darth_avocado

> But the general principle of some people paying higher premiums than others because they're higher risk isn't a bad one.

So someone with cancer should be charged $20k/month then? I am completely healthy and haven’t used my insurance much in the last 10 years. Why are my premiums so high? And why are 65+ year olds not footing most of the bill? I am not advocating for that but just pointing out that were obviously okay with charging for some risk profiles but not others.

So does that mean the minute you have a cancer diagnosis, the insurance company gets to charge you $20k/month or drop you?

If the same argument is to be followed why does a person with potentially large medical bills not pay a disproportionately larger premiums than a healthy person?

> The commission working in the public interest decides how the compromise is drawn, not the insurers

I haven’t laughed so hard in years.

> Why should someone who has an unpatched hole in their roof pay the same rate as someone who maintains their roof?

Because otherwise the insurance companies can just look at your completely maintained roof that will last another 20 years and ask for a full replacement because it is 10 years old. And if you don’t comply they will drop you. (Happened to me)

> pricing (or making available) coverage based upon risk.

The whole point of insurance is to manage risk by spreading it across all consumers. If my insurance rates go up based on my usage or individual risk factors, it’s just an elaborate money making scheme. It should be like “everyone has to pay x to get insurance to get covered and if the claims start going up, everyone has to pay more”.

It’s not only online. Just last weekend, someone heckled me at Costco because my wife was pushing a heavy ass cart while I was walking freely next to her. She chose to do it, I offered to take it and she refused. But somehow a random stranger had something to say about it.

Online behavior is unfortunately a slightly worse mirror of real life. If you want to experience people outside of your bubble, just go to any public hearings or meetings and you’ll find that a lot of people are quite out there.

> Net worth is not real.

Well then why are people able to borrow against it and then also deduct taxes on the interest on that borrowed amount?

Also I pay property taxes. Somehow the worth of the property goes up every year and gets gets taxed accordingly. Then why can’t wealth get the same treatment?

7-9 rounds just means 7-9 conversations. Just talking to a recruiter and the manager are 2 rounds. So 5-7 interviews that evaluate competency. You usually get the lower end unless you ended up giving mixed signals.

Sounds like asking a lot from candidates but unfortunately candidates lie a lot and the cost of hiring candidates that don’t match up to the requirements when paying $300k-$500k/year is just too high. Firing people is hard and takes a long time, especially in management roles. My personal guidance to managers is to have rounds match the level and experience required for the job. You can hire an intern with 2 rounds after the hiring manager conversation but a staff IC probably needs 5, directors need 7.

You’re not even hearing back from the recruiter for 14 days if the job posting just went up. I mean it takes 1-2 weeks from the day you got told that you’re getting an offer to the day when you sign it.

We are at the moment hiring for a L3 (no fresh graduate but someone with 3-5 years of experience). The role has been open for two months now (it was a backfill). I personally am in charge of the technical screen which is the second interview after the hiring manager. I am already getting a filtered set of candidates after the recruiter and the hiring manager review candidates. Of the 5 that have come my way, I’ve said yes to 1 person and 1 as a yes, pending another technical screen. We are not even wanting an exact match, nor are we expecting cure for cancer. Yes there are a lot of people looking for jobs but you don’t realize how many candidates are just not what their resumes portray. It takes forever to get someone competent in the pipeline and even then, you know nothing about their work ethic. The reason the pipeline is slow is because the candidate pool is flooded with over the top resumes that are not backed by actual talent and once you hire a wrong candidate it is extremely difficult to fire them, even with at will employment contracts.

Any manager will tell you, they’d rather not go through the long hiring process.

Yes please, add vets to the bill. The problem you’re describing gets exacerbated when PEs buy practices. They undercut the very few other surviving practices and remove any ability for new practices to open up. In the last 3 years, we went from 10 to just 3 emergency vets in a 20 mile radius. Now if I need to go to an emergency vet, I drive half an hour if there’s no traffic and pay $200 to just be seen.

This insanity is creating a crisis amount of pets being abandoned, and then euthanized by the animal services. People can’t afford to have pets anymore.

