Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_18

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
10
38.7k
Embassy Row on Tuesday failed to give the proper credit to the source of an interview with Saudi Ambassador Adel al Jubier.
The interview was published in the fall issue of U.S.-Arab Tradeline, a publication of the U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce.
By , KATHMANDU, April 14 – Successful on the battlefield, Nepal’s Maoists appear to have confounded predictions they would fail at the ballot box — taking a stunning early lead in the count from last week’s elections.
Behind the numbers emerging from the Election Commission in Kathmandu is what observers and ordinary voters say is a resounding demand for sweeping change in the Himalayan nation and one of the world’s poorest places.
Last Thursday’s polls — the first major elections in nearly a decade — are set to change the history of the country by electing a body whose first job is to rewrite the constitution and most likely abolish a discredited monarchy.
Of the 601 seats up for grabs in a new Constituent Assembly, nearly one third have been decided or were close to being allocated — with the former rebels taking or poised to win the lion’s share.
Local media said the Maoists, who fought a decade-long insurgency to oust the monarchy, had already won 59 seats and were far ahead in scores of others currently being tallied — about three times as many as their nearest rivals.
"The Maoists had an election slogan: ‘We have seen everyone else time and time again, lets see the Maoists’ this time’," recounted 56-year-old Ganey Darai, a voter who gave the ex-rebels his backing.
"People have decided to take them up on their word, and see what they can do," said Darai, who earns less than a dollar a day hiring out weighing scales outside a hospital in Kathmandu.
Nepal’s established parties and the monarchy, he said, had had their chance — and were now suffering as the results rolled in.
"I would rather take a chance with the Maoists than the other political parties who have done nothing for poor people like me," Darai said.
The Maoist surge also appears to highlight the depth of the unpopularity of King Gyanendra, who ascended the throne after the tragic and bizarre palace massacre of 2001 — in which the former king and nearly all the rest of the family were shot dead by a lovelorn, drunk, drugged and suicidal prince.
Gyanendra’s status sank in 2005, when he fired the government and seized absolute power to fight the Maoists — only to push mainstream parties into the arms of the rebels and enter a peace deal that led to Thursday’s elections.
First-time voter Laxmi Shrestha, 22, said only the Maoists could be trusted to finally oust the unpopular monarchy and deliver the kind of shake-up Nepal and its feudal-style heirarchy needed.
"I am a staunch republican. When it comes to getting rid of the monarchy, I cannot trust the other parties," the student said.
The Maoists fought for ten years to oust the monarchy, a war that left at least 13,000 dead and was marked by brutality on all sides.
"I am sad that many Nepalese had to die, but people will soon forget the war. We are hoping for a better future," Shrestha said.
Rhoderick Chalmers, country director for the Brussels-based think-tank the International Crisis Group, said the Maoists also fought the best campaign.
"They were very professional and very dedicated," he said, predicting the Maoists will win between 30 to 40 per cent — shy of an absolute majority — of the seats in the 601-member assembly.
"There would have to be a serious upset now for them not to be the biggest party and the biggest by some significant margin," said Chalmers.
Author and political commentator Khagendra Sangroula, said the preliminary results suggested that "Nepali people have woken up."
"There has been a great stir amongst the Nepali people. They wanted new ideas, alternatives, new faces and possibilities," he said.
"The straight message of this election is a Nepali message: political party leaders are not landlords and this country is not their land."
He wants to retain maximum maneuverability in all areas.
