polygotdomain

It's like you're so close, but you somehow can't connect all the dots.

"Allowing employers to control health care is not a good idea."

> Not that I disagree

If you agree that employers controlling health care is bad, what are the alternatives? Either universal coverage, or everyone has to foot the bill for their own health insurance plan. The former has a track record in every developed country in the world, the latter doesn't work at all.

>but I'd like to point out that you're effectively advocating for all other employers to "cut" healthcare as well.

No, universal coverage means that no one's healthcare gets cut. The fact that I even have to state this is strong indication that you're not arguing in good faith.

>The primary concern, instead, should be how much this shit costs, as well as the fact that the costs are _still_ rising.

I don't think that can be the concern without A) understanding why costs are rising AND B) why costs are rising faster here in the US than they are in other developed countries around the world who all have universal coverage for less than what we pay (big hint, it's the profit motive)

>And this concern can't be addressed until we force hospitals to publish prices, allow people to buy healthcare across state lines, and force US Big Pharma to treat the United States more favorably than they treat, say, Europe.

I wonder why Europe is treated more "favorably"? Maybe we just haven't showered "Big Pharma" with enough profits for them to like us? You know what might help with the whole "buying across state lines" thing, some sort of nationwide standard for insurance coverage so you wouldn't worry about the next state over having a completely different set of laws by which insurers have to abide by. And if there's one national standard for insurance coverage, what's the benefit of having one insurer over the other? And why don't you think hospitals publish their prices? Because it's not about what procedures or anything costs, it's about what insurers will pay. So between all the insurers, some won't pay this and others won't pay that, so we'll just charge astronomical prices and let the negotiators sort it all out.

> and the high cost of doctors and nurses ($300 for a 10 minute consultation? GTFO, not even lawyers charge this much),

Doctors charge that much because they have no idea what your insurance will pay. Doctors typically like to focus on practicing medicine and making their patients healthier, rather than navigate crazy insurance mazes. So doctors (like many in the chain) realized they could sit down and figure out exactly what they should charge, bill the insurance company, then fight to get paid OR make up some crazy price, know that the insurance companies are only going to pay anywhere from 40-75%, then just accept it and move on. Don't blame the doctors here when insurance is the issue.

> Note that given the high levels of corruption in our government

A lack of faith in our government is a completely separate issue from health care. Connected, but separate. We COULD have a government that actually was held accountable and did right by the population it's meant to serve. Instead we have corruption, lies, regulatory capture, and mismanagement. We COULD try actually making government better and correcting it's flaws (as our founders intended), but instead many use examples of it not working as evidence that we shouldn't try to improve it.

I would advise people to get vaccinated, as that's the best protection against all strains of COVID and the best chance for the pandemic to be brought to an end.

I'm not sure why you seem so insistent that I should be fearing the Delta variant, but if you're convinced that you should, then by all means.

There are plenty of other factors in determining concern including one's individual risk factors. But there's also a difference between concern and fear. Unfortunately I've seen people who are vaccinated express fear and reluctance to participate in normal activities with other vaccinated individuals due to the Delta variant. If we're looking for zero risk from Covid, we won't be finding it for years.

To level set, my comments were mainly targeted at the US coverage of the Delta variant where the vaccination rates are largely due to choice rather than accessibility.

>The difference between 95% protective and 88% is more significant than you think if you live in a low vaccinated area.

..but if I live in a low vaccinated area, the only thing that will help me after getting vaccinated is other people getting vaccinated. Also, the 88% effective rate of the mRNA vaccines against the delta variant is still significantly higher than the non-mRNA vaccines like Astrazeneca against the primary strain. Is 95% better than 88%, sure, but as far as vaccines go 88% is still very effective. The FDA was originally targeting 50-65% effectiveness in their initial approval guidelines.

>It’s the spread we need to concern ourselves with, not just personal protection.

Those two concepts are interlinked. If people are not concerned with personal protection, then it's highly unlikely that they will be concerned about the spread. The best thing to minimize the spread and protect yourself is to get the vaccine. It's that straightforward.

>The more exposure to the virus you have the more likely it is you will get infected

This is the same for everything, not just Covid. As I mentioned, the numbers in the US are very low, so my chance of exposure is already low. In a nation of 330 million people the total number of cases over the last week can fit in a football stadium. In regards to the exposure risk in the US it's fairly minimal.

