unbelievable that it puts extra scrutiny on the previous employers recommendation because it could easily be a faked business and just a buddies phone number.
I can't recall of a single "I have perfect X, talk to my old boss" case in hundreds of hires (although many that don't make 'perfect' claims) that didn't have something wrong with them.
a) Medicaid really isn't that bad (note on that statistic with the deaths they mention in the article, they neglect to mention the fact that people on Medicaid are more frequently in worse health to start with... sick people dying more often than healthy people isn't really shocking)
b) Policies can still be gotten outside of the exchanges - yes, if they're making very low income because they've retired and have no STANDARD taxable income (i.e. capital gains) and don't qualify for Medicare and they don't want to go through the normal old channels they'll default to Medicaid. But that's a pretty odd corner case and they can still use the normal old channels.
If Medicaid isn't that bad then why didn't they simply expand medicaid to cover those that didn't have coverage and couldn't afford it?
Wouldn't that have been a lot easier and in the long run, cheaper?
Many states are doing that as an option come Jan 1 as well - paid Medicaid is coming in most states that took the expansion.
a) Medicaid really isn't that bad (note on that statistic with the deaths they mention in the article, they neglect to mention the fact that people on Medicaid are more frequently in worse health to start with... sick people dying more often than healthy people isn't really shocking)
b) Policies can still be gotten outside of the exchanges - yes, if they're making very low income because they've retired and have no STANDARD taxable income (i.e. capital gains) and don't qualify for Medicare and they don't want to go through the normal old channels they'll default to Medicaid. But that's a pretty odd corner case and they can still use the normal old channels.
Subsidy varies by state - not that familiar with too many states (only compared MD and CA fully) but the 1.5x ratio looks a little low for those two. And considering the average policy cost for a family versus an individual is a 1.4x cost bump or less in my experience. (MD was 1.4, PA and NY were closer to 1.25x) why would you expect subsidies to not scale somewhere in the same range?
Remember in a bizarre world where they go for individual policies while married, which I doubt will ever make sense, they get the individual subsidy. So if it was better for them that way, its open to them to. Subsidy category is tied to plan type, not locked to marital status. (Similarly unmarried buying a joint plan together - 'married' subsidy rates)
And on PEC, I've not seen the numbers broken down - but some PEC aren't expensive, I got kicked off for PEC that was running the insurance company less in 3 months than 1 month of my never PEC'd wife during my worst days. I wouldn't be shocked if I wasn't that much of a corner case, although that is gut speaking - don't know anything concrete on that.
You could summarize that as most neurologic disorders IMO. Even mine on the relatively light end I'd be leery to assume a new life would want to put up with it, there's much worse out there, yet my own drifts me to thoughts of suicide with reasonable frequency with only obligations that I already have keeping me from ever trying.
Yea, made that comparison earlier myself - both cases I'd say the POTUS was inept in handling info as an absolute. Lying in either case is a stretch by my standards - although I would say due to opportunity to correct the error, Os case would be 'worse' from a 'lying' standpoint.
I won't deny that it's a triviality - I apologize if anyone thought otherwise.
To be honest, with my "PTSD" from it, it's likely the thing I could most compare to a black man experiencing the "N-word" in a context they don't like.
You'd summarize as "He lied", I'd summarize it as "He misled" - but at the end of the day the net result is the same. I'm just colorblind to the "color" that makes you see "liar" and I instead see the color of "misled".
Is this distinction worth the time and effort you are using to aruge it? Why does this distinction matter to you so much?
I guess hatred of light use of the word because of the reasoning mentioned in my response to bLatch.
One of my PTSD-ish things I suppose. Heh. (Got another one related to work as well that unlike this one is actually labeled as PTSD by my therapist - not sure if this one would be though, don't think we've ever discussed it - mental note that I should probably bring up to him tomorrow though...)
And the age cap is now much higher - before 22 in college or 18 otherwise was the cap.
It's very easy to assume they're overstating a few rare accidental instances with a charged article like that without more foundation to it.
Same, I was shocked when I heard that 2/3 of the scenes weren't a real tiger.
There might be some types of scenes it's still uncanny valley territory on, but we're certainly not far from tech overcoming even that.
Thankfully as you mentioned already CGI is over the uncanny valley for the most part, so CGI isn't impossible as a replacement.
But just my take.
Either because: a) Luck is going to run out or b) It's so unbelievable that it puts extra scrutiny on the previous employers recommendation because it could easily be a faked business and just a buddies phone number.
I can't recall of a single "I have perfect X, talk to my old boss" case in hundreds of hires (although many that don't make 'perfect' claims) that didn't have something wrong with them.
Many states are doing that as an option come Jan 1 as well - paid Medicaid is coming in most states that took the expansion.
In addition to what the others said.
b) Policies can still be gotten outside of the exchanges - yes, if they're making very low income because they've retired and have no STANDARD taxable income (i.e. capital gains) and don't qualify for Medicare and they don't want to go through the normal old channels they'll default to Medicaid. But that's a pretty odd corner case and they can still use the normal old channels.
And its written in such a way other voluntary abuses could be added simply.
Remember in a bizarre world where they go for individual policies while married, which I doubt will ever make sense, they get the individual subsidy. So if it was better for them that way, its open to them to. Subsidy category is tied to plan type, not locked to marital status. (Similarly unmarried buying a joint plan together - 'married' subsidy rates)
And on PEC, I've not seen the numbers broken down - but some PEC aren't expensive, I got kicked off for PEC that was running the insurance company less in 3 months than 1 month of my never PEC'd wife during my worst days. I wouldn't be shocked if I wasn't that much of a corner case, although that is gut speaking - don't know anything concrete on that.
To be honest, with my "PTSD" from it, it's likely the thing I could most compare to a black man experiencing the "N-word" in a context they don't like.
I guess hatred of light use of the word because of the reasoning mentioned in my response to bLatch.
One of my PTSD-ish things I suppose. Heh. (Got another one related to work as well that unlike this one is actually labeled as PTSD by my therapist - not sure if this one would be though, don't think we've ever discussed it - mental note that I should probably bring up to him tomorrow though...)