chouyu_31

Ok, so I've been really lazy about uploading pictures, and I've been busy as hell, but this is what I did Halloween weenend: http://blasphemina.livejournal.com/985144.html

Over the years I've watched a lot of movies. Some years more than others. For quite a few of them, I collected the ticket stubs for the ones I've watched in the theater, and stuck them to the wall. Whenever I moved, I'd have to pull them off the wall, stack them chronologically, and re-stick them in the new place. I stopped the ritual of attaching them a few years and moves ago, but I still collect the stubs. If you ask me to explain why, I won't be able to.

It's not uncommon in my movie watching experience to more or less enjoy a film, but not think it's special. Some I will laugh continuously, but still not think it's a great movie. I've watched action, horror, drama, romance, comedy, foreign, and any number of combinations of all of them. My top 10 list of movies include Amelie, The Big Hit, the first two of the Alien series, and perhaps a few movies some of you have or have not seen. I do have a soft spot for movies in which characters fall in love, because ultimately, I'm a total softie at heart. In the past months, thanks to my girlfriend, I've been watching quite a few romantic comedies, plain romance, etc., many of which I've enjoyed.

Tonight I watched a movie that felt like it really portrayed what it is like to fall in love as a 14-22 year old kid. The mannerisms, thoughts, dialog, ..., all remind me of how I behaved during those years in the pre/early stages of relationships. The awkwardness, the crush, the not knowing how to talk to them, the flirting, the ... everything. It reminded me of a time when I was younger, when life was a bit simpler. It felt true to me, despite the fact that it was about two girls. "The Incredibly True Adventure of 2 Girls in Love" has warmed the cockles of my heart, and found it's way onto my top 10 list.

I'll get to writing about my vacation soon, but in the mean time, I thought I would share an experience that I had when visiting Wells Fargo recently.

I had a desire to borrow some money from Wells Fargo so as to purchase something that I was interested in. I figured that with my good credit, stable job, and my doing business with them (for almost 10 years, including direct deposit of my paycheck for 7 of that) that I'd be able to get a reasonable rate. While I had the cash to purchase the object outright, the purpose of getting a loan was to allow myself more flexibility; if something bad happened, then I would continue to have cash on hand to deal with the emergency. But the bank thought otherwise.

For an unsecured loan they were offering something like 12.65% interest. What? Seriously? My credit cards do better than that for convenience checks. But what about a secured loan at 7.65%? Well, about the only thing I have are investments (which they can't secure) or my cash...but then they would take that cash and lock it up until the loan was repaid. Um...no? You hold onto my money (making interest on it) while you borrow money from the fed at 0% to loan me at 7.65%? I don't think so.

A credit union will do better, but not nearly as well as I believe is reasonable.

My proposed solution? A new credit card with 12-month 0% APR on balance transfers and 3% fee. So as long as I keep moving money around yearly, I can effectively get ~3% APR through a credit card. Yes, I did look at prosper.com and lendingclub.com, both of which seemed to offer unsecured rates as low as 7% or so, and the feel-good factor of regular people making money and not some board of trustees that made bad decisions in the last decade. We'll see how it plays out.

But really banks? Really?

Update: a friend has pointed out an error in my math, read the comments for better math. The spreadsheet has been updated. Also, the US is still behind.

Recently, I've heard some very poor arguments about why birth and death rate statistics make the whole "life expectancy" number not comparable from country to country. This is, obviously, an attempt to claim that the current US health care system is at least as good, if not better than, those countries that do better in life expectancy for less money. Before I get into proving them wrong with numbers, I'll point out that the people making these arguments are likely in one of two camps. Either they are "true believers", that is, a group that believes counter-arguments to something they dislike, regardless of how little proof there is, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and quite possibly because their world-view is tied up into their beliefs (as opposed to reality). Or they are "mouthpieces", that is, a group of people who know the arguments to be false, yet still use them as an attempt to derail policy or conversation about policy through misinformation.

To get deeper into what birth/death rate statistics I'm talking about, the claim is that because of the higher US murder rate, and because we consider "live" much smaller premature births in the US, that our life expectancy numbers are unfairly biased downwards, so comparisons against health care are not comparable by using life expectancy. I intend to show that murder rates and infant mortality rates make little difference in the numbers, so the claim of not being comparable due to those numbers is bullshit.

