primitivesuave

The only reason the company exists today is because of the crimes of the Quandt family.

In this particular case, it's worth the reminder that BMW's founder (Günther Quandt) was a strong financial supporter of the Nazi party, and his children (Herbert and Harald Quandt) enslaved tens of thousands of people in BMW factories before the collapse of Nazi Germany. I'm not trying to tell anyone to boycott BMW or Mercedes - just trying to add some historical context for those who instantly react to Tesla news with "Elon is bad".

Meanwhile the actions of BMW's founder (Herbert Quandt) have been largely forgotten.

Honestly, this was the first thought I had when I read the article. I worked in this space for several years and interacted with many doctors - just like in any other professional industry, some people have stellar reputations that precede them, while a few are infamous for their malpractice and unethical behavior. The perverse incentive arises when a hospital has a publicized malpractice lawsuit or criminal investigation - everyone who works at that for-profit medical institution has an incentive to protect its reputation (i.e. its profitability). This has allowed "angel of death" doctors/nurses to kill hundreds of people over the years, since there isn't much incentive to dig too deeply into "excess mortality" statistics (a famous example being Harold Shipman who could have easily been detected 2 years and over 100 victims earlier).

Covering up a case of medical malpractice by surreptitiously filling out discharge paperwork is certainly possible. A surprisingly large component of healthcare processes is to blindly trust that doctors are manually entering information truthfully and accurately. The fact that they couldn't locate her body for an entire year strongly suggests a criminal conspiracy to hide the body.

You're conflating information privacy guidelines (i.e. HIPAA) with next-of-kin reporting which is usually specified by state law. If you check out the probate process which distributes an estate after death, it can vary considerably from state to state and has a lot more judicial involvement. HIPAA is not an enforced statute or law, it's a set of civil rights guidelines which allow hefty fines to be levied by OCR (Office of Civil Rights) when a violation is reported and investigated.

HIPAA does specifically allow for the sharing of PHI with family and friends of a with substantial leeway given to medical professionals to document their reasoning for sharing information if it is "in the patient's best interest". In the hypothetical scenario where concerned family/friends are inquiring about a discharge, it would be perfectly acceptable to share certain details of the discharge if the healthcare provider is willing to document and possibly defend their decision.

In this case, not reporting to next of kin was certainly not in the patient's best interest and a prima facie case of misconduct. As someone who sat at the intersection of health and law for several years, I can't see any possible legal justification or loophole for the hospital to avoid a hefty settlement. As some of the other comments on this thread suggest, this shocking oversight may not be an isolated case, so a hefty monetary penalty is the only realistic way to force the other for-profit health systems of America to implement better processes for this.

My personal preference in TTC translation is by Gia Fu Feng and Jane English.

Just to add to this excellent explanation - the specific Buddhist text being referenced here is the Vipassana Bhumi Patho from the Abhidhamma.

Amazing this was downvoted. The comment starts with "in my experience" and is hardly a controversial perspective. I beg the HN community, stop disincentivizing people from respectively providing a converse opinion, lest this become yet another echo chamber of groupthink.

Fear will always lead to an erosion of personal rights. Fear of child predators will lead to erosion of privacy rights, and fear of terrorists has deprived all Americans of the right to protection against unreasonable search/seizure. Welcome to modernity.

As is true with algorithms. To piggyback on your other comment about testing, it's entirely possible (and widely experienced in the software world) to come up with something that seems correct but does not withstand real-world behavior. The premise that the "right answer" is somehow racist or exclusionary is a ridiculous statement to any engineer.

One tangible example of what this looks in practice is the widespread push in California for "equitable math": https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...

FSD is not ready. I'm a Model Y owner, tend to lean pro-Elon, and will gladly tell you that it's a fantastic car - but the self-driving is still not ready. My free month of autopilot made me trust it less. It's quite good at highway driving, but the phantom braking and haphazard lane changing has eroded my trust to the point that I am manually driving the car 100% of the time.

I prefer the previous pseudo-FSD which simply stayed in the current lane, and relied on human input for anything more than that. This whole FSD update has been a sobering realization that I really only want the safety features.

