RONROC

Even though I had subpar due diligence that resulted in a almost-decade-long-contractor's wife not having any official channel to contact her husbands employer, this made me feel really bad.

This is so fucking embarrassing and full of shit.

Rest In Peace to Pete, and fuck the author of this post.

My apologies.

Argument still stands.

People have a tendency to confuse this kind of business decision as something philanthropic, as if the great people of Kansas need this more than they will tolerate it.

Non-story.

You strike me as one of the people in the "even if it saves one life" camp.

The type of person who encounters the trolley problem and asks "can we just play a different game?"

You're probably right. You must be the other guy.

Energy consumption? Myocardial infection?

What are you blabbering on about?

I hate to be that guy but if you're dying because the clocks changed and it was too much of a burden for you to re-adjust (like literally everyone else does) then oh well.

Policy decisions based on dodgy, whataboutism-esque figures is, in my opinion, what undergirded the incredibly incompetent COVID response here in the US, and elsewhere.

This is marketing stupidity and has no place on HN.

Embarrassing.

Edit: OP (geox) is, more likely than not, a farm/bot account. Flagging @dang

I agree with you man and you would think that would be a given.

However, the critical flaw of highly rational actors is that their actions always incur a reality tax, and, more likely than not, they're nowhere to be found when the bill comes.

There we go brother! You're almost there!

I hear you man, but guess what, I'm not a supplier, so again: qui bono.

You're argument assumes we have anything close to a healthy economy now. And in another world, you'd be right. However, that not being the case, your argument is moot at best and disingenuous at worst.

In a perfect system, you are more correct than you give yourself credit for. This is not that. In case you haven't noticed, a GPU costs more than the rest of the components of a PC combined. And that's because of so-called market and or supply chain inefficiencies (which I'm supposed to, as a consumer, take on the chin).

In spite of political, personal, or professional neglect, (don't care which one) chip companies are posting gargantuan earnings YOY and seem to be doing fine.

On the other hand, my sibling can't afford a car or a non-pre-built computer.

I guess it's not clear in your post, but who exactly are we looking out for here? The furloughed talent? The "market"?

And regardless, how is that my problem?

Again, I would love to have a level headed discussion about this, but please be honest about who truly loses in an oversupplied market.

BTW, because I see this here a lot: just because the whole "it's more complicated than you think" rationale is not a commonly accepted logical fallacy, doesn't mean that it's not bullshit all the same.

How is oversupply a "crisis" (assuming you're not carrying water for board members)?

Would love to have a level headed conversation about this, assuming someone here can address, what is, in my estimation, a non-issue.

This doesn’t seem like the case at all, considering, you know, the fact that they don’t really definitely mitigate anything.

In my experience (and this is anecdotal) there’s no rhyme or reason as to why this virus affects some people more than others. You can try to tell me why, but it would ask me to betray what i’ve witnessed (or lack thereof) over the past two years.

The data isn’t reliable nor convincing, so i’m not sure how you’re in the definitive “experimental jab better than nothing” camp.

PS - Two doses here.

The amount of attention from a body (nurse, doctor, janitor) that a person who has a serious case of COVID needs, is, at least a few orders of magnitude less "on-hands" than a surgery, any surgery (non-essential or not; that's a non-stater, and commonly used as fodder to pad your main point).

The reality is that there aren't that many interventions that need to take place to help those with a serious case of COVID. It's not open heart surgery nor is it a more garden variety surgical procedure such as cyst removal or non-invasive plastic surgery. Apart from intubation and steroids in some cases, where's the rocket science here? An EMT or an army medic, with the right equipment, will more likely than not guarantee the same quality of healthcare that an MD or nurse will give.

Although I hardly think you'll meet me halfway on that, so here's this question: Do you think the situation is/was helped by firing all unvaccinated healthcare professionals at hospitals around the country? If so, why? If not, why?

We need more beds and equipment, not doctors.

