NicolasGorden

Define 'hospitalized'. I think two realities are being discussed under the same term.

The way I see it, hospitalized can mean: I have great insurance and I went into the hospital for treatment because I felt some symptoms. I was feeling 80% well when I went in, I was only there because the doctors wanted to be thorough and check my vitals overnight.

It can also mean: I don't have insurance and I waited until I was half past dead to go to the hospital because I have bad/no insurance. By the time I got to the hospital I couldn't even breath. I went straight to the ICU.

Both are 'hospitalized'. But I don't think the two examples represent the same reality. I'd imagine Remdesivir working very well on the first and not very well on the second due to viral load concerns mentioned in other parts of the commentary to this article.

I've been involved in the production of physical goods. You are right there's an increase in cost, although then the question becomes by how much.

There's the option to make the same packaging but one having an empty space where another has that space filled with these items.

Even if they had to make two separate boxes, I'd like to think that given Apple's volume, the additional costs in managing SKUs and packaging production wouldn't have too big of a hit on overall production costs. Especially when offsetting the decrease in cost of goods provided. I however don't know their numbers enough to knowledgeably argue this point. Though overall my point I think still stands regardless of the exact dollar amounts being discussed, I can't see those amounts being too serious an inpact on overall costs.

If it was only about environmental reasons, wouldn't they just make it optional?

As in, they could include a checkbox (that is unchecked by default) to get these items free in the checkout process. They already ask a million customization questions, why not make this one?

I'd also think that for the percentage of people who need the charger/earbuds, having to make a second purchase on amazon will overall increase the carbon footprint for that person, since two packages shipped are way more inefficient than one. This undermines their argument and seems like it makes them depend on externalities to make their ecological calculations work out.

I submitted my comments to the DHS.

I'm so grateful to the EFF for bringing these specific issues to the table. Donating to them is money well spent.

No, it's not about nipples. I know this algorithm well.

Facebook does not allow advertisers to use Zoomed in images of body parts to artificially inflate CTR and play with their ad algorithm.

The onion image that was banned has the exact contour of breasts viewed from above zoomed in.

Not only do I 100% agree with you, but I actually think there's a good probability it was done on purpose and then capitalized on brilliantly. That onion image jumps at me.

I must give them a tip of the hat, they know how to play the media game:

> "We've sold more in the last three days than in the last five years," said Mr McLean, adding they are also now listed under "sexy onions" on the company website.

I find it interesting that when I was growing up, the person who invented the typing notification feature would have presented it as an achievement.

Now these articles start with him taking the 'blame'.

It feels so... like a new world... where most people are offended and angry by every tiny little annoyance of modern life. Where being angry and pessimistic is almost fashionable. Complaining about life, feeling hopeless, prophesizing disaster and externalizing problems is something people do to 'brag'.

I feel schools should include a decent amount of volunteering with people who have real problems. Maybe that way the next generation won't be so quick to focus on the negative. We're living in the best of times by all objective measurements.

> So you do acknowledge that it is creepy and undesired, and your solution instead of not doing it is just to not mention it but do it anyway. Classy

My solution is to use standard industry practices while supporting non profits and politics that improve the overall ecosystem.

It's what adults do. But I guess attacking strangers on the internet is where true class comes from?

> We're not doing that jointly buddy. You are the one doing it and you only get away with it by trying to hide it as you mentioned just above.

The only reason I'm doing it is because it's industry standard practice and it works. You can't bring a knife to a gun fight. Acting like that can happen just shows me you aren't well engaged with the real world. Insinuating my small business clients should not segment email audiences while their competitors do it is just unrealistic and disconnected from how the world operates.

Real world people who actually care about privacy and not grandstanding or throwing rocks in an effort to virtue signal... they actually sign up at EPIC and EFF and contact senators and congressman about specific privacy legislation. At least that's what I do to improve the situation. What do you do that I should be doing to improve our situation in relationship to privacy?

not let people discover that they're being tracked. != not actively disclosing.

One is actively hiding. The other is not actively revealing. The fact that you are pretending they are the same makes me feel you aren't arguing in good faith. You are intelligent enough to understand this without me having to highlight it, twice.

I support organizations like EPIC and EFF. I tell people all the time in my life to support causes like these and get made fun of.

