Obamacare: TRWTF



  • Scaling and load testing are solved problems. If you pass a law requiring almost everyone in the country to buy something and then open the marketplace, you should expect (and plan for) scale.

    Oh, and it's probably a bad idea to expose all your error details in a (very) public website.



  • The real WTF is that the stacktrace is so long that it had to be truncated.



  • Welp, I know what company won the contract for that site. That's unfortunate for them. :x



  • @henke37 said:

    The real WTF is that the stacktrace is so long that it had to be truncated.

    It wasn't. When an exception is re-thrown in java, it only prints the new parts of the stack (it has several places where it starts over from a new throw).

    TRWTF is an 80 function call deep exception during the generation of a website.

    Also the fact that they needed a web service call multiple levels deep to get default security questions:

    {"csrf":null,"securityQuestions":[{"csrf":null,"question":"What is your favorite radio station?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What was your favorite toy when you were a child?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is your favorite cuisine?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is the first name of your oldest niece?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is a relative's telephone number that is not your own?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is the name of your favorite pet?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"Type a significant date in your life?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"In what city was your mother born?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is the name of your favorite childhood friend?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is your parents' wedding anniversary date?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is the name of the manager at your first job?","answer":null,"index":null},{"csrf":null,"question":"What is the nick name of your grandmother?","answer":null,"index":null}],"errors":[]]}


  •  @StephenCleary said:

    Scaling and load testing are solved problems

     You just might be oversimplifying that.  Just a little bit.



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    @StephenCleary said:
    Scaling and load testing are solved problems

    You just might be oversimplifying that.  Just a little bit.

    Seems so. According to President Obama (quoted in MSN), more than one million visitors hit healthcare.gov before 7 a.m., five times more visitors than have ever hit medicare.gov at one time.



  • @heterodox said:

    @vt_mruhlin said:

    @StephenCleary said:
    Scaling and load testing are solved problems

    You just might be oversimplifying that.  Just a little bit.

    Seems so. According to President Obama (quoted in MSN), more than one million visitors hit healthcare.gov before 7 a.m., five times more visitors than have ever hit medicare.gov at one time.

    When did it open? It seems you're saying "5x more people hit the website in 7 hours than had been on the site simultaneously before"


  • @Sutherlands said:

    @heterodox said:

    @vt_mruhlin said:

    @StephenCleary said:
    Scaling and load testing are solved problems

    You just might be oversimplifying that.  Just a little bit.

    Seems so. According to President Obama (quoted in MSN), more than one million visitors hit healthcare.gov before 7 a.m., five times more visitors than have ever hit medicare.gov at one time.

    When did it open? It seems you're saying "5x more people hit the website in 7 hours than had been on the site simultaneously before"
     

    healthcare.gov != medicare.gov

     



  • @powerlord said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @heterodox said:

    @vt_mruhlin said:

    @StephenCleary said:
    Scaling and load testing are solved problems

    You just might be oversimplifying that.  Just a little bit.

    Seems so. According to President Obama (quoted in MSN), more than one million visitors hit healthcare.gov before 7 a.m., five times more visitors than have ever hit medicare.gov at one time.

    When did it open? It seems you're saying "5x more people hit the website in 7 hours than had been on the site simultaneously before"
     

    healthcare.gov != medicare.gov

    That would be what I missed.


  • TRWTF is the entire situation around the Affordable Care Act.

    It was originally thought up by a bunch of Republicans.  But because a Democratic establishment was in power by the time the political mood of the country swung to a point where there was an opportunity to pass it, Republicans say they hate it and it's the most horrible thing ever and they'll do anything and everything they can to sabotage it.

    It was pushed through Congress and passed into law by a bunch of Democrats, who are now willing to defend it to the death, even though it doesn't actually look anything like actual liberal legislation, (see above, re: originally a Republican idea) just to annoy the Republicans and try to score political points against them.

    Meanwhile, while the Republicans are clamoring about killing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats, and the Democrats are clamoring about implementing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats, no one is actually talking about the most important issue, which is that it's legislation that solves the wrong problem.  The Democrats who are in favor of the whole thing keep pointing out how it's going to/supposed to end up with 40 million less people in the country without health insurance.  And sure, if you look at the claim at face value, that sounds beneficial.  But if you actually analyze the problem, you quickly start to see it's ridiculous.