On November 19, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made his final decision to leave the Likud. Just as before the major military battles he fought, he wanted to know that very evening all the final details regarding the forces he would be facing on the political battlefield. Kalman Gayer, Sharon's own pollster since 2000, presented him with his views, based on an analysis from various angles, that Sharon indeed had a good chance of winning the election if he quit the Likud and started a new party. Gayer's conclusions showed that due to his popularity, Sharon could bring his new party more than 30 Knesset seats, that the Likud would crash and burn, leaving it with only 12 seats, and that Labor headed by Amir Peretz could win over 20 seats. Of course, it was not only these poll results that caused Sharon to depart from the Likud. He was undecided up to the last minute, and had told his bureau staff of his decision only 24 hours earlier. There were a number of reasons for his hesitation. Sharon had founded the Likud in the summer of 1973. I accompanied my good friend to Beit Sokolow, after he had resigned from the army with the rank of general, where he convened a press conference to challenge the rule of the Labor Party. The time had come to replace Labor, declared Sharon, and consequently all the Zionist parties in the opposition - Herut, the Liberals, etc. - joined forces to form a new party to be known as the Likud. Most of the political pundits and cartoonists mocked Sharon's ambitions. But in 1977, Menachem Begin, at the head of the Likud, was elected prime minister. IT WAS not easy for Sharon to make the decision to abandon the home he had built with his own hands. For many long months, associates and advisers of all kinds had been pressuring him - some motivated by their own personal interests - to establish a new party. His victory last September in the Likud Central Committee against Binyamin Netanyahu encouraged him to remain in the Likud, despite his anger at the former finance minister for trying to undermine his leadership just a year before the planned elections. But immediately afterwards came a series of affronts from Likud rebels. Sharon was unsuccessful in appointing the two additional ministers from the Likud that he wanted. At a meeting of the Likud Knesset faction, some Knesset members repeatedly insulted him. Among those whose behavior towards him was offensive were Knesset members who would never have been elected if not for the fact that the Likud - with Ariel Sharon at its helm - won 40 Knesset seats in the January 2003 elections. "I cannot move a ruler or a pin without becoming involved in pointless personal and political struggles within my own party," Sharon repeatedly complained to his friends. "My situation in the Likud is intolerable." This situation in the Likud tripped all Sharon's alarm bells. He saw himself going to early elections forced upon him by radical leftist Amir Peretz and again winning 38 to 40 Knesset seats for the Likud, but once again being unable to function as prime minister. He would find himself still hostage in the hands of the rebels, and not only in the hands of extremist ideologues such as Moshe Feiglin and Uzi Landau. SHARON IS convinced that if reelected, he, with his experience as prime minister, will be able to determine Israel's security borders, both in accordance with the agreements he reached with the American government and in light of the danger posed by the continued terror offensive on the part of the Palestinians. By unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza, Sharon sent a definitive message that his diplomatic-security pragmatism had taken the place of idealism. He apparently reached the conclusion that with the Likud he would be unable to maneuver along pragmatic lines, that he would be unable to zigzag - as he has proven that he can - more than any other prime minister in Israel's history. Sharon wants to retain maximum maneuverability in all areas. That is why he decided to take a calculated risk and establish a new party, despite warnings from some that his failure at the polls could bring the leftist fringe led by Amir Peretz's to power. At least Sharon knows that polls alone are not enough to bring victory and that the election campaign will be a difficult and bitter one. He also knows that there are a lot of generals that would like to enter the Knesset on his back, but that he does not yet have an organization and commanders capable of leading his many supporters to the voting booths on election day. Four months is not a long time to pull it all together. With his decision to establish the Kadima Party Sharon has already triggered a political earthquake in Israel, even greater than the one he caused back when he established the Likud. If he is in fact elected, as he believes he will be, even if only for four more years, his greatest test will lie not only in managing the struggle with the Palestinians, but also in cleaning out the governmental bureaucratic stables in order to start repairing Israeli society from the foundations up. The writer is a veteran journalist.
Shypmate, which is part of Y Combinator’s Winter 2016 batch, is a quick, low-cost international shipping solution that relies on everyday people to transport items from the U.S. to Ghana and Nigeria.
Why Ghana and Nigeria? Well, the founding team (pictured above) has members from both Ghana and Nigeria — two African markets they’re familiar with and have a need for this kind of service, Shypmate co-founder Perry Ogwuche told TechCrunch. On average, it takes shoppers Nigeria about five weeks to receive packages from the U.S., Shypmate says. It’s also a very costly process.
In Shypmate’s test with DHL shipping a $50 pair of shoes to Ghana, it took about a week and cost $250, Ogwuche said. With Shypmate, the cost of shipping is just $25. Shypmate guarantees deliveries within 5-10 days after receiving the item from the retailer, but has been averaging deliveries of just three to five days. Secondly, people in Nigeria and Ghana don’t have access to a lot of the items in the U.S. because some stores, like H&M and Zara, for example, won’t ship to those countries.