I recognize that the Delta variant is serious topic for much of the world, but as a vaccinated person in the US it feels more like media hysteria than anything else.

As the article states, for vaccinated people, the risk is low and the Delta variant is likely of little concern, especially when cases are as low as they've been since the start of the pandemic here in the US. However, it seems that the media is pushing the Delta variant as a narrative to help get people vaccinated but it's all falling on deaf ears of those who are specifically choosing not to get vaccinated. The stronger media coverage winds up making those who are vaccinated overly concerned about it, when they as protected as they will be from the variant.

For the unvaccinated countries and people, the Delta variant is definitely something to be concerned about. What we should be doing is trying to get vaccines rolled out to as many countries and people as possible, as that's our best tool for getting things under control.

> Inflation has been escalating due to several factors, including supply-chain bottlenecks, extraordinarily high demand as the Covid-19 pandemic eases and year-over-year comparisons to a time when the economy was struggling to reopen in the early months of the crisis.

While this isn't surprising, it does feel that this is largely due to supply chains still dragging behind and those with jobs having more discretionary income due to not spending on other things. It also wouldn't surprise me if businesses are taking liberty with bumping prices to claw back a bit of what was lost last year, and to put pressure on demand as they struggle bringing workers back into retail focused positions.

I think if we're still seeing these y-o-y figures by the end of the year, then we've got something far more serious on our hands.

I think the article is overthinking it a little bit, and I think it comes down to accessibility, enthusiasm, and to a certain degree a rapid pace in terms of content.

There's no doubt that YouTube has made a number of these topics far more accessible. The inclusion of videos along side typical text searches means that it's just as easy to click on an article as it is one of those videos. There's also typically a multitude of options that each might cover the same topic from certain angles and varying degrees of overlap.

These videos are typically uploaded by creators who are passionate and incredibly enthusiastic to share a key aspect of their lives. Many of the popular educational channels have a passionate creator behind them, rather than a flatter more lecture based approach like you might get in typical coursework (which is also on YouTube, but isn't nearly as widely consumed).

Lastly, I can find a 5, 10, or 20 minute video that's focused on a specific subject or topic on YouTube as opposed to going through 60 or 90 minutes of coursework/lectures that are predefined. I can jump from video to video, carving out my own path to learn what I want, rather than sit through a lecture that may not be discussing something particularly of interest.

The Tacit knowledge that's referenced in the article is certainly there in many of the videos on YouTube, but is not the main driver behind this "revolution". It's the ability for anyone in the world to dive nearly as deep as they want, lead by content creators that are genuine passionate about the subjects they cover.

This. I think there are so many changes that I'd like to make, but a lot of them stem from switching from everything being public and out there to being private and with restricted access. I would only hope that assuming things would be untrusted from the beginning would lead to a more securely designed web from day one. I'm sure that's wishful thinking, but still.

Thanks for the tips. I'm actually resin printing, rather than doing FDM, but there's still leveling the build plate. I actually had some good prints over the weekend, so I think I'm past the first few bumps in the road

My overall point was how the roll of a mechanic is not really the right comparison to a software engineer.

There's always been factory repair manuals, and while repairs used to be something that were more common across brands and something more accessible to the weekend wrench turner, that doesn't change that the manufacturer had explicit guidance that was there to follow.

The "specialization" aspect of things from a mechanical standpoint is a by product of additional complexity and advanced proprietary systems. Consumers (and regulators) ask far more of a modern car than what could be delivered with simpler, purely mechanical systems. Whether it's safety, emissions, reliability, or just features, as those evolve and progress, repairs and maintenance get more complicated and involved.

>> We're building systems

> Someone has to maintain them

Software maintenance and vehicle maintenance is fundamentally different. Vehicles have wear items that need replacing (brakes, hoses, tires, etc), consumables that need to be changed (oil, lubricants, belts, coolant), and parts that are subject to mechanical wear. Systems don't have any of those things.

The closest analogs I can think of would be upgrading a dependency or maybe bug fixes. While some bug fixes might be small changes to fix typos or incorrect logic, some bug fixes may be significant enough to necessitate redesign of subsections of the software. You wouldn't expect your mechanic to redesign your car's brake system because you found it wasn't stopping as quickly as you'd like it.