First, we will start with a "nominal age", that is, an age at which we assume everyone dies if they aren't murdered or die in childhood. It turns out that, thanks to statistics, this works the same as if there was a more complicated distribution that just happened to average out to 80 years old. I use 80 because life expectancy for industrialized nations is about that, but we can use any age; the only difference is that higher ages scale the difference between the nominal age and expectancy up.

We will then have a "homicide rate", that is, the number of murders per 100,000 people. When we perform the calculation, we will assume that all people are murdered when they are born. This biases the calculated pseudo "life expectancy" number down, but because we'll do this for all countries we calculate, this is fair. We get these numbers from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

We have an "infant mortality rate", that is, the number of infant deaths per 100,000 people. We obviously assume these children die when they are born. We get these numbers from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

We will also, for the sake of argument, replace "infant mortality rate" with "under-five mortality rate", also getting these numbers from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

We also need "birth rate", so as to determine how much "infant mortality rate" and "under-five mortality rate" affect our statistics. We get these numbers from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

This stuff should be used as reference, please see the comments for better math, which still shows the US behind.

First, we are going to find out the proportion of the population that is murdered. That is simple; we take our "homicide rate" number, and divide it by 100,000. In the case of the US, that is 6.8 / 100000 = .000068 . We'll call this h_prop.

We then find out the portion of the population that is born in any given year. For the US, that is 14.0 per 1000 population, which we can scale up to 1400 per 100,000 population (to be consistent), which we then scale back down to .014 . But, we need to know how many of these children die before their time. In the US, the infant mortality rate is 6.3 per 1000 live births, or .0063, which we multiply by .014 in order to get the actual proportion of our population that dies as an infant; .014 * .0063 = 0.0000882 , we'll call this im_prop. Doing the same number for under-five mortality gets us 0.0001092 , we'll call this ufm_prop.

We now have enough numbers to do our calculations.
age * (1.0 - h_prop - im_prop) -> ifm_exp -> life expectancy assuming only infant mortality and murder.
age * (1.0 - h_prop - ufm_prop) -> ufm_exp -> life expectancy assuming only under-five mortality and murder.

80 * (1.0 - .000068 - .0000882) = 79.987
80 * (1.0 - .000068 - .0001092) = 79.985

Looking at the worst-case under-5 mortality rate, (80-79.985)*365 = 5.17 days. Yep, the homicide rate in the US combined with under-5 mortality rate, assuming that murders happen when a person is born, adds up to a change in life expectancy of 5.17 days.

I created a google spreadsheet, which you can view and make a copy of if you have a google account, which will perform these calculations for you: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiQlFAGAyO9SdEdaUm9zVnNVY1J0Q1JMMGJLT2xZcFE&hl=en


As I just showed you, using simple math, the argument that birth/death rate statistics make the numbers not able to be compared from country to country is just plain bullshit. Making claims of them being not comparable and not running the numbers is at best lazy, but really, it shows how little some people care about actually making this an argument about apples vs. apples. This is apples vs. death squads, apples vs. murders, and any other nonsensical comparison that can be done to derail the real discussion; health care in America could be better, and it is shameful that people are making arguments based in obvious lies, especially when the lies hurt people who aren't getting health care (you know, the 30 million people without health insurance). Shameful.

Update: a friend has pointed out an error in my math, read the comments for better math. The spreadsheet has been updated. Also, the US is still behind.

As posted, yesterday I jumped through a few hoops just to be told that I wouldn't be covered when visiting 2 different urgent care facilities.

Today, it was much of the same. Upon arriving at the physician's office, I started filling out a medical questionnaire while they took my insurance card and driver's license. I'm not half way done with filling paperwork out before I am told that they don't take HMOs. What? This place, however, offers to take cash for the visit. I say that I will be seeing the doctor, but that I'm going to call my provider to get them to cover me.

With a pen in one hand to continue filling out paperwork, I dial my provider's phone number. Bullshit annoying voice prompts (that are very hard with my messed up voice) lead me directly to a woman. I give her the short version of what I went through yesterday, and explain that I need to see a doctor. I say that since I'm already at a doctor's office, am already filling out paperwork, and that they had *already* wasted 2 hours of my time the day before, I'd like to be covered. She refuses. She says that since I was informed prior to my actual visiting of the doctor, I know the situation, and wouldn't be covered. WTF? They sent me here, and now they tell me it's *my* fault for coming here? I ask to speak to another representative. She says that I need to hang up and call again.