    We don't need 40 million less uninsured people in this country; we need about 250 million more.  When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive that the average person can't afford to take care of it out of his own pocket, that is the problem we should be solving.  Insurance does nothing to decrease the underlying costs of health care; it just sweeps the problem under the rug.

    Between our completely broken, loophole-ridden patent system that allows pharmaceutical companies to charge monopoly rates for drugs that, in all too many cases, were actually developed using public funding in the first place, and rampant price gouging and fraud on the part of hospitals and health care providers, our health care system is among the least cost-effective in the entire world.

    But no one is talking about that.  That's TRWTF here.



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    TRWTF is the entire situation around the Affordable Care Act.

    It was originally thought up by a bunch of Republicans.  But because a Democratic establishment was in power by the time the political mood of the country swung to a point where there was an opportunity to pass it, Republicans say they hate it and it's the most horrible thing ever and they'll do anything and everything they can to sabotage it.

    It was pushed through Congress and passed into law by a bunch of Democrats, who are now willing to defend it to the death, even though it doesn't actually look anything like actual liberal legislation, (see above, re: originally a Republican idea) just to annoy the Republicans and try to score political points against them.

    Meanwhile, while the Republicans are clamoring about killing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats, and the Democrats are clamoring about implementing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats, no one is actually talking about the most important issue, which is that it's legislation that solves the wrong problem.  The Democrats who are in favor of the whole thing keep pointing out how it's going to/supposed to end up with 40 million less people in the country without health insurance.  And sure, if you look at the claim at face value, that sounds beneficial.  But if you actually analyze the problem, you quickly start to see it's ridiculous.

    We don't need 40 million less uninsured people in this country; we need about 250 million more.  When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive that the average person can't afford to take care of it out of his own pocket, that is the problem we should be solving.  Insurance does nothing to decrease the underlying costs of health care; it just sweeps the problem under the rug.

    Between our completely broken, loophole-ridden patent system that allows pharmaceutical companies to charge monopoly rates for drugs that, in all too many cases, were actually developed using public funding in the first place, and rampant price gouging and fraud on the part of hospitals and health care providers, our health care system is among the least cost-effective in the entire world.

    But no one is talking about that.  That's TRWTF here.

    Oh boy, here we go. I wish Morbs was here for this.



  • @Ben L. said:


    TRWTF is an 80 function call deep exception during the generation of a website.

    I just can't wrap my head around that. There must be at least 8 layers of abstraction there, and even then it works out to 10 functions per layer, which is still crazy.

    I'm not a Unix philosophy fanboy, but it does make some good points, like that adding extra layers between other layers does not usually make software better.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @anonymous235 said:

    @Ben L. said:
    TRWTF is an 80 function call deep exception during the generation of a website.

    I just can't wrap my head around that. There must be at least 8 layers of abstraction there, and even then it works out to 10 functions per layer, which is still crazy.
    It's not quite as crazy as it sounds. Most of it is actually framework code (CXF inside a JBoss variant of Tomcat) so there's only a few lines of real exception in there. The real code inside it all will not be written with much reference to the enclosing framework at all; CXF does annotation-driven declarative coding really nicely.

    The exception traces are scary though. (Strictly, that's not quite as deep as you think; there's several nested exceptions in there.) If you really want a bunker-busting exception trace, add in Spring AOP and Spring Security as well, and trigger an exception in your DB binding during startup. There's a real chance of getting stack traces hundreds of entries long if you do that…



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    TRWTF is the entire situation around the Affordable Care Act.

    I have no problem with the Affordable Care Act. It's that motherfucking death-squad sham Obamacare that's threatening to rape-and-murder America that I object to. So fuck you for even explaining it, you commie socialist nazi.

    Also: Canada.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    40 million fewer

    FTFY



  • I still can't wrap my head around this entirely asinine legislative process where you can tack on several distinct and completely unrelated issues to a bill which has nothing to do with the additions.