For shoppers in Ghana and Nigeria, all they need to do is send Shypmate a link to whatever it is that they want to purchase. Shypmate then takes care of the entire process, from purchase to delivery. Some initial fears that might come to mind for travelers could be, “but what if I end up carrying something illegal?” Shypmate gets that question a lot, and it’s not going to happen, Ogwuche said.
Here’s how it works for people in the U.S.: Let’s say you’re planning a trip to Ghana or Nigeria, and you have some extra space in your luggage. You would go to Shypmate and sign up as a traveler, share your flight information, and provide the best address for you to receive the item. Before you’re approved, Shypmate conducts a background check.
In the last two months, Shypmate has facilitated over 150 transactions with a 100 percent satisfaction guarantee, and is growing 10 percent every week. So far, people have been using Shypmate for shoes, weaves, iPhones, laptops, jewelry and other products. For the shoppers, Shypmate’s fees are based on the weight, size and price of the product, as well as the willingness of travelers to carry the product. Shypmate’s business is dependent upon how many people are actually traveling to Ghana and Nigeria from the U.S. In a year, over 200,000 people travel from the U.S. to Nigeria or Ghana, Ogwuche said.
Down the road, post-Y Combinator, Shypmate will likely relocate to New York, where there are more direct flights to Ghana and Nigeria than from the San Francisco Bay Area. Shypmate also wants to expand its offering to other countries.
For now, if you’re based in the U.S. and planning a trip to either Ghana or Nigeria, you may want to consider signing up to become a Shypmate traveler to help offset the costs of your trip.
And, look for Pet Connection volunteers selling totes and other items to benefit the shelter from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. October 9 at the Clarence Hollow Farmers Market, 10717 Main St., Clarence.
Volunteer orientations will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. October 4 and from 10 a.m. to noon October 23 at the shelter. Adoption hours are held from 5 to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Pet Connection is located at 12935 Williston Road, Marilla. For more information, please call 652-0192 or visit www.petconnectionprogramsinc.com.
If you enjoy a sharply-worded insult, read on. This slideshow’s for you.
Linus Torvalds is considered one of the greatest living programmers, and for good reason, having written some of the most widely used software, such as the Linux kernel and the Git revision control system. He’s also known for not being shy about sharing his opinions on things that he doesn’t like through colorful and sometimes NSFW language. Sometimes, he’ll direct his sharp tongue at people who, in his opinion, do substandard work or companies and organizations with which he may have a disagreement or be in competition. Most often, though, the target of Torvalds’ ire is technology that he feels isn’t up to snuff. Use the arrows above to read Torvalds’ thoughts about a dozen technologies that have gotten under his skin repeatedly over the years.
BTW, just because Torvalds is now 45, don’t expect middle age to slow him down (much).
History: ARM-based system-on-chips (SoC), which integrate control all of a device’s components and peripherals onto a single chip, are widely used today in mobile devices and on systems like Raspberry Pis. Due to a lack of standards, however, beyond the basic instruction processor set (the ARM part), each SoC is custom designed. While Linux is a popular choice for use on ARM SoC, this lack of consistency has meant many changes, customizations, and complications to the Linux kernel have been required to support all of these devices. While release 3.7 of the Linux kernel in 2012 began to bring some sanity to the situation by providing multi-platform ARM support, the ARM SoC world still causes Torvalds to vent every now and again.
History: C++ was created by Bjarne Stroustrup, who wanted to create a systems programming language that had the speed and efficiency of C, but with some of the program organization features of Simula. While C++ was created partly with idea of being used for operating system kernels, Linus Torvalds found it to be, well, less than optimal when he tried using it to write Linux kernel code. Since then, he’s made waves by sharing his strong opinion on how bad C++ is, in general, saying it leads to “bad design choices” and is only used by “substandard” programmers.
History: The GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), has been around since 1987, having been first created as a C compiler for the GNU operating system. It’s since been expanded to include front ends for compiling code for a number of other languages (C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go) on a wide variety of platforms. It’s become the dominant (and default) compiler on many Unix-like operating systems, such as Linux, which means that Linus Torvalds is well familiar with it - for better or for worse.