So I call again. After giving the short version again, with an acknowledgement that my experiences with her company have been less than satisfactory, I explain that I know she can do some magic and get my office visit covered today, even if it wouldn't normally be covered, because they repeatedly messed up. After giving me a bit of attitude, saying that I wasn't asking a question before, so didn't know what I wanted (I want to see a doctor, preferably the one whose office I'm in - it shouldn't take for me to *ask* to be covered for that to be obvious), but now that she did know, would enter a note that they would be covering it. She then asked to speak with the people at the office to tell the office how to bill the insurance provider.

So I hand my phone off... and the physician's office woman proceeds to argue with the insurance provider woman about whose fault it is that I'm standing there and they have to talk to each other. Apparently the doctor has called both the medical group *and* the insurance provider more than once (I believe "dozens" was stated) to get them off, but they keep sending him people. After a few minutes, some information is written down, I'm asked if I wanted to talk with the woman on the phone. I decline, and that's it.


After a 5 minute wait, I get to see my doctor. I explain the situation, he listens to my lungs (clear), looks in my ears (clean), checks my throat (irritated), gets my temperature (99.8, slight fever), and does 3 nasal swabs (a little uncomfortable, but not bad). They are going to be doing a culture to check for flu A, and if that's positive, sending it off to Atlanta for testing for H1N1. I am to call them on Friday to find out, but just to be safe, I was given a prescription for Tamaflu, and told to stay home.


A bit of clarification is in order. The young lady I mentioned had spent time in the hospital for H1N1, turns out she just had the regular flu. Hrm. I could have sworn it was the pig death. However, even finding this out, the fact that I was unable to see a doctor, despite invoking the specter of H1N1, is preposterous. Never mind the fact that even showing up to the office that I was directed to by my insurance provider, I was told I wasn't going to be covered.

I say again, something needs to change. And I will reiterate that if you don't believe that the US system of medical providers and insurance needs to change, then you are an idiot.

Around 2:45 I went to the Blue Shield of California web site and logged in, looking for urgent care facilities. Why? My girlfriend and I seem to be infected with some flu variant, and being that we both spent some time with a young lady that was in the hospital for H1N1, *and* that my girlfriend is leaving the country next week, we wanted to make sure she wasn't infected.

So I find a facility, conveniently located 1.5 miles away from my apartment. Great! So I go there. I was told, "not covered, call your provider."

So I sat in the parking lot and called my primary care physician, around 3PM. I was told that my primary care physician was in downtown Los Angeles, but that I couldn't see him, because he wasn't taking any new patients, and neither were any of his partners. I asked about urgent care facilities, which were in downtown LA or Pasadena. Those are 30-45 minutes away, without traffic. WTF? I had originally set up a primary care physician in Santa Monica, maybe 15 minutes from where I worked, but they switched me automatically for some strange reason.

A few months ago when I was bitten by a dog, I also went to an urgent care facility. I got a bill in the mail a couple weeks ago explaining that I wasn't covered because I want to a location that wasn't covered under my insurance. Again, a location that had been given to me by the insurance providers' web site.

So I call up the insurance provider, they tell me everything I already know. I then ask if there was a method by which I could go to an urgent care facility somewhere near to where I live, while also getting a primary care physician that would be reasonably close to where I live. She said that she could find a new group and a new doctor for me. Great.

At 3:30 I got off the phone, with information about a new doctor, and the address of an urgent care facility that takes walk-ins that was covered under my medical group. The lady on the phone said that if the provider needed confirmation that I was covered, that they could call them and they would fax over confirmation. Wonderful. So I drive to El Segundo and present my information.

At 4:30 I'm asked to the front desk. I'm told that my insurance company redirected them to my primary care physician (wtf happened to the faxed authorization?). My primary care physician's medical group doesn't contract with any urgent care facilities, despite the fact that 6 are listed on my insurance company's internal database as being contracted with that medical group. WTF?

So I talk with the front desk person at my primary care physician's office, and I get an appointment for 9AM tomorrow. Which, in my opinion, is preposterous.