> The need for actual lawyers will persist I think from my own experience

This doesn’t replace lawyers, but paralegals surely will be affected. A good enough model could shrink the number of paralegals needed in a firm.

> Fed hikes interest rates → bonds sell off → yields rise

This part isn’t true. It can happen, but not always, especially right now.

That wouldn’t be a great way to measure it. I’m only talking about the fed rates, how it impacts the bond market and therefore the mortgage rates. If someone decides to nuke the oil infrastructure of the world tomorrow, this rate hike doesn’t matter and your hopes and dreams of a low mortgage rate get nuked along with the oil infrastructure.

You have to look at the current context. Bond yields have been spiking, mostly because of the inflation expectations from oil prices and tariffs (mostly oil prices). Mortgages mostly track 10 year yields, which is why when fed dropped the rates back to back, the mortgage rates didn’t come down. The current hike (and the next one) is supposed to create a deflationary pressure, but also provide confidence to the market that the fed will step in to cool inflation if necessary. This in turn lowers the yield on 10 year treasuries and therefore mortgage rates.

The fed rate provides a floor for mortgage rates, but the 10 year yield and mortgage demand decide the ceiling. Currently the demand is pretty low, and therefore the yield mostly controls the mortgage rates.

Re: mortgage rates

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/09/16/heres-wha...

Mortgage rates are not decided by the fed rate as much as they are by the bond yields. There’s a reason why the mortgage rates were above 7% yesterday even when the fed rate has been stable for a while.

This rate hike is aimed to stabilize the bond yields which in turn will lower the mortgage rates.

This is the right move. Inflationary pressures due to high oil prices and tariffs are not going away anytime soon. All the economic numbers point to a need for a rate hike. Not doing so has a much larger effect on the financial system than a 25 bps rate hike. Stagflation is a bigger risk to the economy.

Counterintuitively the rate hike can help lower things like mortgage rates by stabilizing the bond yields.

The debt is owed by the treasury, fed prints the money. What you’re describing is not how the monetary system works.

What you’re describing is a sunroof that’s useful for a small set of use cases. Panoramic roofs that don’t open are different.

I think it’s more than money and slowing progress. Public perception on AI is in the gutter. That is a much bigger threat to these companies. They’re trying to turn it around.

I would argue they should have to. They scraped data off others, a lot of whom did not want that data to be used for AI training, and still had to share it with the frontier labs. It’s only fair they should have to hand it back.

The only way US maintains dominance over Chinese models is by having an ecosystem of models. Relying on a small set of frontier labs will only let you get ahead temporarily. I agree with Gary Tan on this one.

But is that true though? This seems bit of a romanticism. Having lived in rural villages in Asia, I can tell you people are about as happy as anywhere else. They worry about not being able to afford or have access to basic healthcare. They worry about one off season rain destroying their livelihoods for the season. Depending on where you are, some worry about a sudden onset of escalating violence. Plenty of people don’t even have access to drinking water. Some worry about their land and only source of income taken away by larger interests.

And yet, here we are just pouring glyphosate on public lands by the tons…

Nothing changes even if we know about these chemicals

Identifying as independents means nothing. 67% of independents in 2018 viewed one party more favorable and were unfavorable to other. In other words, the independents have a partisan lean towards one party and are more likely to vote that way.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-in...

It’s much more expensive. You as a consumer can buy a movie for $5 with a DVD on sale. But tos generally don’t include commercial activities. If you reach out to the film studio to get their permission, they can charge you anywhere from $10K to $1M+ for same thing.

And I’m sure meta paid for some specific content but they generally wouldn’t want to set a precedent where they paid everyone.

I don’t know if Claude performs similarly from a percentage standpoint, but if you’re using it for search (online or personal docs or wikis), it often also just makes things up.

When you point it out, it’ll do the “ohh you’re absolutely right!” bs. Marketing material and management that believes the material wants to pretend that AI agents are junior employees, but forget that junior employees get fired for doing something like this.

You’re talking about a product that’s quite literally “pick it up and sell it”. Adding a single step to the process will be economically more expensive. Mining, logging, fishing etc. are all similar examples.

In a few million years

The social network is more dead than when he bought it. Wouldn’t need the an acquisition first by an ai company and then a space company to hide its worth.