> The reason people are creeped out by "I see you are opening my email" is because the tracking itself is unexpected and unwanted

Yes, but there's no reason to be, tracking is well known for anyone who wants to know it. A google search is not a high barrier to obtaining information. And it's not my clients obligation to inform the public. You can make a case that schools should teach this. That public officials should spread it. That non profits promote it. That the media should mention it more.

To argue that my client producing widgets is not disclosing it further than they already do in the Privacy policy, in the disclaimers in emails and in their terms and conditions... is IMO unreasonable.

The reason I don't mention "I see you are opening my emails" is because it makes people uncomfortable. Which is why this topic isn't in the news. To blame a small business owner producing quality widgets and their marketing guys for the society we create jointly is immature at best.

I do my part on my dime and my time. I'm not going to feel guilty or apologize for providing value to businesses that provide value. I live and work within the constrains of the real world and actively try to make those constrains better. I don't think it's reasonable to expect more of people.

> My advisor was hemorrhaging students, yet no red flags were raised. ... Those who planned to complete their PhD left the group or left MIT.

This literally tells me nothing.

What's the average completion rate in that field? What's it for other great professors?

"hemorrhaging", like "abuse" is very vague language. I don't like condemning people based on this. It seems like a slippery slope.

Again, if you can point out a particular accusation in that article you feel deserves complete condemnation and the type of upheaval we are seeing, please point it out. I'd like to learn.

Otherwise, I'll continue to see this as a failed Navy Seal complaining about how tough it is to become a Navy Seal without understanding that the difficulty is built into the concept of why it's elite. If it was easy, there'd be no status associated to it.

All data is inaccurate to some degree. This is not new.

There are ways to mitigate false positives, and many of the best SAAS work tirelessly to constantly incorporate every new update and every new technique to try and correct data to make it as clean as possible. The techniques are many and I'm generally not on the cutting edge of that particular niche. But I know people who are.

And it only has to be accurate enough to be profitable.

If I get it right 80% of the time and increase CLV by 30% while increasing marketing costs by a small amount, that's an objective win.

We're not sending people to Mars. And even then, every measurement has a margin of error. It's the inherent nature of measurements.

Marketing guy here.

75%-80% open rate for many of my campaigns tells me the title is misleading, those pixels are firing in all the major providers.

Putting people in email/SMS funnels based on which emails they read is ENOURMOUSLY beneficial to my clients.

This is something that's really very basic.

Client Sells Widgets. He sends 3 emails to email base on small widgets, green widgets and cheap widgets.

If the client opens one of these but not the other, does it not make sense to send further information that is relevant to their interest? I mean, if they open the green widgets email on my funnel, they will be getting A LOT MORE green widget emails because they will be moved from funnel to funnel based on their activity or lack thereof.

Good email tracking is part of good marketing. Something I do see commonly is tech founders looking down on marketing. This leads to low budgets and attracting low quality candidates. Modern marketing tools are like machine guns. And most marketing people are like chimps. So that's why you see silly emails like 'I see you are opening my email, why don't you answer' - which is insane from a marketing point of view, why creep people out? So silly.

Good open rate data gathering results in you not knowing that it's being tracked. You simply get more targeted stuff and less stuff that is outside your interest.

Back in 01 when I started in digital marketing, good attribution of sales and marketing was something people spent 7 digits creating custom solutions. Now we can string a few SAAS providers together and get amazing details. It just needs to be set up intelligently.

Having said all of this: of course I don't allow images to display by default on my email provider. But I'm privacy minded and most people aren't. Which is fine, the world is diverse and that's a good thing. I love choice.

> Let's make it less shitty.

100%. For me, Western Capitalism has been doing this my whole life.

When I was growing up, in the little town in Central America that I come from, no one EVER traveled on an aero plane. Now it's normal. It was normal for kids to not have shoes. Now it's unheard of.

I hope we can continue to make the world less shitty.

Also, I hope there's more niceness. I also hope the fight for niceness doesn't make the world truly shitty. There's plenty of historical examples of the fight for what's right leading to what's very wrong.

> Sure, the real world sucks. I don't see that as a reason to prevent colleges from improving.