History: GNOME is an open source desktop environment available on many Linux distributions, providing a graphical user interface and numerous applications. Linus Torvalds has had a long, on-again, off-again relationship with GNOME, often switching between using it and dropping it in favor of other environments such as Xfce and KDE. His complaints about GNOME usually have to do with the difficulties involved fixing problems with the interface and customizing the environment. The good news for the GNOME Foundation is that Torvalds is once again using GNOME - for now.
History: Emacs has long been one of the most popular text editors used on Unix and Unix-like systems, including Linux. GNU Emacs, the most widely used Emacs implementation, was created by Richard Stallman and released in 1985 as the first piece of software to come out of Stallman’s GNU project. Despite its popularity, however, not everyone loves it, especially Linus Torvalds. Interestingly, while Torvalds’ has railed regularly at “real emacs” (i.e., GNU Emacs) over the years, his preferred editor is uEmacs, a customized version of a different Emacs implementation called MicroEmacs.
History: Hurd is a microkernel created as part of the GNU project with the intention of replacing the Unix kernel, based on CMU’s Mach kernel. Though Hurd has been a long time in development, with work having begun in 1990, it’s still not ready for production use. Ironically and instead, it’s the Linux kernel that became popular for use with GNU’s other components. Linus Torvalds said that if Hurd had been ready much earlier, he might not even have bothered creating Linux in the first place. Since then, though, Torvalds has regularly shared his negative opinions of Hurd, many of which are based on his dislike of microkernels.
History: HFS+ is a file system developed by Apple, also known as the Mac OS Extended Volume Hard Drive Format. HFS+ is used by the Mac OS X operating system, although it was first implemented in Mac OS 8.1. Over the years, Linus Torvalds has repeatedly shared his disdain for HFS+. One of his big issues with it is its case insensitivity, which he feels was a very poor design choice.
History: Java, first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995 as proprietary software, is one of the most popular programming languages in use today. Early on, Linus Torvalds had high hopes for Java and its “write once, run anywhere” feature, feeling that it could be a big boost for Linux. However, Torvalds felt that Sun botched the implementation of the language and the Java Virtual Machine, which kept it from being adopted on the desktop and doomed it to failure. Years later, even though Java has defied his predictions and thrived and even though the code has been open-sourced, Torvalds still doesn’t seem to think too highly of it.
History: Mach is a microkernel, originally developed at CMU as a replacement for Unix’s BSD kernel in the late 1980’s. It later was used as the basis for other kernels (not all of which were microkernels), such as GNU Hurd and Apple’s Mac OS X. Given Linus Torvalds’ dislike for microkernels, it’s no surprise that he has expressed his displeasure with Mach on several occasions over the years. Ironically, Steve Jobs once tried to hire Torvalds to work on OS X, but was rebuffed when Torvalds was told it would mean having to give up Linux development, not to mention having to work on an operating that had its roots in Mach.
History: MINIX is a Unix-like operating system created by Andrew Tanenbaum, a professor at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, first released as proprietary software in 1987 and later open-sourced. Linus Torvalds has cited Tanenbaum as an influence and one of the reasons he became interested in Unix in the first place. In fact, Torvalds created Linux on a MINIX machine. However, this didn’t stop Torvalds from getting into a flame war with Tanenbaum many years ago, in which their primary disagreement was over Torvalds’ decision to create Linux as a monolithic kernel, rather than a microkernel, like MINIX. Surprisingly, Torvalds later apologized for his comments.
History: Solaris was created as a proprietary operating system by Sun Microsystems based on Unix System V and first released in 1991. Right around the time that Sun decided to open-source the Solaris code through the OpenSolaris project in 2005, Linus Torvalds had a few choice public words about Linux’s new competition. Fortunately, for Torvalds and Linux, OpenSolaris was discontinued in 2010 after Oracle bought Sun (though derivatives of it live on) and decided to make Solaris once again a proprietary operating system.