    So, I can create a bill which aims to "protect kittens and orphans" and someone else tacks on "free guns for drug addicts."

    Which moron thought this to be a good idea?



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    @StephenCleary said:
    Scaling and load testing are solved problems
    You just might be oversimplifying that. Just a little bit.
    Well... going to the moon is a solved problem. So, anyone can do it, right?

    @anonymous235 said:

    adding extra layers between other layers does not usually make software better
    No, but it can make for a delicious cake.

    @dkf said:

    If you really want a bunker-busting exception trace, add in Spring AOP and Spring Security as well, and trigger an exception in your DB binding during startup. There's a real chance of getting stack traces hundreds of entries long if you do that
    For a real challenge, try causing a StackOverflowException without resorting to recursion...



  • @Rhywden said:

    I still can't wrap my head around this entirely asinine legislative process where you can tack on several distinct and completely unrelated issues to a bill which has nothing to do with the additions.

    So, I can create a bill which aims to "protect kittens and orphans" and someone else tacks on "free guns for drug addicts."

    Which moron thought this to be a good idea?

    A politician, of course. Why do you need to ask?



  • @Anonymouse said:

    [

    @dkf said:

    If you really want a bunker-busting exception trace, add in Spring AOP and Spring Security as well, and trigger an exception in your DB binding during startup. There's a real chance of getting stack traces hundreds of entries long if you do that
    For a real challenge, try causing a StackOverflowException without resorting to recursion...

    that's simple: just set stack space to some low number

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Anonymouse said:

    For a real challenge, try causing a StackOverflowException without resorting to recursion...
    What language? In C or C++, it's easy: bloating the activation record size is utterly trivial. (OTOH, stack sizes have grown a lot anyway due to the general way that C++ bloats activation records anyway.) Java's a little trickier, as that's both got large stack sizes and small activation records (as objects don't need to be held on the stack; that's up to the JIT engine to decide). Your best bet would be to do something evil with runtime code generation that builds a very large tower of method calls; it would be entirely possible to defeat any reasonable optimiser in that case.

    But hitting the stack depth limit without recursion is pretty unlikely in any reasonable program. And in any Java program too.



  • @Rhywden said:

    I still can't wrap my head around this entirely asinine legislative process where you can tack on several distinct and completely unrelated issues to a bill which has nothing to do with the additions.


    I still haven't worked out whether Ted Cruz wanted to subsidise green eggs and ham or outlaw them.



  •  @dkf said:

    @Anonymouse said:
    For a real challenge, try causing a StackOverflowException without resorting to recursion...
    What language? In C or C++, it's easy: bloating the activation record size is utterly trivial. (OTOH, stack sizes have grown a lot anyway due to the general way that C++ bloats activation records anyway.) Java's a little trickier, as that's both got large stack sizes and small activation records (as objects don't need to be held on the stack; that's up to the JIT engine to decide). Your best bet would be to do something evil with runtime code generation that builds a very large tower of method calls; it would be entirely possible to defeat any reasonable optimiser in that case.

    But hitting the stack depth limit without recursion is pretty unlikely in any reasonable program. And in any Java program too.

    with code generation in java you can specify the needed operand stack (determined at compile time) to be huge, the entire stack is allocated on method entry

     



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    We don't need 40 million less uninsured people in this country; we need about 250 million more.  When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive that the average person can't afford to take care of it out of his own pocket, that is the problem we should be solving.  Insurance does nothing to decrease the underlying costs of health care; it just sweeps the problem under the rug.


    True, if the health care costs are inflated, that should be the highest priority, but that doesn't mean insurance is unnecessary. Car accidents or cancer are always going to cost more than what the average person can pay.

    Hmm, maybe we could make it so that if the price is too high, the person doesn't have to pay for it? Like some kind of global insurance managed by the state. I wonder if anyone's ever thought of that before!



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    We don't need 40 million less uninsured people in this country; we need about 250 million more.  When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive that the average person can't afford to take care of it out of his own pocket, that is the problem we should be solving.  Insurance does nothing to decrease the underlying costs of health care; it just sweeps the problem under the rug.
    That's one of the silliest comments I've ever read. Forget for a moment what kind of insurance it is, and how you feel about this insurance being compulsory.