After nearly 13 years out of it, I picked up a 3D printer. I did a fair amount of printing and modeling in my last years of college, but since transitioning into programming not long after graduation it's been something that I hadn't had the time for, or the avenue to apply it.

So far I've had more failed prints than successes over the last week or two, but I'm still excited to be doing it. I'm learning the ins and outs, which were different from the last printers I worked with. The wheels are churning as to what I can make, and I'm very excited to continue exploring and "resharpening" the skills that I once had.

...but software engineers are not "repairing" things, we're building systems. Mechanics repair things in a similar way because there's literally repair manuals from the manufacturer that tell them how to repair your vehicle because _the manufacturer_ has thought of how to repair things.

You'd be surprised how much variation there is in the solution when it comes to autofabrication, and yes there's similar amounts of "figuring it out" that there is in the software world.

Quite frankly the automechanics <-> software engineer analogy is apples to oranges.

I would recommend doing your best to try and figure out a way to not leave your job completely, yet still give yourself the time you need to build something without completely relying on doing it on the side. Can you cut your time back to 4 days a week, and work on your start up on the 5th day? Can you take a sabbatical for a month or two so that you can dive deep on building something without having to completely leave your job?

I would assume that if you're that successful that your company would be willing to give you some flexibility as opposed to you just outright leaving, and that you have the financial means to do so. Rather than having this be an all or nothing thing, figure out a way to leverage some flexibility to build while maintaining some connection to your current job/position/company.

It is. I typed too fast and can't edit now

I find this interesting, as it actually emphasizes baseball's role as a _passtime_. One of the key aspects in sabermetrics is that activities that carry the risk of an out are disincentivized because baseball is not time-limited, but out-limited. Therefore all the activities that are interesting, but carry that extra risk like stealing, are taken out of the game.

Basketball is time-limited, and therefore the strategy of maximizing the number of shots within that time period as well as maximizing their value, make sense.

I'll note that I don't necessarily think one is better than the other, as each game can have a different approach. I also think that maximizing purely for excitement (from a rules perspective), can lead to gimmicks rather than genuine improvements to the sport.

FWIW, your returns are likely significantly above the 5% mark you're referencing. You haven't factored in the unrealized gain of 500k, which would significantly change your returns. All in all, you've got a cash flow positive real estate asset who's valuation has doubled. Unless you purchased 15 years ago, you're likely looking at returns in the mid twenties.

My advice; learn how to actually put together a DCF model and get some real insight into your returns.

EDIT: I realized that my last statement might come off a bit condescending, but that wasn't my intention. Fundamentally, evaluating Real Estate returns is significantly more complex than other investments, such as holding stocks, ETFs, or Bonds. A Distributed Cash Flow (DCF) model will help you gain some understanding that will likely help you to make better decisions about your existing investment and make a more educated plan for the future (e.g. upcoming maintenance, when to exit at what price). You don't have to build a complex model, but even a simple one can help. There's plenty of resources out there, and you don't need much more than Excel to build one.

Source: formerly employed at a national REIT

Society is not maintenance free, and the institutions and services society depends on are not maintenance free either. The Postal Service, like many services that we depend on in society, are just assumed to always work because for years and years they did work. Yet we allowed improvements to be delayed, allowed leaders in who acted in bad faith, and the result is an service that is substandard by it's own measure.

What's the answer? Commit to do the work necessary to turn it around. The mail hasn't changed over the last two years in some fundamental way that makes it disruptive. Investment in the system was simply deprioritized. We know what the system needs, so let's just do the work. We need the Postal Service to operate as it should, as it's a key piece of infrastructure that society depends on, whether we recognize it or not.

WeWork's "delusion", in my view, was the amount of value they perceived themselves to add to the equation. On the consumer facing side, they were billing their space as some mass facilitator, incubator, and inspiration for startups, freelancers, and what-not. On the business side, it was that WeWork would be beneficial to landlords, as they'd snatch up large swaths of space, drive businesses desire to "colocate", and offer flexibility to tenants that didn't have things in place to deal with the expanding real estate needs of their business.

Fundamentally though, WeWork was a middle man, and one that shifted as much liability towards the landlords as possible. While you can debate how much value they added, I don't think it's a stretch to say that their valuation far exceeded the actual value they brought to the table. Fundamentally though, space is far more of a commodity than WeWork would have you believe, and in an economy situation where people aren't co-working or that there's a lot of unleased space on the market, WeWork's proposition is certainly depleted.

