I thought hacker news strived to at least have some decorum in regards to discussion.
231 karma · joined January 26, 2018
I thought hacker news strived to at least have some decorum in regards to discussion.
You start looking for ways to improve life for everyone else, and focusing on what kind of impact you want to have on the world. What’s something that has caused you or someone you care about a lot of pain? Could you help prevent someone else from going through that, or make it easier somehow? Maybe you can’t achieve something grand like world peace, but you can use your skills to improve education in war torn areas to provide new options, etc.
Start to think of the world as an extension of yourself. After you’ve honed yourself, hone the world.
Unless you’re talking scandals, and then I guess so? There’s temporarily more eyes on the drama but it quickly drops off.
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-08-05...
That comment seems to have been deleted, but I thought it was interesting. I hadn't heard anything about this and it's fairly bad.
However, she's very cyclical and can act normal ~30% of the time. She's told everyone that we're all drug addicts, or child abusers. Lots of people believe her, and think we all abandoned her. I've had family members call me and reduce me to tears with insults, because of the things she's told them.
From what I've seen anecdotally in every single family where the child has cut contact: there's ALWAYS a (good) reason. It almost always boils down to a failure in respecting their children, and treating them with kindness and understanding.
Younger generations are growing up with better mental health care and social awareness (due to the pervasive nature of it these days with social networks) than previous generations. We grew up in an era of public PSAs and school videos on bullying and acceptable behaviour. We know what's "right", can recognize abuse, and prefer to associate with those that treat us well.
However, I'm also confused as to why it's on HN right now. The final edition was released a while ago now, and it doesn't look like there's any recent news.
1. Knowledge -> How will doctors possibly keep track of the knowledge of all of these new drugs? If they don't need to be verified beyond a claim, they could be getting thousands of options. How do they pick between one drug with no proof, and another drug with no proof -- especially if they all have negative side effects?
2. Data -> All of the data for these drugs will be extremely if not impossible to derive. This will probably result in it taking even longer for evidence of the drug's efficacy to be built.
3. Resources -> Hospitals across North America are understaffed and overworked. How could they possibly find time to not only learn the entire treatment path for new drugs and all the necessary information, but to do this countless times across all their patients? MRI machines are already backlogged quite a bit, do we really think they could weather the storm of an unregulated drug market?
4. Liability -> Whether we like it or not, this adds quite a bit of liability to a hospital. Insurance will absolutely be against this, and would likely greatly increase the number of people trying to sue the hospital.
5. Fallout/Complications -> Can you imagine the strain of the additional complications that arise out of allowing free use of untested drugs? Imagine how much more expensive a patient would be if they got a brain bleed from a medication that they would never have had previously. This isn't just like "I tried a drug and it did nothing", it's more like "I tried a drug that had the potential to kill me. I had severe complications that required me to be in the hospital for 2 months but the drug still did nothing to help my problem."
Effectively, we'd be breaking our own healthcare system by breaking down our regulations. Regulations are written in blood. They're there for a reason.
I don't know why you're trying to create a false narrative here. Collecting biometric data for a social media website is concerning regardless of which specific company it is. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring racism into this topic, when it's not involved.
What's even stranger, is that your position is that no one complained about Facebook. If anything, that's a globally shared activity.
I'd argue against "is going to", but "wants to" seems fairly correct.
I've often pondered if it's the software, or the fact that it's easier to mistype with touch screens than the old phone buttons, thus increasing my error rate.
Honestly, I find that having some basic semblance of cooperation and teamwork skills is much more important to productivity and success than having the best engineer ever. The best engineer ever could probably do everything much faster than the rest of the team -- however I've seen first hand how this kind of attitude slowly chips away at the team spirit due to their self-centeredness. It's surprising how quickly their toxicity can affect a work environment to the point that it affects your whole team's work performance & retention.
I'd rather have a chance to hire an idiot (who will be easier to get rid of) than the certainty a genius who can do the work of 2 people, while alienating everyone else and deftly skirting the line of employment law. It's not a coward or a fear based thing. It's basic logic and efficiency on a whole. This is why some of the best engineers and scientists get passed up -- they're just toxic individuals that are impossible to work with.
I want to emphasise that this isn't saying that I think most brilliant engineers have poor teamwork skills. I just think that the language of this website perfectly describes the kinds of engineers you DONT want. Selfish and self important.
Unless this is parody, in which case, why bother posting this here?
Not saying I don't like the standardization and trends of today -- just that everyone's general inexperience with the web led to a lot of really weird and fun quirks at the time.