Look up the cost of the healthcare.gov website project*
People complain about government contractor costs for a reason
*Last I checked it was north of a billion in 2014 dollars
316 karma · joined December 18, 2020
People complain about government contractor costs for a reason
*Last I checked it was north of a billion in 2014 dollars
I'm not saying you are wrong but I'm saying my confidence starts quite low with this kind of idea. (e.g. the cause could be something different like manual moderation; the effect may just be confirmation bias and not exist; etc.)
Qualifier: I haven't looked into the algo at all, for all I know it could be openly published by YC/HN. I'm mainly responding because I feel like it is important to TRY to be self-aware of our own biases. Emphasis on the TRYing and asymptotically approaching 100% confidence (Qualifier to the Qualifier: it is also important to be at peace with decisions based on <100% confidence lol)
*I'm not sure how factual the algorithm claim is
I'm not sure what a doctors prescription does for this. I imagine the doctor is just a middle man in most CPAP journeys. As-in, the doctor is not the one who provides or trains you to use the CPAP. A third-party medical device provider does (Also, the training is a two minute, "put-the-mask-on and use distilled water, now sign here" kind-of-thing)
Edit: BTW I think the deadly thing is how long it takes to get a CPAP, from scheduling with a doctor to finally seeing them and getting a device it takes like 6mo to 1+ year. EVEN IF THEY THINK YOUR CASE IS VERY BAD. (I went to a sleep doctor in a hospital and they said I had one of the worst apnea cases he had seen, it still took another 3+mo from that point to get a device...)
You have 1. a device manufacturer, 2. a third party device seller, and 3. a sleep doctor. It takes time to get seen by a sleep doctor who then orders a sleep study device that needs to be provided by party 2 who gets it from party 1. Party 2 then provides results to party 3 who then prescribes a device, party 2 then needs to give you one of there devices if they have them in stock, if not they need to order them from party 1.
IMO there are two middle men here, the doctor and the device shop.
If you get a prescription you can get devices directly online (from sites who are just a more market-competitive version of party 2 above), but sometimes ResMed and Philips only sell there newer devices to people in the middleman scenario described above. E.g. for the first year or two of the ResMed AirSense 11, online shops (still requiring prescriptions) were not able to sell them.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/05/28/us-soldiers-expos...
I know these human mistakes are inevitable in a large organization, but it's still sobering seeing that a soldier would post nuclear vault release code locations and more online. I guess it's easy to be careless in the daily grind whether it's PII or nuclear secrets...
Supervision is not an all-or-nothing thing. When someone calls the cops on your 10 year-old climbing a tree in your front yard or the neighborhood woods (let alone in your fenced-in back yard), that is ridiculous. But, there is a problem when you equivocate a toddler on a public road and a grade-schooler playing outside. One is able to stumble into problems and solve them while building confidence--the other just learned it's name and how to put on their shoes and pedal the bike.
Like, all 3-year-olds are different, perhaps his was closer to 4. Perhaps they were developmentally way ahead of their peers. Perhaps this was the most rural quiet and safe road ever. But without knowing that extra stuff, I think it is reasonable to voice your concern after finding a 3 year old on a road without real supervision.
Last I checked they already had monopoly evoking shares of that market. Like 80+ or 90+ percent
I noticed Carmack was giving them helpful feedback
https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1626389607104249857...
(I know this isn't about Sony, just commenting fwiw based on the timing really)
But anyhow, you work on the system and can't point out if this is an issue or not in the end-to-end sense? Like, why say OP is "missing the point" if you are not sure if they are missing the point?
TBF you do say "I'm not even certain that an extension that requests more than 5 permissions would be approved in the first place." Which if true, would make this pretty low priority.
(On the Empathy note, I just want to add: stating "Trust me you really don't want this job." In this context to random members of a forum is a bit of an empathy-lacking thing to do)
The best criticism of the ruling, imo, is that it should have been decided under the freedom of press clause. The result was correct, but if it was decided under that clause it could have avoided the campaign contribution implications.
Also, while actual plants are pretty great, the "plant based" products aren't imo. I find that they are very processed. They aren't throwing the "plant based" label on the salad mix. Every now and then it's put on something that was already plant-based prior to the fad, like falafel, but that's not the norm. The label in itself is tantamount to non-meats "other than what we humans evolved to eat"
Chimpanzee's still eat meat as part of their diet, they don't eat highly processed soy topped with thickener laden vegetable oils.
I'm so sorry to inform you, but you have management written on you.
(But in all seriousness, communication is an important management skill, it's good you explained it so directly, but ideally a manager would communicate back-and-forth without needing to be spoonfed all at once.)
