The EU is trying to do this at an EU level (and has been for years). As well as an individual country level, Sweden seems likely to pass a similar law in 2026.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/european-police-chiefs-call-for-industry-and-governments-to-take-action-against-end-to-end-encryption-roll-out

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/05/07/european-threat-to-end-to-end-encryption-would-invade-phones/

https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/26/signal_will_withdraw_from_sweden/

https://www.wired.com/story/europe-break-encryption-leaked-document-csa-law/

https://lore.kernel.org/all/7ee74c1b5b589619a13c6318c9fbd0d6ac7c334a.camel@HansenPartnership.com/

Yes I would agree, but its unclear if this again means all Russians who are employed by any company. Because all Russian companies are sanctioned

I don’t think this is about security implications, but I may be wrong. My understanding is this is related to the export sanctions, meant to hamper the Russian economy.

Yeah Linus just said “Legal reasons” but made it clear he supports it.

Removed by mod

I am not seeing any doctors in a cursory search saying that people should not be screened for breast and colon cancer at all.

Where did I say that?? If you don’t stop engaging in bad faith I won’t respond.

Also, why is the job of an insurer not to save taxpayer money?

Do you think McDonald’s should be required to open a shipyard as a loss to save the navy money on warships? Because its simply not their job.

Maybe if we made that part of the cost of owning a business, we would be able to have more social services.

Businesses already pay tax, also insurers are already required to cover screening>

But something tells me you don’t want more social services just like you apparently want unwanted babies from people who would otherwise be able to afford birth control if their insurance took care of it.

Do you think health insurance should be required to buy homes for people? Or help them pay for gas? No? So you want people to be homeless?

What you’re advocating is a type of fascism called corporatism. You want a merger between the responsibilities and goals of the state and “private” companies. This type of merger tends to be deeply profitable for politicians and companies- see the military industrial complex.

You’re not giving a good reason why the government just buying a condom factory and giving condoms out for free wouldn’t be more efficient, since you’re so concerned about saving money for the tax payer.

Got it. You want to cost everyone more money in the long term.

No?

Every new case of breast or colon cancer that isn’t caught early raises everyone’s premiums. You know what prevents those? Breast and colon cancer.

Insurance companies want lower costs, if that is the reality they would offer screening even if not required. I’m not educated on the topic enough to evalutate it, but there is growing evidence that cancer(and other things) are over-screened. Tumors and other things that may not become cancerous or spread quickly are identified, causing stress and harmful surgery for patients that might not actually need it. I tend to believe more information is better, but, I’m not a doctor, and a lot of doctors are critical of overscreening in terms of outcomes for patients.

Edit: here’s a link to read a bit about this

You know what costs taxpayers a lot of money? Unwanted kids.

The job of an insurer is not to save tax payers money. If you want free condoms, just give out free condoms, why does it have to be tied to health insurance?

So your “let’s have everyone pay more money rather than have insurance do basic preventative care” plan still makes no sense to me.

Where did I say that?

I did answer, I think that should be negotiated between the insurer and insuree, and should not be required to be covered.

As I said in theory insurance shouldn’t cover primary care, but this is required post-ACA, and I think before too but I’m not sure starting from when. I think direct primary care could be great(but there are also otherways to do it, like optional primary care insurance).

For some preventative things insurance would choose to cover it if it weren’t required to save them money in the long run.

Yes, insurance exists for unexpected events, that’s why its insurance. A condom is a cost you willingly accept. And to be honest, primary care often shouldn’t be insurable, but since plans are required to cover it without price discrimination it kills direct primary care- so this is something that has to be accepted. Now, if medicare/medicaid and other programs choose to cover it that’s a different thing, but requiring all plans cover it is dumb. But I guess plans don’t really have to compete that much on price and value-added that much anymore post-ACA anyways

Its a handout to condom companies and stores that otherwise would have to compete on price. Granted, I don’t know how it would be implemented, but these tend not to be implemented well

Eh, some jobs are overpayed. Unironically, software development is overpaid.

You really want to go the pharmacy and hand them your ID and insurance card while the look you up and say “actually these condoms are ‘ribbed for her pleasure’ rather than ‘skin-feel’ so are not covered, also you’re over your condom allowance”. That would be so awkward barely anyone would bother.

Anybody else would have been rendered penniless within a year, tops.

Nobody else has ever been ordered to pay that much, much less in a suit for speech. Wrongful death lawsuits are awarded less than this.

The only reason to bring it up after the trend has been correctly stated is to try and gaslight people about how real the trend is.

Or to point out something that is true and important to recognize. Average trend doesn’t mean everyone.

Stop being willfully dense. It’s beyond pathetic.

Stop being so quick to see others as villains, its childish.

They never said anything about a trend. They said not all teachers are poor. That doesn’t mean they were disagreeing that teachers tend to be underpaid.

Even within continents, high speed rail is expensive, many cities and towns aren’t large enough or near large enough cities to make it practical. This would mean distant connections on slow trains and very long journeys.

Yes I am, as most trains don’t cross oceans.

Thank you for describing why your anecdote is an outlier and DEFINITELY doesn’t prove any norm.

Where did I say it was the norm??? You called someone a liar for giving an anecdote. Outliers do happen…

In dying rural areas in the US teachers are generally some of the best paid. Its mostly in cities where their pay lags. But no, they live in the US in LA(CA, not the state). Also, FYI just because I live in one country doesn’t mean its the same my grandparents live in.