The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It's not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said "often have ways" implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter's point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.
I think you're getting this kind of backwards. Individual claims aren't denied under universal healthcare. It's not opaque like a private insurer. Specific procedures are the thing not covered, and that becomes part of a national legislative/policy discussion.
It's just that you keep putting it on them, as if they need to be the one to "turn things around" when their rant was specifically about external systems prejudicing them. They can't "turn around" AusPost's decision to deny them the ability to redirect their mail?
Basically, they are trying to ask these systems for help, and are being denied. So why put it on their shoulders? Why not be outraged that someone is falling through the gaps, through no fault of their own?
I get that you have good intentions here, but I feel like you're kind of missing the point in a big way...
It's possible that if caulk was used, it didn't have time to dry and immediately carked it. Sticking a plastic sheet over it may have helped but then they would've had to come back to remove it. May have just risked it to save you the money of them returning. It was either a definite return to remove whatever was covering it, or a potential return if the fix carked it.
That's just my two cents anyway, I'm just spitballing.
Yeah so it just means the tab's going to need to refresh when you click back to it. That seems perfect honestly, it's already what most phone browsers do more aggressively. Cheers :)
PS5, kinda famously, has no exclusive games. I doubt it would be that taxing on devs to essentially create a build that changes it from Ultra settings to High equivalent to the PC versions when they're all running on an x86 platform. The Series S is just garbage hardware that Microsoft should have never released, the Z1E already outperforms it handily.
This chip would be more than capable of matching the PS5's APU. But the Z2 they're releasing alongside it will be decently cheaper while matching the Z1E's performance. So it'll come down to whether Sony prioritises cost or performance. My money's on cost though, they're going to want this thing to be cheaper than a Steam Deck, and the Z2E will put it in Legion Go/Ally X price territory.
I genuinely think it's already possible. The PS5 doesn't exactly have a very new processor, it's a 4000-series (desktop) Renoir, 7nm, Zen 2 architecture. The Z1E (the chip in the Lenovo Legion Go & ROG Ally X) is a 7040-series (mobile) Phoenix, 4nm, Zen 4/RDNA3 architecture.
The Z1E is basically 10% less performant for about 1/4 the juice. You could easily keep the same resolution, whilst dropping things like particles, shadow effects, etc that aren't going to be as missed on a much smaller display. I've got a Legion but I believe the Ally X has a docked higher TDP mode that would push it to being competitive with the PS5, or at least it would certainly be possible with an active cooling dock.
AMD literally designed the Z1E for handhelds, so Sony would be remiss not to use it. That or a potential "Z2E" successor chip seen as this one is pushing over 18 months since it was announced.
The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It's not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said "often have ways" implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter's point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.