An alternative frontend would simply be an alternative frontend to the backend... This is an alternative frontend to an alternative backend... (requests do not go from client to and from Twitter. Because of this, I find the "alternative frontend" terminology misleading at best.)
Also, one man's "pulling data from an unofficial API" is another man's scraping, but I'm not gonna die on this hill because I see why it's arguably not.
In my experience, High Occupancy Vehicle lanes restrict usage based on the highness of the occupancy of the vehicle... What does brand have to do with this?
FWIW, there is a 2d in a 3d world side scroller called Fez
It's way more limited, you can only rotate to 4 faces around the world. It's been a decade, but I remember it being a fun and short game.
Reddit 10+ years ago had, what I consider, great commentary on the default subs/frontpage—it was very different than the Reddit of today.
"Good" social voting sites get more popular with time; I agree with you and think it's almost inevitable that HackerNews will too. My philosophy on this is to just enjoy the site while it's in the state of popularity you like, and try to find a new one when it happens. Yearning for yesteryear isn't exactly productive. ('Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all'?)
My take: HackerNews is still quite niche in comparison. I'd estimate the comment volume is one or two orders of magnitude away from the point where it becomes too noisy to find the nuance.
I just don't care about the art angle.
That said, I do not care about the art, or even speech, of prisoners--of which who are properly convicted, beyond speech with their attorneys and allowed contacts (whom must be able to communicate on behalf of them). The bothersome part of this is Guantanamo's non-wartime use in-and-of itself.
Oh, and the wine.
That said, I agree something is better than nothing, but if they want praise from a more technical audience (hacker news for this example) they're gonna need to do more than tie the proverbial square knot.
Epstein's "Lolita Express" plane had a manifest of passengers for years of trips. Certain figures show up many times on flights with Epstein and his girls. Certain people on the list, or at least their spokesmen, publicly denied flying there (at least at first, eventually, the denials started including more and more caveats).
A lot of celebrities went to Epstein's New York parties, but the private plane is different. You have a select few individuals on a convicted pedophile's plane, a plane used to transport the underaged women. Like, if it was Pablo Escobar's drug plane flying back and forth from his drug island, is it there probable cause to investigate the passengers activities on the plane and island? Perhaps that is too extreme of a comparison, I do not know what the investigators know. Maybe they did investigate and determined it to be benign. I am just saying I am surprised nothing came of it.
I am also surprised nothing came of Epstein's hundreds of cameras at his properties... I read Giuffre's book draft (when it was in evidence in one of the cases). I know it is just her word, but it just seems like Epstein recorded so many things, that I am surprised that no one was prosecuted including no-named people. Also, it is an extremely disturbing read, a lot of it is even pre-Epstein, I had no idea she was trafficked multiple times (google FBI Ron Eppinger)
Outside of the legal investigation, I am not even sure what Occam's razor would suggest here. The FBI seized computers and camera systems from his properties. I think it is unlikely everything found was benign. Only the recruiter of sex trafficked minors was prosecuted (outside Epstein). This probably biases my view, I feel there was a lack of investigating going on, so maybe I am too biased to have a reasonable opinion on the manifests.
"Perhaps" is a cheeky way to introduce my response to the "being on the flight log doesn't prove the type of crimes alleged here" part by providing the obvious types of crimes it would provide evidence for. (Like, if someone asks "Why isn't the elevator moving" and someone responds "perhaps it is because you didn't press the floor button"). I wasn't using it as some sort of way to convey support of action based on mere suspicion.
Perhaps you missed that?
We may have to just agree to disagree, because I think your perjury point is, at best, a bad guess, and at worst, disingenuous because we are not a jury with this fact pattern and thus cannot come to a conclusion either way.
I'll add I think it is a bad guess because, all things being equal, if under oath you said you weren't on a plane, and the flight's manifest comes to evidence with your name on it in one or more flights... if I was a juror, that is enough evidence for me (without counter evidence as I implied with "all things being equal". There are ways to argue against it, like dementia/Alzheimer's for intent or someone with the same name for the underlying fact, but that is adding information to the situation). This is particularly subjective, but I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who reasonably doubts the accuracy of a passenger manifests. I am a lay person when it comes to manifests, so perhaps they are casually-written documents that aren't taken seriously. I view them as quite the opposite (mistakes are possible, but evidence of the contrary would be needed).
This wasn't the manifests of a grand canyon sight seeing plane.
Being on a flight log is evidence you were on a flight. Jury's (or Judges if you don't want a Jury) decide guilt.
With everything known surrounding the destination of some of these flights, It is surprising the logs didn't lead to investigations into some of the serial passengers.