Sure, they’ll be overworked, but hey, when the going gets tough, the tough get going, don’t they?

How about an increased emphasis on putting together the right incentives that ameliorate their personal risk tolerance just enough so that they’re OK with double shifts?

Everyone has a price.

So how about we just get to the part where we get those (who can and want to help) what they need so that we can move on.

I hear you man. I’m the first person to excoriate bullshit engineer speak, but alas, I am not a CS major. So yes, I agree, API calls will not magically conjure up more healthcare NPCs. Fine.

My question has nothing to do with the elasticity of the healthcare system which obviously has its own hosts of issues and which we won’t get into here.

But if you’d rather pivot to that then the spirit of my response still has play: why hasn’t the healthcare industry optimized the incentives for healthcare workers to take on this Sisyphean task? Can you please point to some instances of hospital boards increasing pay, benefits, etc. that could offset the risk for these workers?

I guess my major point here is that your highly rational civic minded approach to the crux of the issue here is disjointed: on one hand you lament the ineffectiveness of the healthcare system and in the same breath take a defeatist approach to it as if nothing can be done internally to alleviate the toll the virus is taking on it.

And the sad reality is: it’s the same old shit, everyone wants to praise the heroes (Tiktok nurses) and yet, here we are, two years later, with the same dysfunctional system that got us here. At what point will we collectively try to address the root cause instead of the end user?

Again, here’s reality, with a little less imagination:

Similar to the tech industry, people who architect these systems are, lo and behold, nowhere to be found when these systems go haywire.

And because of this the media apparatus and their apologists uses the oldest trick in the book which is: “Let’s frame this as a them vs. them thing and let people strangle each other over hospital beds”.

When in reality, all that needs to be done is break out the same checkbook that pays for all our wars.

I’m sorry man, but the increased load on facilities, and furthermore, the “lack” of qualified professionals is an apologist pundit opinion full-stop, and quite frankly, borderline offensive.

The hospital strain point gets made a lot but I have one problem with this. Its been two years: have hospitals or the healthcare industry as a whole made an honest effort at upping the capacity in their facilities?

Why would the healthcare system of the alleged preeminent nation on planet Earth not have capacity for its citizens past a certain threshold?

Many cities have older hospitals that have yet to match the population increase. If so, why is that? And should someone do something about it?

Edited, to add one more question: if they shouldn’t, why not?

There’s a concerted effort by world leaders to demonize the unvaccinated.

I am vaccinated, but as a human being, is this a useful approach?

Hold on there partner. In terms of journalistic integrity The Atlantic is just as much of a PR machine (rather than newsroom) similar to the Times.

I don’t know how long you’ve been an Atlantic reader but I can’t, for the life of me, remember them publishing anything of note within the past couple of years. In comparison to the New Yorker, Economist, Harpers, and Laphams, The Atlantic has been (in my opinion*) at the bottom of the totem pole for a while now.

Apart from that, here’s some food for thought: the following long read [1] posits in so many words that people concerned with the sex trafficking of minors are now paranoid and brushing up against conspiracy theorists, and that the “epidemic” here is that these people are confused and just not thinking straight. Furthermore, here’s [2] a picture of Laurene Powell Jobs in very casual attire with none other than Ghislaine Maxwell, the cheerleader for the closest thing to an ape-shit global underage sex trafficking conspiracy we, as a society, have ever seen.

Please do not mistake this as me conflating one thing for another. Whatever you think of this, it’s beyond a lapse of professional journalistic responsibility at best and outright psychotic at worst.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/childre...

[2] https://i.redd.it/td3bys2f9y481.jpg

Let’s call a spade a spade: this is an HN clone for stories about the financial world and their interlocutors. Which is great!

But what’s the obsession with risk here and how exactly does that (functionally*) factor into the sites ethos?

Also, who said there’s a financial storm coming?

Cool site, but the FUD seems disingenuous at best.