Absolutely. The problem I see is the deterioration of educational quality that seems to correlate with this improvement.

Also, at some point, you need to accept that to be elite, you need to do things that others can't and won't do. A high drop out rate to becoming elite is precisely what defines the elite title being sought.

> You cant expect others to toil away to benefit your "genius"

Brilliant reply. Except... I never said my genius.

The fact that you make up arguments and distort what I said is evidence of the emotive nature of your response. I'll invite you to improve the quality of your discourse. I have respect for people who I disagree with as long as they can show the basic decency of engaging with what I said and not behave dishonestly by making up fake and silly arguments. I really dislike sophism.

Yes, but the question is what are you going to do about it?

I'll tell you what happens in other countries: Cut all the tall poppies down.

I love my new home, America, because she doesn't do this and it happens in my original home country. I love the results of the American system, it's something I'm grateful to live in everyday. Unfortunately I've personally witness that mentality creep in here.

The perniciousness of the go along to get along system is hard to describe to someone who hasn't lived it.

If there was serious abuse I'd 100% agree with you.

One problem we have is the word abuse, based on the modern definition and usage, encompasses a range of activities from things that are only slightly unkind and rather run of the mill to extreme examples of verbal cruelty.

The particular points highlighted in the article don't strike me as being on the cruel side.

My understanding of the world is that the higher you rise, the thicker your skin needs to be.

Of course we shouldn't tolerate gratuitous cruelty.

But anyone who has ever worked with very high level people will know they can be capricious. And for most of us, getting to those high levels is an honor.

Personally in my career I've provided services to successful hard to deal with entrepreneurs. Was it a PITA? Yes. Did I learn a lot? Yes. The most demanding, harsh people are those that test your meddle and forge you in fire. Not the ones that are most pleasant.

The reason elite universities are elite is because they push people to the brink, they are designed to demand as much from a human being as can be demanded. See, my issue with the article has to do with the author wanting to be an elite researcher holding the highest and most elite title (a PHD) in the most elite university in the world (MIT) and not thinking it's going to be a ton of hours a week. IMO, that's how you determine who is elite and committed; by applying stress and seeing who can handle it at the highest level.

I mean, logically the guy who can work 80 hours a week will do more researcher, which will compound, and far outpace the productivity of someone who works 40 hours a week. This seems like a really logical and reasonable basis for how we've set up society and I've yet to meet anyone who is elite in their field who worked only 40 hours a week to get there.

Now, I'll concede: Maybe there was an accusation in that article you consider so gratuitos and bad that it's worth condemning this institution which for better or worse has figured out how to squeeze out human innovation and potential like nothing before in history. I'll also concede I might be jaded and just accepting of things that are changing and should change.

And last, I believe most things should move away from reputation based systems to more meritocratic systems, so if you want to talk about removing the biggest whip that the article mentions (not being able to leave for fear of a bad reference) - I 100% support such efforts.

> Too often I have been told to be proud of the great work I am a part of, as if this should outweigh the negative and harmful things myself and others have experienced.

Actually, that's how it works in the real world from my experience.

Most geniuses have terrible shadows that are as dark and long as they are brilliant and tall.

Most of us feel really lucky to get things done and be a part of something, and when we have to bear an unkind comment here or there... well, we're emotionally developed adults who balance the positive with the negative. It takes a lot of entitlement to expect to never hear anything negative or offensive or unkind.*

College should prepare you for the real world, not shelter you from it.

* Obligatory before someone makes a strawman: Of course if the advisor does something illegal, that's another matter, but the article never stated anything illegal being done. Just unkind from what I read.

In crime there seems to be the oposite of survivor bias.

We see the successful legal businesses without seeing those that failed.

We see the failed drug dealers without seeing those that succeeded.

So... break the law and get my newly built houses torn down?

You do understand what I'm saying, which is in TFA: You are legally not allowed to build new housing without these systems.

Condo dweller here with anecdotal confirmation: I would absolutely consider an EV if they had charging stations at my local supermarket. I had looked into one for tax reasons, but passed due to the charging situation.

Not that I paid it much thought, but this does change how I see it. Cheers.

That Merv 13 airfilter they mention is amazing. I have one. I also grill my meats outdoors to avoid lowering indoor air quality.

