America has always been a country of self reliant individuals. What you're forgetting (and what todays "progressivists" want to erase from history) is that America was (and still is somewhat) a country with convictions, particularly because of the Christian religion which a majority of Americans in the 19th and 20th century identified with. Charities, church hospitals, philanthropic efforts by the wealthy, and a sense of taken care of your local community knitted our country together far better than government mandated collectivsm ever could have.
I hope these individuals and companies fight for and win the change they want to see in the world because I agree with them. But I hope the vote passes tomorrow and ISPs no longer fall under Title 2 regulations. A 100 year old law cannot possibly fit the world of global, decentralized digital information sharing that the internet has become in the last 20 years. We need a new law for the new time. And it's this passion and energy we need from these luminaries and large companies to get people aware enough of the problem to pressure congress to do something about it. So the fight doesn't end tomorrow, it starts tomorrow.
You're digging into a topic I've inquired about many times. I've never received any response from any admin. Ironically my submission was flagged itself for asking why certain articles were flagged and hidden. See here Ask HN: Why are “Google memo” links being flagged and hidden? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14994180
most of the health care cost is NOT due to doctors salaries. the reason health care costs are so high in America is due to the way Providers (Hospitals, small clinics, and large Systems) charge insurance companies. Several decades ago when insurance really started getting big, they realized they had huge groups of people they could send to "in network" hospitals. they choose which Providers are in their network. therefore they have leverage over the Providers, and use it to negotiate the price they pay for all claims (the bill the provider sends the insurance company). They negotiate huge discounts on the "listed" price for a claim. Therefore, every year for decades, hospitals have been jacking up their prices in order to actually be able to stay in business (given that the large majority of costs are paid for by insurance companies, who are getting a huge discount). So 2 tylenol go from $3 to $10 to $100 to $500 over time, as the insurance companies negotiate bigger and bigger discounts. This is why the "cost of healthcare" is so high, even those it's not really the true cost. Unless you're not insured, in which case you have to pay the "actual" rate (ie $500 for 2 tylenol).
That's because the insurance companies can negotiate steep discounts from eye glass providers, given they have so many members and choose what eye glass providers they can buy from "in network". So the eye glass providers up their prices so that 25% discount from last year takes a smaller bite out of their profit margins. Rinse and repeat for 40 years and you'll get what has already happened to the health insurance market place: $800 for a pair of Advil "base price". Insurance companies get a huge discount. Non insured individuals are shit out of luck (though the providers normally waive a substantial percentage of cost for the neediest patients.)
I've met these "YIMBY" members personally, and only about 20% of them are actual home owners. The rest are renters. So first of all, it's not their backyard to say yes to. Secondly, these people are promoting the Hong Kong-ification of small cities such as Palo Alto and Mountain View. Yes to 20 story apartment complexes along the 101? Vote with YIMBY!
I love it. They're literally trying things that have never been done before. Look, at the end of the day, these drivers can just as easily 1) go to lyft, or 2) get a "real" job. And Uber can't afford for either to happen. This is pure capitalism, pure economics, pure financial calculations. We'll see how it works out, and they'll probably drop it at some point, but hell, let's give it a shot. If it's as "terrible" as everyone is bitching about, it won't hold up. What's your problem?
Could just as easily be restated: If you don't want to speak out against China then don't live in China. Increasingly these transnational corporations have become in some cases more powerful than states, recording our every movement online and offline, curating what news we read and pushing their agendas and biases.
Honestly it's people like you who equate Trump supports with terrible people (or who equate Hillary supporters with terrible people) that are the problem. It's a spectrum of belief. Yeah there are white supremisitcs who like Trump, just like there were black militants who supported Obama. That said, what I believe it comes down to is people don't like to be challenged in their core beliefs. When they are, it engenders the spirit of contention, and some people get so offended by this (because they're not use to it) they'd rather shut their ears and shut out the source. In San Francisco this is especially true as the city is one giant echo chamber of liberal progressiveness, which is where I live as well as most of my "friends" who couldn't handle my opinions (I had kept my mouth shut about my political beliefs for years, so they got to know me devoid of that). Shows you what kind of "friends" they are (were).
> "This strikes me as a splendidly healthy way to approach life online: let your online persona take the criticism, while you get on with living."
If only it were that simple. It wasn't my "online persona" that lost friends due to publicly showing support for Trump online during the election cycle, it was me. It was real and it hurt.
That's true. Opinion pieces manifest themselves in all sorts of ways on hackernews though, and it's only these high profile contentious debate pieces that get flagged, even in the face of overwhelming user engagement (see other comment). I argue that this topic merits special considering by the mods to remove the flag.
Yeah, and I think it also has to do with weight of the user (more points = higher weight). That's why I'm asking this question because we give an outsized weight to higher karma users who effectively have censor power (which is a good thing when used against spam). But I'm worried we're curating our own "echo chamber" here.
Hackernews doesn't allow you to "downvote" submissions, but users with higher "karma" can flag posts, effectively giving the most active (or popular) users censoring powering.
Sorry I meant "flagged and hidden". Just because it's flagged doesn't mean that people can't stop commenting on it. It just doesn't show up on the front page anymore.
Let's hope this doesn't get flagged and buried like the "Google CEO should be fired" link. This is clearly relevant to a large percentage of Hackernews readers and bears discussion. There irony of stories related to this getting flagged and hidden is rich.
Well of course that would be ridiculous! Beards are a decision with social and professional impact for some. Just curious to what others think when making that decision!
We value diversity of thought. As long as it's been pre-approved by the Thought Police in HR. sorry Google, you can't have it both ways. To those thinking about leaving, trust me, you'll never look back.
Look at the number of photos and angles this guy has of himself on the page. We've all seen before / after photos of people who've lost weight. I've never seen this many photos of one dude. It's super narcissistic.
Yeah it does, you just have to have USD "tokens" on the network (ie, an ico whose tokens are backed by dollars). Then you can exchange directly through the built in decentralized exchange.
Ever since Stellar threw away their legacy (Ripple) code base, I've actually paid attention to what they're up to. I believe they have the best tech for this ICO movement. FTA: "Stellar is an excellent choice for any ICO that does not require Turing-complete smart contracts and can benefit from immediate creation of a secondary market." -> IMO this is 95% of the Ethereum ICO use cases.
Unfortunately, the developer mind share isn't there, and the price of their coin makes it prohibitively hard to raise money. If you want to raise $100M ICO on Ethereum you need .3% of the market cap. With Stellar, you'd need 30%.