I don't think the person you're responding to is a perfectionist. He just has a different view on how to improve things.
4,754 karma · joined March 9, 2017
I don't think the person you're responding to is a perfectionist. He just has a different view on how to improve things.
I'm not taking a stance here, but it's easy to see why many Americans believed developing the atomic bomb was a net positive at least for Americans, and depending on how you interpret it even the world.
I think HIPAA is the sort of thing where if you hear about it then it's taken seriously, but the overwhelming number of violations are just ignored and you never hear about them. I'd like to be wrong but unfortunately that's the information I've been fed by people more knowledgeable than me.
What good is paying off a debt in a currency that's no longer valuable? We're fucked no matter what.
Anyway I misread your previous comment, sorry about that.
Why the hell would you praise a company for an empty gesture? You're defending bullshit like it's a good thing.
My point is this is a complicated problem with no perfect solution, and people will correctly point out flaws with it both theoretically and (more relevant for this discussion) how we implement it.
Anyway, I think we mostly agree. Cheers.
This is obviously the golden standard we are trying to achieve, but how do we get there? It's theoretically impossible to treat everyone equally and apply affirmative action at the same time. I understand there is a difference between equality and equity, but I'm replying to the words you wrote.
Affirmative action may be the best solution we currently have to deal with systemic racism, but ultimately it's trying to fix prejudice with prejudice - and that is not a perfect solution. It also creates a lot of confusion because sometimes we say to treat people equally (as you say when trying to decide between hiring candidates), and other times we say we should help out the disenfranchised (such as when admitting students to schools). So where do we draw the line for when we want equality versus equity?
The police are the problem with police, regardless of whatever distractions they say are to blame.
There aren't though. People come to HN to complain about getting fucked over by YC companies because it's basically the only place people will get a response. I'm not saying all, or even most, complaints are valid. But your immediately siding with the YC company just shows your bias, which is expected since you're literally invested in the company.
Regardless of whether or not Stripe is legally in the right, their customer support is absolutely abysmal. And the problem is that this is clearly a trend with YC companies and the fact that people have to vent about it on HN so frequently, and with such fanfare, says a lot.
You think this is saying drugs sometimes lead to commitment? It sure reads like an absolute statement to me.
There are several famous mathematicians known for their avid use of amphetamines.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/jun/15/theairlinein...
That said, this isn't a large enough effect to discredit your point.
Why are you ignoring all of the costs that go to people besides nurses and doctors? I know very rich people whose entire careers are built around selling overpriced products to hospitals. These people are leeches that provide no value other than profiting off of dumb compliance laws. If you can buy the same product at any store for 1/10 the price, there is no benefit to requiring it be gatekept by people whose sole incentive is squeezing blood from a stone.
Get rid of graft. The problem is the system and the incentives it creates. US healthcare is dictated primarily by insurance companies who care more about maximizing profit than providing healthcare.
To fix the system you start with increased transparency, then you focus on accountability. Why do we allow such blatant corruption? Let's get rid of all the leeches first, since they provide no actual value while jacking up prices. There are so many areas we can improve results and cut costs before we address the salaries of doctors and nurses.
I agree with you. How many founders are able to find success twice? How many thrice? It's shockingly low, even amongst the most respected tech magnates.
Here's an example I like to use which I'm sure will be controversial, and I want to preface this by saying I've personally met and respect Justin Kan. But if you look at his history of starting companies, he only gets worse with time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Kan
He started with twitch which sold for just under $1 billion, then had SocialCam which sold for $60 MM, he then sold Exec for an undisclosed amount, and after that his initiatives shut down or are ongoing. Obviously he still has time for some big exits, but the trend doesn't make it look like he's learning.
> actually pictorial to some degree
Only in the same sense that star constellations are pictorial.
I really feel like this is appropriate.