    What you're saying is that having insurance is the wrong solution. So we should do away with car insurance; people should just drive more carefully. We should do away with home insurance; people should just take care that their houses don't burn down. We shouldn't test our software; developers should just not introduce bugs. (We actually had a former CTO say that.)

    You may argue in favour or against compulsory health insurance, and there are plenty of arguments on either side, but arguing against health insurance in general is plain daft.

     



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive simple that yet the average person can't afford be bothered to take care of it, out of his own therefore it must be paid out of somebody else's pocket , that is the problem we should be solving
     

    Now that the comment has been fixed....I can agree. Yet the option of simply letting them die on the side of the street (or in their homes, etc..) is not acceptable to the vast majority. Therefore "insurance" which spreads the cost and the risk. The larger the pool (for a given set of claims) making payments into the system, the lower the per-capita per-claim cost.

     

     

     



  • @Severity One said:

    So we should do away with car insurance; people should just drive more carefully. We should do away with home insurance; people should just take care that their houses don't burn down.
     

    As far as I can tell, he's saying that cars and hice should be so cheap that replacements or repairs should not be such vast expenditures that you need to be insured. I don't know if that's practical.

    Free is cheap enough, right?



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive simple
     

    Bollocks. People are insured against diabetes, cancer treatments, broken legs, MRI scans. That's the kind of stuff that breaks the bank, and it's not your average bodily upkeep. You can't prevent things like that with 100% certainty.



  • @Severity One said:

    So we should do away with car insurance; people should just drive more carefully.
     

    Wut? Hang on, that would be a really stupidass statement. Let me re-read the OP:

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive that the average person can't afford to take care of it out of his own pocket, that is the problem we should be solving

    So he's saying we shold get rid of health insurance because health isn't something you "insure" like a commodity, and instead focusing on making sure that health care is affordable (and where it isn't make sure it's paid for).  That way your citizens aren't dying/becoming meth dealers because they can't afford medicine or treatment.

    Yeah, it sounds crazy when you put it the complete opposite way the OP said. You're the worst, Mason Wheeler.

     



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive simple that yet the average person can't afford be bothered to take care of it, out of his own therefore it must be paid out of somebody else's pocket , that is the problem we should be solving
     

    Now that the comment has been fixed....I can agree. Yet the option of simply letting them die on the side of the street (or in their homes, etc..) is not acceptable to the vast majority. Therefore "insurance" which spreads the cost and the risk. The larger the pool (for a given set of claims) making payments into the system, the lower the per-capita per-claim cost.

    I can't even begin to even



  • @Severity One said:

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    We don't need 40 million less uninsured people in this country; we need about 250 million more.  When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive that the average person can't afford to take care of it out of his own pocket, that is the problem we should be solving.  Insurance does nothing to decrease the underlying costs of health care; it just sweeps the problem under the rug.
    That's one of the silliest comments I've ever read. Forget for a moment what kind of insurance it is, and how you feel about this insurance being compulsory.

    What you're saying is that having insurance is the wrong solution. So we should do away with car insurance; people should just drive more carefully. We should do away with home insurance; people should just take care that their houses don't burn down. We shouldn't test our software; developers should just not introduce bugs. (We actually had a former CTO say that.)

    You may argue in favour or against compulsory health insurance, and there are plenty of arguments on either side, but arguing against health insurance in general is plain daft.

     

    Actually, I think the problem really is healith insurance in general, though not quite the way you meant when you said that.  You come up with silly counterarguments to make my point look ridiculous, but let's look at them more deeply.

    I own a car.  I have insurance for it.  When I take it to the gas station, or the car wash, or to the dealer for scheduled maintenance, I don't put any of that on my insurance.  I don't have to; I can afford it myself.  If I got in a wreck, that would go on my insurance.  Regular maintenance is affordable; insurance is for emergencies.

