theworst
Is this not feature comparable with others in its class? What don't you like about it? Is something not worthwhile if it's not first?
Aaaaand you've convinced me to again eliminate my HN account and spend time elsewhere.
Idiots are the best productivity measure -- they make me not want to be on HN.
I do care when any third party knows where I've been, what I am interested in, and otherwise monitors my activity.
Like everything, it's a tradeoff. However, I acknowledge my primary concern is myself -- if not tracking me costs other people a slight chance at an opportunity, I'm must conclude to not include that in my calculus. (In fact, it would be to my advantage if I believed it were a zero sum situation.)
I'd also waste a lot less time on random stuff if I had to pay for it, so I'd be more productive and make more money!
Every person here won that lottery ticket, when we could have just as easily suffered from any number of horrible diseases and disorders. Not wanting to pay higher premiums b/c the "lotto losers" are included is like not wanting to pay for a lotto ticket after the fact because you know the rare outcome won't hit you.
What are the alternatives? One could simply not engage in projections, which is difficult because they're so tempting. A third option is to listen to the non-experts, which doesn't seem more valuable...
This is something I struggle WRT economics. I know economists are little more than fortune tellers, but what are the other options?
Even building my own company, bootstrapping over these 5 years, I feel like I lucked into where I am. Not because I'm undeserving, but really because I feel lucky to live in an era where I even have that possibility.
If my world is entirely comprised of SV type startups, perhaps I'd feel differently. But I try to keep some perspective. (As in, I lucked into not being a field hand in 4th century Italy, and instead I can use my brain to manipulate electrons through small finger movements, that supposedly create value enough for other people to transfer electrons into a virtual account of "mine" that I can exchange for goods and services.)
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, it's not intended that way. I really just wanted to point out that people define luck very differently.
My point is: changing from an absolute value to a relative one introduces complexities in the system. Philosophically, the law needs to treat everyone the same, which to me, means the penalties are the same for everyone regardless of sex, race, income, height, weight, or any other characteristic. This is encoded in the Constitution. I do not see how two different people, convicted of the same crime in the same contexts, should have different punishments. (Yes, I know it happens, but I think that's a bug, not a feature, and wish it would be cleaned up.)
Suppose the penalty for murder is 50% of your remaining life. Should we put a 20 year old away until he's 50 (assuming 80 years expected lifespan), but only lock a 60 year old up for 10 years?
Secondly, Manning dumped a lot of info without knowing what he dumped. Snowden knew what was in the docs he leaked, and he made sure to protect human lives.
That's what I've heard, at least. It seems to make sense to me, but I'm open to having my mind changed if you have a different perspective.
Their support was a joke. I wanted to re-image my server when I first got it. Interface didn't work. Messaged support; 1-2 days later they said they were on it. 1 day after that, closed the ticket with no further commentary. This repeated on 3 separate tickets; they respond to appease the customer, then silently close the issue and hope it goes away.
Even amongst the Nazis, most high level people had compartmentalized knowledge that was only evil when combined. Indeed, the subtitle and thesis of the book reflects that: "on the banality of evil."
Her theory is that unethical organizations can structure themselves in such a way that almost nobody is actively breaking the law.
If it took 100 people to make/sell/distribute, and you are the owner of the company, you're probably going to still be rich. Figure 99 employees at $150k fully loaded annually would cost you 15 million dollars, leaving 55 million to retire on.
Of course, if you are an employee, you would only have a job for 1 year.
However, I'm not sure that anchoring yourself to "they used to think I was good enough" is a valid argument. Perhaps they were presenting bad results that benefitted you before, and have fixed that with better results now.
It honestly sounds like you're mostly upset because something was taken from you that you were used to having. That does not necessarily mean you deserved it previously.
My critique has nothing to do with the topic (health care), and everything to do with how the author presented their case. If they were talking about how to raise tomatoes, and used similarly inconsistent / manipulative logic, I would question their agenda.
It just happens, in this case, that the topic is about a very controversial issue right now.
Agendas are a big red flag to me -- they indicate the author is trying to convince me of their P.O.V., rather than presenting the information and allowing me to make my own decision.
Sure, everything has an agenda. But structural biases such as those outlined above, serve to decrease my trust in the author.
That's all. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I think health care is incredibly complex, and sometimes suffers from profiteering. I also suspect that the likelihood is low to be screwed like the people covered in the article, but the structure of the article is designed to make me fearful.
When I detect an agenda to create fear, I question the motives of the author. In short, I cannot separate the useful information in the article from the author's agenda, and am forced to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. (Apologies if that idiom doesn't make sense -- it just means that I have to throw the signal out with the noise because the author doesn't seem to be sufficiently unbiased.)
GP was just pointing out there is no law of nature that says the things worth having require effort. Your meditation anecdote is correct, but does not address the comment. There are things which are very good for us, but take little personal effort to attain (antibiotics are a good example, to continue with the drug theme...)
I believe meditation is an important, effortful aspect to understanding myself and how I relate to the world. I also believe that the psychedelic experiences I have had have worked in a similar, complementary manner. In either case, the amount of effort it took is not necessarily connected with the value received.
(Also, FWIW, not all meditation is concerted effort. Do you mean mindfulness? I believe Zen meditation advises that you let go of everything and do not focus; the blank slate principle and all that.)
Thank you for your polite comment.
1. anchoring to high numbers, without contextualizing how big this issue is: "This contributes to the nation’s $2.8 trillion in annual health costs." How much does it contribute?
2. unequal metrics -- when discussing the expected charges: "Mr. Drier was prepared when the bills started arriving: $56,000 from Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, $4,300 from the anesthesiologist and even $133,000 from his orthopedist, who he knew would accept a fraction of that fee." When discussing the out-of-network bills: "Two plastic surgeons billed more than $250,000 to sew up the incision, a task done by a resident during previous operations for Ms. Kaufman’s chronic neurological condition." Now we're thinking $133k isn't so bad b/c he'll only pay part of it, but the $250k is frightening because there is no mention of an expected discount. As a counterpoint, the author mentions the insurance company pays the full amount to Dr. Mu for the other anecdote in the story.
3. fearful language -- 'He was blindsided, though, by a bill of about $117,000 from an “assistant surgeon,” a Queens-based neurosurgeon whom Mr. Drier did not recall meeting.' Sounds like a 24-hour-news-cycle headline: "Patients billed by doctors while under anesthesia".
4. mentioning there are marketing firms who specialize in helping maximize billing with insurance, as if it's an unethical business. This happens every time a provider of a service or product interacts with a bureaucracy -- there is a whole layer of these services for defense contracting, for example.
5. they mention how the US has more neurosurgeons per capita, then link that (by proximity in the same paragraph) to providing motive by mentioning how neurosurgeon compensation has decreased recently. A more honest article would have given absolute numbers about how the costs of neurosurgery relate to overall health care costs, rather than making the niche appear large relative to the story, so the reader implicitly compares that impact to the $2.8 trillion number.
Medical billing is absurdly complex and byzantine. I'm don't doubt the veracity of the anecdotes, but the structure of the presentation make me suspect the intent of the author.
One major assumption in your argument is that there wouldn't be unintended consequences. I think humanity should either stop increasing the population or should place a great emphasis on space colonies. Repurposing earth resources from animals to humans is just delaying the inevitable point where human consumption outstrips resources available.
My point wasn't that you can turn stock into cash, but that you can turn stock into some of the same things that large amounts of cash might be used for -- acquisitions.
Of course, since we don't know which of those technologies will be viable, we mentally don't count them.