colbyh

This is great! A really even discussion of the situation and concrete ways to make sure kids stay safe.

Far too much fear mongering content online already, thanks for keeping it informative!

Yeah I think the big problem here is related to the scale, not the fact that it's cheaper when you pay in cash. But that insurance would pay $500 (after negotiating the price down) and then push a > $1k charge to the patient when the clinic would have been ok with a $500 payment up front is just wrong.

It's also worth noting that many clinics, if not most, won't actually try to collect the balance here. They'll often go through the motions and forgive the balance after some number of attempts to collect.

I work in the industry. Fee schedules are an upper bound, but the lower bound is very hard to get numbers on and often approaches 0.

If I go in for a procedure at a medium sized specialist clinic they are going to take the fee schedule for this CPT, discount by my 20% expected contribution (or whatever), and then hope that the insurer pays them > 50% of the remainder.

A lot of the time my insurer will, but not always. Bigger systems negotiate their own fees and many doctors at larger clinics only track RVUs for each procedure (specifically because the clinics realize that paying based on insurance payout isn't fair or scalable, in that way RVU allocations act as a pool). But overall it's not a transparent system for the majority of people working within in.

One of my favorite things about the US insurance market is that the lack of transparency into pricing actually hurts both the insured and the institutions providing care.

Small and medium size practices have very few guarantees about how much they will get reimbursed for a procedure and the patient has no idea how much they will pay. It's truly insane.

Is anyone honestly trying to solve those problems right now?

"You should be, the Facebook app explicitly does listen to the mic unless you opt out."

Evidence? Every time someone claims this it gets debunked.

From the early/mid 90s all the way into the early aughts there was a subculture in punk and hardcore dedicated to veganism and straight edge. The majority of them acted exactly like this and I can only imagine how insane things would have been with YouTube available at the time.

People wrote obituaries for other people's edge when that person started doing drugs (often at 21, almost always before 30). There was even particularly militant scenes in certain parts of the country that would get violent if you were smoking or wearing a leather jacket to certain shows.

Some really, really good music got made around it all though

This feels like pseudoscience dressed up as the real thing.

"Getting stronger only takes 13 minutes three times a week" starts off with a reference to a recently published paper that looks promising, but the second paragraph is about the author's personal belief that high intensity/slow motion workouts are the best for you. There's no real connection between these two paragraphs except that they both prescribe shorter weigh lifting sessions.

"You can improve your body's function and alleviate anxiety in two minutes a day" again lists someone's personal take on dealing with anxiety and stress. While deep breathing is certainly helpful they don't site any peer reviewed papers or clinical studies that say 2-4 minutes of deep breathing a day will impact your heart rate/blood pressure/anxiety much less do it via increasing alpha waves.

"Cutting out sugar..." is similarly good intentioned (almost everyone should eat less sugar than they do, myself included) but again cites nothing meaningful.

Also this damn site somehow popped up two autoplaying audio/video ads, one of which I could not see or get rid of. Rage inducing.

the four listed are the biggest products in the world in their space. the first three would be multi billion dollar companies outside of Google.

not to mention Search itself, Docs has become a fantastic product as has Photos. of course they have killed hundreds of potentially great projects (RIP Reader) but give the company their due - they know how to build products.

This sounds like pure marketing to me. Statements like "Cockroaches are also a raw material in traditional Chinese medicine, known to be able to promote detoxification" and "found that chickens fed with the powder were not only healthier but also grew stronger and faster than normal chickens" without citations sets off all sorts of alarm bells.

And I don't know a ton about this area in general but it seems like if you are separating the organic compounds from trash then compost centers would be the real alternative (rather than landfills)?

You bought a billboard before launching on HN? Not sure if very impressed or very confused.

I understand that the term "growth hack" isn't well defined but still - most of these are just old school marketing techniques used by tech cos. A few novel ideas worth learning from but that's about it.

They still are, IMO.

I've paired a lot and see a lot of value in it but I disagree with most of this, honestly. Agreed on onboarding, but only if that's what works best for the incoming engineer. Two junior engineers pairing rarely increases productivity in my experience and putting some arbitrary number on it like "4 hrs/week" seems dogmatic.

Horses for courses - pairing works really well for some teams and is painful for others. The presence (or lack) of pairing in a company wouldn't be a signal to me, rather I'd take it as a good sign if the team is fine with pairing whenever it makes sense but doesn't have any specific rules about it.