    My parents own a house.  They have homeowners' insurance.  When they wanted to repaint the house, add a deck, or partition one of the rooms downstairs into two smaller rooms, they didn't file an insurance claim to pay for it; they could afford that.  When a pipe broke in the bathroom upstairs, right by an air duct, while they were on vacation and flooded the entire downstairs before anyone noticed, (true story,) that's when they got the insurance company involved.  Regular maintenance is affordable; insurance is for emergencies.

    But that's not the way that the health care system works at all.  Not when a routine checkup can cost north of $400!  Not when a friend of mine, who suffers from asthma, has prescriptions that cost her over $300 per month!  Regular maintenance is not affordable; and thus everything becomes an emergency and must be insured.

    Health insurance for cancer?  I'm all for it!  For broken bones and traumatic injuries?  Where do I sign up?  But health insurance in general, health insurance for "in general"?  That's a horrible idea and a major component of the visious cycle, and it needs to  be done away with.

     



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    Actually, I think the problem really is healith insurance in general, though not quite the way you meant when you said that.... 

     And that is the way it was (pay for routine, insurance for catastrophic) until recently [last 25 years]. "People" got the idea that if there was more preventative care, there would be less critical care [a good idea] and codified this into the insurance process [IMHO bad idea]. Thereofre people who could not afford preventative care [there will always be poor] would have access. Not suprisingly the cost (borne by those who could pay) skyrocketed until no "normal" person code pay, and the games began.

    Realize that insurance does NOT pay out the "full charges", they pay out the lower of "Usual and Customary" or "Actual"... So if a proceedure is authorized for $100, then a doctor who bills under that amount will only recieve what they bill, doctors who bill over will still receive $100....Now the doctor has the opportunity to bill $500, the insurance carrier does not care (they dont pay), most insured dont care (this is about to change with new % rather tan $ deductables)...it is the average citizen WITHOUT insurance who gets hurt.

    So the focus goes to the "uninsured"..with the "Solution" being to make sure they have insurance. OF course, this does nothing to the underlying issues.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ratchet freak said:

    with code generation in java you can specify the needed operand stack (determined at compile time) to be huge, the entire stack is allocated on method entry
    The optimiser — that is, the JIT engine — doesn't need to pay much attention to that; it can see what you're really doing. (Really. I've been looking through some of the techniques it uses for a personal project; there are some damn awesome tricks in modern compilers!)



  • Now updated with pretty printing! The error is still there (same resource), but now it pretty-prints the error in HTML!

    Of course, the site still doesn't actually work...



  • They implemented the ACA in Java?

    Suddenly the Republican shutdown of government makes a lot more sense.



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    It was originally thought up by a bunch of Republicans.

    Sort of. Almost. But not really. A couple of guys at the Heritage Foundation had a similar idea. IIRC, their idea mostly revolved around requiring at least basic, catastrophic coverage, which is a good thing to have, even for young people. And because a couple of guys at a conservative think tank came up with something, Democrats like to say that it's an idea that's a core principle of every Republican, so they should totally be on board with voting for a ginormous law that nobody read and that largely gives the Secretary of HHS the power to do a lot of retarded things.

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    Meanwhile, while the Republicans are clamoring about killing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats

    You don't pay attention much or very well, do you?

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    ...even though it doesn't actually look anything like actual liberal legislation...

    No, obviously you don't. Large, unscrutinized bills that are necessarily misrepresented prior to passage and that increase the scope of government power look exactly like liberal (in the modern parlance) legislation.



  • @anonymous235 said:

    True, if the health care costs are inflated, that should be the highest priority, but that doesn't mean insurance is unnecessary. Car accidents or cancer are always going to cost more than what the average person can pay.

    The problem is that modern health insurance isn't really insurance any more. It's become a payment plan. So imagine that instead of just accidents, your car insurance paid for oil changes, inflating the tires, cleaning the windshield and wiper fluid, etc.



  • Just came across an article in The Atlantic from June:

    "It's fast, built in static HTML, completely scalable and secure," said Bryan Sivak, chief technology officer of HHS, in an interview.

