onetwothreefour

None of what you said is either backed by facts or is actually worth remembering if you're trying to fix the problem.

I always read your replies to threads about health care in the US and I'm always left with two thoughts: "what does that even mean and how does it further the conversation?"

If you bothered to actually follow the link to the data (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CPOP/DBASSE_080393), you'd see that none of what you said is accurate. The US is either at the end or, sometimes, in the middle of the rankings for everything. The Violence graph is particularly interesting.

I don't know where you're getting your figures from, but our monthly per employee rate is closer to $500/month in CA (with a family it's like $1200/month).

It's going up like $20/month for 2013. Which is immaterial, since it was ridiculous to begin with, because the entire system is broken.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Oh please, leave the jurisdiction? With his 30-40 employees? I'm sure he's gonna get right on that.

The guy is fireable in any country.

Fire him. The end.

What HN fails to tell you is that making money, and turning a profit (big enough to make things worth it) is actually really hard.

I wish you all the best in this endeavour.

That rate is impossible since the average interchange rate is significantly higher.

Kaiser is basically the public health care system of other countries, but paid for and run by a non-profit corporation. :)f

I've heard good and bad things, though (compared to Blue Shield).

Your stats are again, bullshit.

Ah, the age old "tort reform" line. Haven't heard that one in a while.

Your stats about Canadians is total BS.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

How do I down vote you? You're writing off an entire country's banking system with one personal example?

I have my own example of banks in Australia, and they're some of the best I've ever dealt with.

Banks in the US on the other hand...

There's no reason to have an account with a bank in the US when you can have one with a credit union. Unless you're really rich and don't care about fees.

How so? dynadot.com - $9.99.

Edit: oh, you were talking about balanced.com. Yeah, I meant balancedpayouts.com. :)

The nominal cost (cost to the bank) is here:

http://www.frbservices.org/servicefees/fedwire_funds_service...

It costs less than $1 to send a FedWire. The FedWire can be up to $1BN. :)

The FedWire system is actually very similar to transfer systems in other countries. I'm not sure why ACH is still in use apart from as a way to digitize checks.

That said, most banks charge, at minimum, $12 per wire in/out for personal accounts. Most business/corporate accounts get wires free since that's how people pay each other (something like $1TN in wires is processed every day).

All user number claims from anyone are dubious. Just compare them all with a grain of salt. :)

Haha, "too big to fail".

Every company can fail tomorrow. Free or paid.

FedWires are almost instant... depending on your bank, receiving bank, etc.

For most B2B FedWires, it's pretty much instant. Yay Treasury.

The cutoffs do suck, however.

The US needs to catch up to the rest of the world with regards to banking. And also kill off checks.

You should still be spending the $10 to register the other domain.

If AirBNB are taking a cut and facilitating the rental than of course they need to know the laws in each location they operate.

I think what the guy you're replying to was saying is that the entire page seems to be about Wunderlist, when they no longer use this SDK, and their use of it isn't really that complex.

Perhaps it would be better to show some actual users with a carousel type thing?

That's irrelevant if you ever want to go to the EU/UK.

The buzzwords you just used don't have anything to do with the GOP.

LOL.

I've read your other comments, but I'm kind of replying to all of them.

Most companies are already paying a premium to get content directly to users by way of CDNs. This already happens, has happened for years, and will continue to happen.

When someone pays Akamai, it's because Akamai has negotiated directly with every ISP in the world to put some boxes on their network so bits get to the ISPs users faster. I think people who think this doesn't already happen are kind of missing the point.

In the case of Youtube, this is a totally different issue, IMHO, because it's not really about content producers. It's about a shitload of bandwidth that an ISP has to build their network to handle. And that's their job right? Except Google runs ads on Youtube, and makes money from the end user this way. The ISP is just a "dumb pipe" to you and me, but they have serious outlay to provide a lag-free Youtube experience to their customers for which they get nothing back.

Now, I'm sure the smarter ISPs have negotiated some sort of revenue share with Google as part of peering agreements, but maybe the contract terms in this case weren't to Free's liking. How would we know? IMHO there's not enough information in the article to blame either party one way or the other, but I think that most people on HN are treating this more as a net neutrality thing and not as a contract dispute. :)

Which one of the top ten investment banks don't use it? :)

This is just a peering spat. These happen every single day, but rarely become public.

In this case, the ISP kicked things up a notch. If their users don't like it, they can always switch providers.

You also underestimate the amount of bandwidth Youtube "freeloads" off ISPs all over the world. This is a very common "problem".

The same reason the "random checks" line at security isn't really random?

Serious question: can you be non-white and get one of these?

Which airport?

IMHO, SFO is probably the best airport to arrive at immigration wise. LAX is a little bit worse, but that's more of a 50/50 on whether someone's having a good day or not.

JFK, on the other hand... Ouch.

I'm not seeing this? Maybe I missed something.

Ah. Okay, yeah, what's up with that dude? :)