Combine the inflated view of their value with feel-good marketing about changing the world, unrealistic valuations and shadiness from the founders and ownership, and you get a company that went far beyond where they should have and duped a number of investors along the way.

Red Bull operates under a fundamentally different principle than other brands. Other brands look for something to sponsor that aligns with their brand ideals or image. Red Bull creates the sponsorship opportunities for their brand. In doing so, Red Bull creates a) a much deeper connection with the activities and athletes they sponsor, and b) creates a brand that feels far more genuine than simply slapping their name on something.

The result is not something that's "brought to you by" or "in partnership with". The sponsorships, the teams, the athletes; they _are_ Red Bull. That sort of identity has an incredible connection, and one that can drive it's own revenue in addition to driving fizzy drink sales.

Having married into a Greek family, I can certainly attest to this, but I'll shed a bit more light to the sentiment behind that statement. To the Greeks, the Greek church is part of their cultural identity, rather than a purely religious entity. There is a community that stems from the church, traditions that are intertwined in it, and just a general presence in their daily lives in a way that I don't think I've really observed in the US. Oddly enough, it doesn't really outwardly express itself as dogma or doctrine, in the way that I've noticed with a lot of Evangelicals or Catholics in the states. The church is more of an ever present fixture in Greek life than a strong belief in Orthodox teachings.

I don't disagree that Blown Away doesn't go into the techniques or that doing so wouldn't have made it a stronger show, but I still would recommend it if someone is interested in blowing glass.

My wife and I got into the show about a month ago, breezed through both seasons, and really enjoyed it. While I'd love to know more about the techniques (and my wife and I have talked about taking classes once things get back to normal), I literally have practically zero reference for how to blow glass, so to get into any techniques the show would really have to get into a Glass 101 type explanations, which I think would have dragged the format that they chose (30min slot, 22m of content) down a bit too much.

The other side is that while the technique is certainly interesting, it very much was an artistic show, not a technique show. There were some pieces that were better artistically that were "judged" to be better than more technically proficient pieces. That's just a choice the show decided to make.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

While I've never heard it expressed that as "food grammar", there's definitely a context that tends to get lost with cuisines from another culture. Interestingly enough, that context tends to get "filled in" with their local vernacular.

When done well, it can result in some really interesting fusion cuisine and dining experiences. That's not always the case though, and I'm reminded of an experience I had in Rome ordering a cheese burger in a quasi-Irish pub, and getting a dry puck of ground beef with a cold thick slice of fresh mozzarella on top. Not really what I was hoping for.

This 1000%, I sold in March right at the beginning of the pandemic in an incredibly competitive market. The final buyer was determined by the specifics of their offer, not just their final price. FHA with 3.5% down just adds additional risk for closing that 20% conventional doesn't. That risk is minimal, but it's a risk the buyer doesn't have to take.

I'll also add that in competitive markets you also get into a situation where it's a bidding war and you're pushing what the property might appraise for. If you're doing 3.5% down, even though you might be approved up to X, the bank may not be willing to stretch the appraisal for the property. With 10% or 20% down, that's less of a concern.

Also FWIW, for new cars, how you pay does matter. The dealer makes money on the financing, so they will give you a different cash price vs if you go with their financing. The reason being is that they want to sell you a "zero percent" loan that effectively bakes in the interest up front, so their financing will look better, but the final price will be higher.

You're completely right, but I'm not really suggesting it; they are being "double counted".

That being said, an individual's share of the "public interest" is incredibly miniscule, and there's relatively few owners, so it's not like it's equal on both sides. In fact, that's ultimately the problem; that we constantly bend due to "corporate interests" that are subject to the whims of an incredibly small fraction of society that is, in general, massively disconnected from the norms of society.

Add on to that, generally having a large amount of money and privilege means that most of the things that are in the "public interest" aren't really of significant concern to you because you can simply buy your way into a completely different system (see public vs private education)

As software engineer with two architecture degrees, oddly enough, I can't really give a basic path for fundamentals. The reasons why boil down to architecture being something that is both functional and aesthetic, purposeful and monumental, with a wide range of directions, trends, movements, and motivations. Then there's the act of actual building which is an endeavor in and of itself.