But the thing that bugs me about the article is how new homes have to have these expensive new systems. There's this constant requirement for more and more things to build into new homes. CA is having a housing crises, homes here are through the roof.

It's so odd that new homes HAVE to have it, but most people live in old homes and don't and they suggest simple and cheap solutions for that (an $80 free standing air filter). Why can't we apply that same simple and cheap solution to new homes that could be affordable?

It's frustrating.

I'll re-iterate what strikelaserclaw said and add: maybe looking at it on a 10 year basis is too short?

Humans have now about 20-30 year generations, so I think it's fair to judge our progress as a species in at least multiples of this.

I'm in my mid 30's and kids these days are way nicer to each other than they were when I was a kid. Bullying, making fun of kids of silly differences, etc is way down. I think the future long term, and in a two step forward one step back kind of way, is going to be better than it is now.

I live in a tourist town and have lived in different tourist towns my whole life (even in other countries) so I'm quite well acquainted with the issues that AirBNB has. Overall, I think it's not a new thing to AirBNB.

I think it's a NIMBY vs YIMBY thing.

Established players in any community have little desire for expansion.

Non-established players in any community have greater incentive to want to see expansion. For the most part, the non established are seeking to become established by filling the niches created by expansion.

Expansion will always have a cost, as well as a benefit. These two are un-evenly distributed and cause tension.

Overall, at least where I live, I know that removing vacation rentals would decrease tourism. As we have seen with COVID, less tourism in a tourist town and city budgets are restricted, services cut and business close. I like to see my little city vibrant and economically healthy, so I support YIMBY projects, even with their necessary negatives. That means I have to put up with unruly-annoying people.

We can't eat our pie and have it at the same time.

This is mentioned in the study.

Of course most things have a political element.

That doesn't mean they are political.

The study is about New York. The comment is trying to make this a 'red state vs blue state' thing. There's no reasonable basis for such thinking if you actually read the study.

Why turn everything political? Especially when it seems you didn't even read it. Just using the title as a jumping off point to put in political points.

The study, if you read it is mostly based on NY data. It specifically states as much in the limitations:

> this study may not be generalizable outside of the State of New York.

I personally think the study should have published the raw data as well as the aggregate data.

But the study seems to be quite open about it's limitations, listing one particularly limitation which to me is the greatest one if you want to critique the study:

> We are therefore unable to adjust for the possibility that unionized health care workers may transfer residents to hospitals earlier and thereby reduce their facility’s COVID-19 mortality rate.

The toxicity of social media is that it plays into the darkness of our cognitive process and hightens tribalistic thinking. And in the article about social media, instead of recognizing this, the author chooses to use social media as a jump off point to pseudo intellectually glorify his tribe while bemoaning the oposite tribe. It's re-hashed fox/cnn with longer words. As someone who is non-affiliate to either tribe and finds the tribalism silly, the conceited sound of the article is jarring. I'm pretty sure the inspiration for South Park's smug alert episode was based on people who write this stuff.

The author talks about the good of social media as such:

> street uprising of the late spring felt like its joyous opposite—a future in which platforms were responding to and being structured by the events on the ground, rather than those events being structured by and shaped to the demands of the platforms. This was something worth our time and devotion... As people in the streets toppled statues and fought police...

And talks about the perils and evils of social media as such:

> promoting people who exist only to be explained to, people to whom the world has been created anew every morning, people for whom every settled sociological, scientific, and political argument of modernity must be rehashed, rewritten, and re-accounted, this time with their participation. These people, with their just-asking questions and vapid open letters, are dullards and bores, pettifoggers and casuists, cowards and dissemblers... That we get some kind of fulfillment from tedious debates about “free speech” and “cancel culture.” ... why not spend a few decades of it with a couple New York Times op-ed columnists, rebuilding all of Western thought from first principles?

This seems naïve. Cost is a factor.

Greg, a nobody who nobody likes says X thing - X isn't a big deal, and doesn't affect most people and about 45% of people would agree X shouldn't be said, even if it isn't a big deal.

Mark, a senior directo who everybody loves says Y thing - Y is a big deal, but only 10% of people would agree it shouldn't be said.

Guess which will get called out?