The moment I mention that I've spent time with someone who spent time in the hospital for H1N1, they should be working hard to take care of me so I don't accidentally infect people. Instead, I'm told to not let the door hit my ass on my way out, and when I call up my insurance provider to explain the bullshit I've just been subjected to, I am told a lot of stuff I know. She calls up the urgent care facility and discovers that they don't contract with any HMOs, and says that she'll update the database so this doesn't happen to others. I explain to her how I got to the first urgent care facility in the first place, and she tells me that I should have verified the medical group at the urgent care facility I wanted to go to.

Wait, what? Your computer knows what group I am in. Your computer knows where I'm searching around. Your computer can't filter the list of the "thousands" of providers down to just those I can visit and be covered by? The mind boggles.


I'm certain that my experience is not unique; I remember having to jump through similar hoops to get Annie a primary care physician in a network with an OB close to where we lived.

To those people who don't believe that something needs to change with health care in America: you are idiots. I just spent 2 hours finding out that I can't actually see a physician today, unless I walked into an emergency room and waited 4 hours. Mind you, I have insurance, and/or could pay cash for any conceivable procedure they would perform on me today. But the two facilities I walked into today outright refused to treat me.


For reference, I'm with Blue Shield of California, and I have an HMO plan. I chose HMO because it limits my personal liability if, for example, I were to be severely injured in a car, motorcycle, surfing, skateboarding, ... accident. While I don't expect to be severely injured, I participate in at least 3 activities where severe injuries are not uncommon.

Finally got into the water to go surfing, it's been too long. I got a few decent whitewater rides in, as the waves were breaking all at the same time. No nice up/down beach rides. The surf is supposed to be 6-8' in Venice on Friday/Saturday...which is twice as big as it normally is. Hell, they're talking 12'+ down at the Wedge in Newport... which would be awesome to see. I have some time Saturday early, so may go for a motorcycle ride just to take pictures :)

I can hear the waves crashing from my computer...I hope they are ridable tomorrow :D

Want to see what I've been slaving on over at the YouTube? There are a few reasons why it hasn't been announced yet, and I'll not say why, but I'm all about building communities at YouTube. My work may not change the world, but maybe the communities that are built with it could make it a better place.

See the future of YouTube Groups... er... I mean Collaborative Channels... oh wait, that branding hasn't happened yet :P . It's a completely re-done back and front end for a video-centric forum. You can discuss videos, post videos, rate videos, and even watch as those ratings alter a video's location in group playlists automatically.

There are really only a couple things about the implementation that are really innovative, but there are some nifty ways to interact with discussions and videos that I think makes them far easier to use than the old groups implementation.

See them now at: http://www.youtube.com/channel/
Also, welcome back Spinal Tap: http://www.youtube.com/channel/spinaltapcontest

If you find a bug, I probably already know about it, but go ahead and comment here (they are all screened).


This is totally not an official release statement, but my main project at YouTube is switching in the next week or two, and I didn't want to *not* tell people.


Also, my team lead is leaving for a new startup, so I've got a bit of a mental block this week while I sort out not working with a great engineer and great guy every day. We'll miss you, Nick.

For years I have wondered what it sounded like to be on the receiving end of my vocal stylings. I did some karaoke, rock band, and other singing games a bit this past fall, which was a 10 year hiatus in singing. I couldn't tell you what I sounded like back when I finished high school; maybe I sounded better, maybe my singing voice had less of a breathy quality, maybe I was more confident; I don't know. But listening to some recordings I just made of myself is quite disappointing.

Seven Mary Three? Oy. Incubus? Vey. Dave Matthews? Oy vey! Danzing? Bleh. Billy Idol? Eh...

Realizing that you are not good at something that you enjoy doing sucks. I guess it'll have to stay an "in the car alone" or "when I'm drunk with friends" thing.

It does make me wonder why the hell my choir director kept me in the choir.

small update:
I should point out that it's not that my pitch is off (I'm solid on pitch), it's other qualities.

On the upside, I also discovered that my speaking voice is actually somewhat pleasant. It's not James Earl Jones :P, but it's also not Gilbert Gottfried. Hopefully others find it closer to the former than the latter.

It would seem that someone wrote an email client that duplicates much of gmail's functionality (in terms of searching, labels, discussion grouping, etc.). http://postbox-inc.com/ To be fair, if I were writing an email client, it would be very similar to PostBox (I had written a sqlite + Python backend for email storage, labeling, and indexing a couple summers ago).

Kudos to them for beating me to it. I hope it's actually fast (last time I used Thunderbird...it was a bit slow).