History: XML is a markup language for encoding documents, developed by the W3C as a subset of the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and first published in 1998. While it was meant to be easily readable by both machines and people, not everyone finds that to be the case. Linus Torvalds is one of those people, which helps to explain his dislike for the format.
A couple pages for Burnout Paradise: Big Surf Island went live early, giving up the game's price and list of achievements and trophies.
Tipsters who spotted the price page before it was removed said the game will cost $12.99 (€12.99 in Europe, £9.99 UK) on PlayStation Network and list for 1000 Microsoft Points on Xbox Live. Couldn't confirm that this morning, but it sounds reasonable.
TUCSON, AZ (KOLD) - Colonia Verde is a beautifully quiet little community tucked away on Tucson's east side. Though this weekend, the controversy surrounding Colonia Verde is anything but beautiful and quiet.
A memorial service for a long-time employee is planned Sunday afternoon at the Colonia Verde Clubhouse. That in itself isn't the problem. What is...is that the man for whom the service is being held--shot and killed his wife before killing himself.
For 17 years, Jeffrey Jester was a man many people knew and loved in the Colonia Verde community. Affectionately known as JJ, he was a working property manager who knew just about everybody in the community on a first-name basis.
"He never knew what it meant to say no to a homeowner. He just never did," says long-time Colonia Verde resident Phyllis Seltzer. "He was the biggest help to every homeowner."
But on June 15th this year, inside the east side home JJ shared with his wife Renie, Jester murdered wife before turning the gun on himself.
In the month since, we've learned Jester was experiencing great deal of anxiety.
"So the opposite of who he was, so the opposite," says Seltzer.
We're told his wife had cancer and JJ himself was battling clinical depression.
"I kept saying, 'JJ...are you getting help for the anxiety?' Seltzer says, recalling one of her last conversations with Jester.
'Well they're giving me something, but whatever they're giving me--it's making me worse'--Seltzer said, characterizing JJ's respond. "And he was telling this to a lot of people."
Then, early one Wednesday in June, Jester called the police saying that shots had been fired inside his home.
And he would be too in just a matter of moments.
"This tragedy is being overlooked and we're not doing any good or attempting to do any good."
That's Kent Driesbock, a Colonia Verde property owner who knew Jester for many years.
Like most people, Driesbock says Jester was incredibly helpful and beloved by many.
But he takes issue with the memorial being held Sunday in Jester's memory.
"They're honoring his service to the community which I can understand," Driesbock says. "But I think they're not really looking at the big issue that this was a murder suicide and something can be done better."
Something like calling attention to Jester's deteriorating condition.
Even his biggest supporters say he needed help.
"I really really feel like we all could do more, myself included," Seltzer says, tears welling in her eyes.
"I hope people realize that if we intervene we might make a difference," Driesbock says. "We always can't, but hopefully we can if we decide to intervene at some point."
All controversy aside, the memorial will in fact take place this weekend, Sunday afternoon starting at 3 PM. It's open to all Colonia Verde residents who'd like to attend.
Copyright 2011 KOLD. All rights reserved.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt testifies on the EPA’s budget request during a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee Thursday, April 26. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
I realize it’s a perfectly reasonable request, to try to separate the personal from the policy in politics. This is how his desperately defensive fans ask for, shudder, President Trump to be treated at this late stage in his time in office.
And I get it. I mean, trying to separate out Trump’s lies and Gatsby-like carelessness about the fate of our nation and the Earth is like trying to separate higher literacy rates under Castro from his jailing all dissenters.
So Trump is a careless person, and so are his people. Take EPA chief Scott Pruitt, please. But let us stipulate that in the end, the problem is not his spending $43,000, money that came from you and me, on a cone-of-silence phone booth in his office. It’s not that a person who is not exactly the leader of the free world has a security detail that costs $3 million a year. It’s not that he got a deal on a Capitol Hill luxury condo owned by a lobbyist’s wife for which he paid $50 a night. That he used lights and sirens to get to dinner at his favorite bistro, Le Diplomate.
Though it’s all unsavory enough that he was called on the carpet by a congressional committee last week, as an analyst told KCRW’s Madeline Brand on Thursday, Pruitt “is playing for an audience of one.” And the careless president doesn’t care about profligate spending and pesky ethics.