My advice would be to start with a piece or several pieces of architecture and research the architect behind them. Explore more of their work along with other architects of a similar style or within the same movement (i.e. Le Corbosier and Mies Van der Rohe). Look at earlier buildings in their careers and compare them to later work and try to see what changed and why. Architecture doesn't happen in a vacuum and typically has rather reactionary elements to it, so what are those. Repeat this process with different architects or movements, and invariably you'll find a lot to explore.

Lastly, Architecture is experiential, and it's tough to simply look at drawings and understand space. Two of my favorite buildings are thousands of miles and thousands of years apart; the Pantheon in Rome, and the Seattle Public Library by Rem Koolhaas. The reason why I love both buildings is that there is nothing that comes close to being in those spaces. Regardless of the the design, methodology, aesthetic, or history of either building, the space evokes something.

That's a meandering non-answer, but that's my take on it.

I think it's important to be clear, the "rights" of corporations are the rights of their owners/shareholders. It's jaded, but it's best to assume that a "corporation's best interest" equates to what makes them the most money; nothing more, nothing less. And of course, it's to make more money for ownership that already has money.

I don't think that the point of corporate vs public best interest is "unconditional", but we skew way too far to the corporate side than is good for our society

Quite frankly, you've missed the mark on a number of points. First is that dirty money is effectively worthless until it's cleaned, and launderers recognize that it will take some percentage to clean the money. In other words, they're willing to take a loss on an asset, as that's their fee for getting clean cash.

> The only reason money launderers can have an outsized effect on the real estate market is because they generate more demand. Period. But that demand is no different from legitimate buyers. Demand is demand. That's the entire story.

You're not seeing the full story, and it's a point that's touched on in the article. These transactions don't happen in a vacuum, and the market doesn't know that the buyer was legit or a launderer. The transaction sets a comp, which then gets used by everyone to set their prices. Enough transactions from launderers, and you can effectively reset what the market value for a property is. There's also impact on supply as many who are deciding on when might be a good time to sell now see the market 10% higher than expected. Suddenly you can get an increase in supply, higher market values, and transactions that make it more favorable for launderers.

>A launderer will always prefer to buy 2 properties at a market value of $1 million each, over buying one of those at an inflated $2 million. Always. The laws of supply and demand don't disappear just because you're laundering money.

A launderer prefers transactions that are least likely to generate attention from the authorities. Depending on the legal legwork, the "suspiciousness" of a given transaction, and other factors it's tough to say what they'd prefer.

A vote on formation of a union does not mean employees are forced to join it. A union also doesn't mean anything if there isn't an agreement with the employer. A union also doesn't mean anything if it's members are not going to withhold their services if they don't come to an agreement that is deemed acceptable by it's members.

Unions are also about leveraging power. While someone can try to start a union with any number of people, how much they can actually negotiate is going to hinge a lot on that number. Is 55% of the workforce enough to have significant leverage? I don't know and it depends on what the union wants. Would the union be able to reach an agreement with the employer that would force the others to join the union? That would seem like quite a stretch to me.

>The US left pushes hard against right to work

Because right to work is a union-busting tactic

>meaning everyone will be forced to join workplace unions when/if they are formed

This is wrong in a number of ways. First off, the formation of a union does not require that all employees instantaneously join it. Second, the union still needs to have an agreement with an employer. So if your workplace doesn't unionize, it doesn't matter if the one on the other side of town does. It doesn't magically just flip an "isUnion" bit and completely change everyone's employment situation in one fell swoop.

>if your colleagues organizes a union there you will be forced to join

If you workplace unionizes, then you _may_ be forced to join. There is no guarantee that a union would force joining to keep your job, although historically that has been the case. Much of that was due to a lot of the improvements that unions were negotiating for being very hard to "split" between union an non-union members (i.e. safer machines in a factory were a benefit to everyone, not just union members). In a tech union, who's to say that has to be that way. If unions negotiated for things like always having the latest hardware for members, it would be easier for non-union members at the same shop to be given whatever hardware your employer decided. Basically, a tech union may not be bound to the same constraints as traditional unions might have been.

>likely a lot of its members don't actually want to be a part of the union.

But if it's members don't want to be part of the union, then why is there a union. Part of that statement doesn't jive with the other.