GreenPlastic

This is what is never mentioned. Quality of care, access to cutting edge treatments, timely access to care are never discussed when moving to universal healthcare. There are examples of private and public systems out there, which would be a much better model.

We've been in one long cycle since 1998, continuing with the .com bubble and the GFC and finally Covid. With each one we've had to print more and do more to get out of it. Where it ends is anybodies guess...but each crisis requires a larger response

The last thing I want to do is upgrade all my TVs and audio equipment for new standards

The purpose of a company isn't to employ people. It's to take raw inputs, including employee labor, and turn that into outputs that people want. Employee relief comes in the form of voting with their feet or if they're critical inputs into what the black box produces

Attorney General of NY looked at their books and found most of the collateral was there, although in the form of commercial paper. The risk is really in which companies debt they hold. If we see a perfect storm of something like 2008 where correlations go to 1 resulting in massive defaults AND a significant number of redemptions then I'd be worried.

This could read "Stock price at public companies a distraction for employees"

Saw several people at work picking up this weekend. In a company of 200 there are now over 20 in the lot and this isn't the Bay Area.

There are also a great number of people who have never spent more than $35k on a car who are buying a M3.

The car is unbelievably good coming from someone who used to drive entry-level luxury sedans. It's light years beyond anything BMW, Infiniti and Lexus have to offer.

Yes, it works very well but not for the 'wisdom of the crowds' effect. It works because the people with the most information and best models sharpen up the price. Over time, the sharpest bettors grow their bankrolls or capital exponentially and place larger bets and have a disproportionate weight on the markets and their opinions matter more, making markets more efficient.

Ironically, one of the core reasons for less IPOs is Sarbanes-Oxley, which was meant to protect retail investors but instead has had the second order effect of reducing the number of IPOs and limiting the available higher growth / higher risk opportunities these same investors.

Are they hardware limited? It seems like the limiting factor is the convnet rather than the hardware...do they think it would be more safe with less latency?

What city was this in? The wait time was 6-8 months in Toronto for my uncle.

The quality is also better if you have insurance. Firstly, because it's easy to see a specialist. Our friends in Canada don't even know you're supposed to see specialists for a lot of ailments. Second, most facilities have access to diagnostic equipment that even hospitals might not have in Canada (MRI machines, etc).

It'd be great if there was both but it's not allowed in Canada so the net effect is you get less tail outcomes, both positive and negative. For folks in the US with insurance, it's a big drop in the standard of care and for folks without, it's a big improvement.

One other thing that's not often mentioned is the best doctors tend to move. When my grandfather was super sick, he was next to a man who's 3 sons were there looking after him. They were all doctors and came to the US to practice because Canadian salaries were so low (they too were ranting about how bad the care there was).

We (my wife and I) currently pay out of pocket for them to see specialists or to get an opinion so that they can see a specialist in Canada. If we apply now, they qualify for medicare in X years and they get higher quality of care + we don't pay out of pocket.

If you've read Debt: The first 5000 Years, historically, debt has been one of the biggest factors in enslaving the poor. I think we'd be much better off with a system of credit instead of debt. For example, maybe instead of borrowing to go to school, a college gets 10% of your future wages for 5 years.

From a cost point of view, I think that's totally reasonable for most care. If you have something catastrophic and need quick access to top-notch care, you don't get that from the Canadian system and our Canadian relatives and friends don't even know how bad it is because that's all they've ever known (wife is from Canada and now realizes how bad it is and is trying to move her parents to the US so that they have access to US care).

I'm happy to have a public system to raise the baseline and to act as a safety net as long as there's still a private system and employers still provide insurance.

This is what scares me about the push for universal health care in the US. For the majority of the hacker news crowd with employer sponsored care, they'll see a regression to the mean and poorer overall care. I do think there needs to be an option for the poor, but not at the expense of world class care with no wait times.

This is all anecdotal, but here is my experience with the Canadian system:

1. Uncle died of cancer and waited 8 months for chemo and never got it.

2. Almost no family doctors are taking new patients in Vancouver. You can't see a specialist directly unless referred by a family doctor.

3. When mother in law needed a breast scan, we called like 10 different hospitals to ask if they had a breast MRI machine because the wait times were so long and we only found 1 machine.

4. She was also mis-diagnosed with asthma for 3 years because they didn't have the diagnostic tools. We sent her to an allergist in the US and it turned out it was allergies. We've taken to seeing doctors in the US to get referrals to specialists in Canada.

5. Wouldn't let a friend see an OB until 23 weeks and she was bleeding. Friend didn't think it was a thing and we were appalled.

6. Grandfather was mistreated for a low platelet count.

7. No private rooms - if you're deathly ill you're in a hospital bed next to others who are deathly ill.

I think there's a 4th level of wealth that wasn't mentioned which is financial independence. This is independent of how you think about expenses - it's more the freedom and stress removed of knowing you don't care if you're RIF'd and you don't need to impress someone or depend on someone for income or a job.

I remember tons of free Beenz/flooz and trading them for Wendy’s, Burger King and subway gift certs - ate free for like an entire summer.

It's an internal email warning folks to be vigilant, not a press release assigning fault.

I don't really believe that he was using it as an excuse to miss production targets because a) it was an internal memo and not a public press release and b) if he was full of crap and trying to use that as an excuse, his employees would know and see through it.

Agreed. In many cases, short sellers do a better job of identifying, researching, and flagging illegal behavior than government agencies charged with enforcing the rules.

You seem to have a great deal of faith in regulators. In most cases, they're under resourced, outgunned by corporate lawyers, and may have a bunch of different incentives to look the other way. Even if they do find egregious wrongdoing, many times bad actors will get a slap on the wrist or it'll be blamed on a single individual.

If you're curious, read Fooling Some People All of the Time by David Einhorn, who ironically, is short Tesla.

I actually want the opposite - I don't want the stuff I listen to all the time to be recommended to me, I want some of the one off stuff I listen to to appear in the feed at around the same frequency.

My problem with Discover Weekly is it weights recent listens way too heavily. I was listening to R&B for awhile and really loved the new songs it was pulling up - then I switched to jpop and then the list was entirely jpop. Over time, if you don't listen to other music it becomes kind of eclectic / coffeeshop pop.

I was part of a startup where the founders were older and the team was older. The technical competence and the competence of the team were amazing but I wouldn't characterize the team as "working like animals." However, the founders were pretty loaded and put in the initial 1-2M. We had a pretty good exit after less than 2 years.

A couple things here:

1. Profit margin is more like 24% than 15%. 2. Tesla energy generation is currently negative 1% margin, but there was a small note in the most recent investor letter that said they expect long-term margin to be similar to automotive with much faster growth rate - the automotive business has basically doubled year on year for the last 5 years. I think this isn't properly priced in. 3. Demand for MS and MX were way underestimated by most analysts and my guess is the same for M3. Especially with a rumored Model Y. 4. A lot of the execution risk has been worked out with the M3 on track 5. You get a free call option on Tesla roof + Solar City securities start paying out