No, what Californians should care about re Scott Pruitt is his ongoing attempts to undo our state’s waiver under the Clean Air Act that allows us to set tailpipe standards higher than federal rules. You know — those standards that have allowed us to clear our air from the godawful smog that choked the Southern California of my youth in the 1960s and ’70s.
He’s against that. He wants to foul our air again. And that’s not a personal quirk. That’s an assault on our well-being.
The reason we get the waiver is that we were already in the vanguard of fighting smog from well before the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. The emissions standards for Nebraska don’t make sense here. So we got the waiver, and a dozen other states have followed us.
Yes, trade groups representing some automakers have been among those cheering this deregulation. But even that is by no means unanimous. The top brass at both Ford and American Honda have come out in favor of maintaining California’s waiver.
First, they are realists, and so realize the country will wake up from this little dark age sooner rather than later, and then they would just have to retool.
But they also know consumers like the industry’s government-prodded progress on not only emissions but also on fuel-economy standards, which Pruitt also wants to roll back. (He has the gall to claim that this is to make cars safer, i.e. more tank-like. By this logic, we should all drive Mack trucks.) For those who aren’t bothered by dirty air, consider this: The standards our state and others have adhered to have resulted in eliminating 230 million tons of climate-changing emissions and have saved consumers more than $49 billion at the pump.
The 13 clean-car states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) and the District of Columbia are home to 113 million Americans. We’re like the 13 original colonies: We’ll fight for our rights.
The event Wednesday on an airport tarmac in Cincinnati was just the latest opportunity for the White House to disparage and undercut a law it officially must carry out.
One saw her choice of doctors shrink while her premiums and out-of-pocket costs rose, he said. The other has curtailed new investments in his company to maintain employees’ health benefits.
Both the gathering and Trump’s remarks represent officials’ strategy to convince Americans that the collapse of the Affordable Care Act is inevitable and to bolster public and congressional support for a GOP overhaul. Since the day he was inaugurated, Trump has taken steps to erode the law, including instructing his deputies to ease up on ACA regulations and curtailing consumer outreach during the final days of health plan enrollment for 2017.
But behind the scenes, the increasing fragility of the law’s insurance marketplaces has created an increasingly difficult predicament for the president’s top advisers.
The issue is whether to take steps to allay the concerns of skittish insurers, some of which are either increasing rates or pulling out altogether, or let things deteriorate further — even at the risk of being blamed. The advisers are split, according to several people briefed on the deliberations: Vice President Pence and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney have argued against intervention, while Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price backs providing federal support if a conservative health-care bill fails to pass this summer.
For the moment, the administration has defaulted to a position of doing little to try to soothe the health insurance industry, even as many insurers warn that federal action — or inaction — could aggravate the situation. Some suggest that the White House’s relentless naysaying is not reflecting marketplace problems as much as driving them.
“We’re in this very strange situation where the agency in charge of stewarding the law is very openly working to undermine that law,” said Caitlin Morris, director of affordability initiatives at Families USA, a pro-ACA consumer group.
“Sabotage is the operative word,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said last month.
The biggest source of industry anxiety right now is whether the administration and Congress will continue to fund cost-sharing subsidies that help 7 million Americans with ACA plans afford deductibles and copays. House Republicans challenged the legality of the $7 billion in subsidies when Barack Obama was president, and the case is still on appeal.
“Absent that funding, I don’t know if we’re going to have much participation in the exchange market in 2018,” said Tennessee insurance commissioner Julie Mix McPeak, a Republican who also serves as president-elect of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
The uncertainty is one of the top reasons insurers have cited when explaining why they are posting higher rates for the next year or withdrawing from markets outright. Two weeks ago, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina filed a rate increase of 22.9 percent that it said would have been 8.8 percent if the administration had committed to paying cost-sharing subsidies. Last week, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska announced that it would not offer ACA-compliant bronze and catastrophic plans next year, leaving the state with just one insurer on the exchange there.
And on Tuesday, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield announced that it was pulling out of the federal exchange in Ohio, meaning that at least 20 of the state’s 88 counties will lack an insurer.