It would benefit Github to own a CI/CD tool if said tool was used in the vast majority of projects and there was little worry about disrupting the rest. E.g. if Codeship was used by 99% of Github customers it would totally make sense for them to purchase the co and integrate more tightly.

But since the pipeline space is varied and rich, as you say, they benefit quite a bit by being a centralized tool that connects to all of them. Just pointing out that should that change in the future (in some unrelated area, say code review as a service?) we could very well see GH plop down a ton of cash and break out of that "code development tools" vertical.

Forgive me if I read the response wrong but that seems like exactly what the author is saying? Do your computing in Python/R, export a generated CSV, and then present it in Observable?

Lockup period means this ICO will behave differently than some of the other coins that have come out recently, and there's no way to tell what the market (or regulatory atmosphere) will be like in 6-18 month. It's speculation, just like all the other ICOs, but at least Telegram is a viable platform with a good use case for the coin.

Thanks for the reminder! And this is my bad because I was paywalled on my phone and didn't see that it was, in fact, a mersenne prime that was found.

1. Essentially, yes there's a list. Since there doesn't exist a higher level formula to identify primes it's been verified by some variation of a brute force method.

2. That all smaller primes are known can't be verified. Primes of this size are usually found by a number of formulas that find "likely" primes and then verified by brute force (afaik). Because of that fuzzy match to start there might be smaller primes that haven't yet been identified.

This was an internal email to investors. You have no idea what convos she's had with them previously about the situation but you're very quick to assume she's some self-important Jobsian figure.

Be human, chill on the assumptions. Startups are hard and you don't have all the data so Danielle deserves the benefit of the doubt, not some vaguely related ranting about responses to failure.

This works for some people but not all, fwiw. I know founders of very successful companies that paid themselves well from the start because they needed to focus on the company and not whether their credit card was getting paid off on time or what they were going to eat for dinner. For some, that sort of stress is completely antithetical to building a company. For some, it's a crucible. Not everyone reacts the same way to stress.

We're close with Michelin-star sushi chef and he's never tried to hide the fact that all of their fish has been frozen at some point. He finds it odd that diners care about it so much, but he's also of the opinion that all fish tastes better after it's been dead for at least a day. Certain fish even tastes best after a few days frozen.

Unpopular opinion, but I actually think this is very good advice in certain situations. If your startup is using a technology tangentially related to your core product it can totally make sense to use "boring" tech.

The simplest version would be something along the lines of - building a hardware startup? It probably doesn't make sense to build your company's ecomm site on top of React/Redux/etc. Rails works. Shopify works. They are boring options but they get the job done and get out of the way. Same company needs a blog? Don't roll your own, just find someone to manage a wordpress installation and be done with it.

Now that might very not be the case if your hardware has a substantial online component of course, but if your core product value is tied up in selling a hard good that doesn't need an app or a management interface of any kind then it doesn't really make sense to spend extra resources on a really cool website.

To put skepticism aside for a second - I could see this working (maybe) in a field where face to face communication is incredibly important (e.g. sales). But the vast majority of roles in a modern company don't need people that are good at communicating verbally, not to mention in front of a camera.

Can you imagine putting a scientist through this process? A janitor? No way.

well by logical extension the theorem provides that at least one of these frameworks should end up being Shakespeare..so at least we have that going for us?

Porn has led the way on a number of technological innovations, I'm surprised there aren't more billionaire porn kings/queens.

edit - modifiers are hard

But he starts by saying that people are using git "wrong" (or suboptimally). If git fits my needs why should I worry about how this dude or Linus or the prime emporer of gitland thinks it should be used?

I think the author has a great point about the differences between how git was "designed" to be used as compared to how it ends up being used in orgs most often. But I also balk at being told I'm using an open source tool incorrectly as a general rule.

disclaimer - I really want prime emporer of gitland to be a proper honorific.

Author seems to assume that all software development is like Linux development and it isn't. I can't have 10 different versions of my order processing service floating around doing different things for different people.

Twilio as well, two great investments but not accelerator companies.

I appreciate that and I'll ping my friend to see if she wants to reach out.

I think this is a great idea actually. They wouldn't be able to put together very much in the grand scheme of things (even 100 M raised from employees wouldn't even give them a point on the cap table) but it would be a strong signal at least.