    There's a lot more there, and this is obviously out of date. I wonder how that statement reflects what we "have" now. Later in TFA, they talk about the servers required to serve this stuff up:

    Jekyll, for those who are unfamiliar with web-development trends, is a way for developers to build a static website from dynamic components. Instead of running a traditional website with a relational database and server-side code, using Jekyll enables programmers to create content like they create code. The end result of this approach is a site that loads faster for users, a crucial performance issue, particularly on mobile devices. "Instead of [running] farms of application servers to handle massive load, you're basically slimming down to two," said Sivak. "You're just using HTML5, CSS, and Javascript, all being done in responsive design. The way it's being built matters. You could in theory do the same with application servers and a CMS, but it would be much more complex. What we're doing here is giving anyone with basic skills to basic changes on the fly. You don't need expensive consultants."

    ...

    HHS had similar strategic plans for the new site, at least at first. "They were planning 32 servers, between staging, production and disaster recovery, with application servers for different environments," said Cole. "You're just talking about content. There just needs to be one server. We're going to have two, with one for backup. That's a deduction of 30 servers."

    WTF? I don't know how to reconcile this with the obvious use of java (and I'm not motivated enough to look through github). Did they abandon that nonsense about not needing any servers (though I guess that would explain the scaling problems)? The site obviously isn't just static html. They have stuff for creating accounts and logging in and so forth. I guess this is just the front end? So many layers of WTF.



  •  @boomzilla said:

    WTF?

    That's some epic mansplaining there, and everybody is nodding heads in agreement.



  • I have to agree with some of the sentiments regarding what health insurance has become. Insurance works great for things that are relatively low-risk. Auto and homeowners insurance are prime examples, because most people do not have to take advantage of their policy meaning they help pay for those who actually have claims. But that doesn't work with health. Everybody needs healthcare. It's not something you might need only once or twice in your lifetime. I don't know what system would help but insurance is clearly the wrong format.

    What we need is a method of actually addressing healthcare costs, not forcing the entire nation into a broken system. The new plan is like trying to save the Titanic by forcing everyone to get on board.

    As for the website, somehow I'm not surprised. Development by bureaucracy means automatic Steaming-Pile-O-WTF™. Especially on something so rushed and difficult to understand.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Jekyll, for those who are unfamiliar with web-development trends, is a way for developers to build a static website from dynamic components.
    To me, it looks like a glorified caching framework with the file-system being used as a flat-file database.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Mason Wheeler said:
    Meanwhile, while the Republicans are clamoring about killing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats

    You don't pay attention much or very well, do you?

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    ...even though it doesn't actually look anything like actual liberal legislation...

    No, obviously you don't. Large, unscrutinized bills that are necessarily misrepresented prior to passage and that increase the scope of government power look exactly like liberal (in the modern parlance) legislation.

    I dunno.  Using the regulatory power of government to enforce massive windfalls to an industry already enjoying obscene profit margins, at the expense of the general public, while simultaneously grandstanding about how evil government regulations are?  Sounds exactly like conservative (in the modern parlance) legislation to me.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @PJH said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Jekyll, for those who are unfamiliar with web-development trends, is a way for developers to build a static website from dynamic components.
    To me, it looks like a glorified caching framework with the file-system being used as a flat-file database.

    There's some gold there.

    [quote user="Jekyll documentation"]
    $ jekyll serve --detach
    # => Same as `jekyll serve` but will detach from the current terminal.
    #    If you need to kill the server, you can `kill -9 1234` where "1234" is the PID.
    [/quote]

    kill -9 apparently is the preferred way to shut down the (apparently tightly integrated) web server.



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    I dunno.  Using the regulatory power of government to enforce massive windfalls to an industry already enjoying obscene profit margins, at the expense of the general public, while simultaneously grandstanding about how evil government regulations are?  Sounds exactly like conservative (in the modern parlance) legislation to me.

    The only thing in your post that was right was, "I dunno."



  • @joe.edwards said:

    [quote user="Jekyll documentation"]

    $ jekyll serve --detach
    # => Same as `jekyll serve` but will detach from the current terminal.
    #    If you need to kill the server, you can `kill -9 1234` where "1234" is the PID.