Interesting. So if everything is all the same and it doesn’t matter at all, then why have fps in excess of 60? Just because?

> it looks almost exactly the same

What is “exactly the same” to you? And does it mean the same to me? And can we measure it?

If you can’t notice your mouse pointer stuttering from one monitor to the next, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Maybe one day you will, or maybe you won’t, or maybe you don’t care. And there’s no right or wrong answer so no shade here.

To me, the difference is beyond obvious and the nefarious bit with the refresh discussion is that this take is sometimes met with incredulity.

And maybe this whole thing is more like an accessibility issue like colorblind options rather than something the general market will actually care about.

Also an under-discussed issue in the refresh rate discourse is how snappy your machine is. If you’re using a ten year old think pad well then maybe that’s it?

Why wouldn’t an editor want to view the final deliverable in 120fps, if that was an option?

I understand there’s no need for it, but have you seen the size of the latest F-150?

To quote Jack Nicholson playing Frank Costello in the Departed:

“I haven't needed the money since I took Archie's milk money in the third grade.

Tell you the truth, I don't need pussy any more either...but I like it.”

We’re going to be having this same tired, pedantic, round-about conversation when Tesla’s routinely decide to take out a family of four because it mistook a plastic bag for an off-ramp.

Commenters will show up like clockwork and say shit like:

“What man, it’s not like cars didn’t crash before? Haha”

Don’t be dense dude. And definitely don’t pursue a leadership position anytime in the future.

No mention of refresh rates, per usual.

I’d like to have a stern word with whatever marketing suit deemed refresh rates in excess of 60 to be a premium feature that only the gaming segment cares about.

Even if this monitor is strictly for editing professionals, there are GoPros and Iphones that shoot @ 120 fps. So I still fail to see why this is not a more important selling point?

A daily driver with a high refresh rate (120+) is like cocaine or calamari: once you’ve had the good stuff, reverting back to the “floor” starts to seem downright offensive.

The prevailing wisdom throughout the last couple of years was:

“ditch your on-prem infrastructure and migrate to a major cloud provider”

And its starting to seem like it could be something like:

“ditch your on-prem infrastructure and spin up your own managed cloud”

This is probably untenable for larger orgs where convenience gets the blank check treatment, but for smaller operations that can’t realize that value at scale and are spooked by these outages, what are the alternatives?

People will pile in here and argue in all earnestness that stirring the pot and making an earnest, snarky, and (maybe) contentious point out in the open is not an effective manner of brushing up against the “discourse”. But they’re wrong.

In a world where data brokers can (and will) shake out your whoIS info for the right price which can cost you personally, I commend any effort to re-frame the conversation and “speak truth to power” as corny as that sounds.

This type of thing is an actual example of effective altruism. You’re not saving the snow leopard, sure, but it’s important to do what you can as much as possible.

Web 3 is a marketing grift aimed at high-minded idealism with one goal: to turn your lights off in the name of the next “new thing” because god forbid you don’t get in on the first floor.

> Another idea I've had (and again, this is largely ripping off existing monetization schemes), is that it might make sense to have a section of the website dedicated sagas about "products" (e.g. "IPhone 17"), linking to things like reviews and spec sheets, with affiliate links to amazon.

I don’t know much but as a user i’m hard to deceive, and this seems like the most pragmatic way to make a real, efficient compromise without sacrificing some of the purer intentions of your project.

Good luck man, I’m rooting for you.

All hard-to-argue with pain points that could be addressed in a novel way. There’s a lot of unsolved problems in the new media morass and it would be great if a couple of new white hat firms emerged in this space to cut through the noise and the bullshit.

But identifying what’s wrong and even getting an MVP together is one of the easier problems.

The burning question is how do you monetize your efforts without giving into the ad cartel? Will people pay a premium for a link tree? Unless this is more of a civic minded volunteer type thing?

Either way, best of luck. There’s a sack of coins somewhere in here.