    [/quote] 

    ... they named their Health Care system after a fictional doctor who performed illegal experiments, poisoned himself, went insane and murdered innocent people?


    alias hyde="jekyll serve --detach"


     

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    ... they named their Health Care system after a fictional doctor who performed illegal experiments, poisoned himself, went insane and murdered innocent people?
    Reminds me of Star Wars. I forget which novel, it was one of the later ones, but a character was commenting on how the Empire named their ships evil-sounding things like Accuser, Agonizer, Devastator, Malice, Rage, etc. They decided the Empire didn't even pretend it wasn't evil.



  • @mott555 said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    ... they named their Health Care system after a fictional doctor who performed illegal experiments, poisoned himself, went insane and murdered innocent people?
    Reminds me of Star Wars. I forget which novel, it was one of the later ones, but a character was commenting on how the Empire named their ships evil-sounding things like Accuser, Agonizer, Devastator, Malice, Rage, etc. They decided the Empire didn't even pretend it wasn't evil.


    Obligatory


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @mott555 said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    ... they named their Health Care system after a fictional doctor who performed illegal experiments, poisoned himself, went insane and murdered innocent people?
    Reminds me of Star Wars. I forget which novel, it was one of the later ones, but a character was commenting on how the Empire named their ships evil-sounding things like Accuser, Agonizer, Devastator, Malice, Rage, etc. They decided the Empire didn't even pretend it wasn't evil.


    Sounds a lot like lampshade hanging.



  • @anonymous235 said:

    @mott555 said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    ... they named their Health Care system after a fictional doctor who performed illegal experiments, poisoned himself, went insane and murdered innocent people?
    Reminds me of Star Wars. I forget which novel, it was one of the later ones, but a character was commenting on how the Empire named their ships evil-sounding things like Accuser, Agonizer, Devastator, Malice, Rage, etc. They decided the Empire didn't even pretend it wasn't evil.


    Obligatory
    This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    They implemented the ACA in Java?

    Suddenly the Republican shutdown of government makes a lot more sense.

    They implemented the ACA website in ASP.NET, going through a Jekyll proxy. The Java stuff is for the authentication backend for Medicare and Medicaid, and now this.


  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    TRWTF is the entire situation around the Affordable Care Act.

    It was originally thought up by a bunch of Republicans.  But because a Democratic establishment was in power by the time the political mood of the country swung to a point where there was an opportunity to pass it, Republicans say they hate it and it's the most horrible thing ever and they'll do anything and everything they can to sabotage it.

    It was pushed through Congress and passed into law by a bunch of Democrats, who are now willing to defend it to the death, even though it doesn't actually look anything like actual liberal legislation, (see above, re: originally a Republican idea) just to annoy the Republicans and try to score political points against them.

    Meanwhile, while the Republicans are clamoring about killing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats, and the Democrats are clamoring about implementing it because it's major legislation passed by Democrats, no one is actually talking about the most important issue, which is that it's legislation that solves the wrong problem.  The Democrats who are in favor of the whole thing keep pointing out how it's going to/supposed to end up with 40 million less people in the country without health insurance.  And sure, if you look at the claim at face value, that sounds beneficial.  But if you actually analyze the problem, you quickly start to see it's ridiculous.

    We don't need 40 million less uninsured people in this country; we need about 250 million more.  When something as fundamental as staying healthy is so expensive that the average person can't afford to take care of it out of his own pocket, that is the problem we should be solving.  Insurance does nothing to decrease the underlying costs of health care; it just sweeps the problem under the rug.

    Between our completely broken, loophole-ridden patent system that allows pharmaceutical companies to charge monopoly rates for drugs that, in all too many cases, were actually developed using public funding in the first place, and rampant price gouging and fraud on the part of hospitals and health care providers, our health care system is among the least cost-effective in the entire world.

    But no one is talking about that.  That's TRWTF here.

    TRWTF is that it seems to take an inordinate amount of effort to be able to stay healthy in the US. Isn't there anyone over there who doesn't need medical attention for longer than a month at a time?

    I know food over there is desperately unhealthy (there's even sugar in tinned carrots, for fuck's sake) but come on, live without a bag of fucking pills for ten minutes, you wussies.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.