I implemented an expectiminimax player without the neutral state optimization that you described 2 days ago: https://keshav.is/coding/pt3

It seems like even a naive search of the game tree in the browser produces a fairly strong computer opponent to a human player. It would be interesting to see if this optimization produces a better computer player to standard expectiminimax as I implemented here: https://github.com/keshavsaharia/pt3/blob/master/src/minimax...

I made some updates to speed up the UI, and improved the computer player, as I was interested in finding the optimal strategy: https://keshav.is/coding/pt3

I implemented expectiminimax in the browser which allows for a fairly strong AI player: https://keshav.is/coding/pt3/

I found that once you naively search the game tree beyond a depth of 8, it more or less converges on a particular choice. The presence of a neutral outcome (i.e. neither player claims the selected square) means the tree depth is technically infinite, but feasible to search thoroughly once the first few moves have been played.

I created an open-source web version of this game with a better computer player, which uses expectiminimax to pick the optimal move - https://keshav.is/coding/pt3/

Link to HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40653736

I was inspired by yesterday's post from Cameron Sun (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40635397) to put a couple hours into expanding this game concept. I wanted a better computer opponent, so I implemented one with expectiminimax (i.e. game theory, not really "AI") to pick optimal moves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectiminimax). I also created a more basic web-based implementation with some minor UI updates to the original.

This was mainly for proof of concept of expectiminimax as a viable computer strategy for playing this game, so it's not mobile friendly and might have bugs. Code is open-source for anyone interested: https://github.com/keshavsaharia/pt3

I spotted the error instantly. With all due respect to your team - this has nothing to do with ChatGPT and everything to do with using a programming model that your team does not have sufficient expertise in. Even if this error managed to slip by code review, it would have been caught with virtually any monitoring solution, many of which take less than 5 minutes to set up.

Honestly, to me, the 85% statistic is meaningless because the survey is simply asking if you believe "plastic = bad" - a pretty common sentiment, especially in a third world country like India where plastic pollution is visible everywhere. I'd be more interested to see a survey that asks "would you be willing to pay 5% more at the grocery store for plastic-free packaging?"

In less prosperous countries, the majority of consumers are more interested in saving money than saving the environment.

When I was in New Zealand, they had a single standard reusable metal cup for all their coffee shops. That is, you can pay to refill the cup, and if the cup is dirty, any coffee shop will exchange it with a clean one for free. Consumers pay a small deposit for the cup, and can get the deposit back by returning it.

Unfortunately, common-sense solutions like this one require tremendous political coordination to even get started. In most countries, environmentalism is far less creative - levy new taxes to change consumer behavior (e.g. single-use bags), or ban something entirely without consideration toward the alternatives (e.g. paper vs plastic straws).

I would add that this statement might equally apply to government - that is, if you disagree with the policies of a local government (property tax too high, school district underperforming, etc), move somewhere else. If you disagree with your state, move to another one. And if you disagree with national policies, immigrate to a country whose policies you agree with. But therein lies the pitfall of freedom of association - if you disagree with your HOA, or your local/state/federal government, you may not have the financial or legal means to change your situation.

I see a dichotomy of "associations with oversight" and the converse (associations with no oversight). If your HOA forces you to build a fence, there is no appeal process similar to if a government entity charges you with a crime (e.g. appeal to a state/federal circuit court and ultimately to a supreme court). Within each is an enforcement mechanism that may or may not work. In your dinner party example, which is an association with no oversight, a naked table dancer may simply crash the subsequent gatherings. In all levels of government, there are those who continue to hold their position regardless of the misdeeds and accusations levied against them.

Perhaps that is the essential trade-off of freedom, to be free to associate with any group of people despite the possibility of being victimized by them (now or in the future).

I had the same problem. After years of long work hours and debilitating stress as the CTO of a health tech company, I abruptly quit my job and traveled/decompressed for a year - it didn’t solve the problem. I was even more distracted and felt like I had lost my edge.

Through a serendipitous situation, I discovered Vipassana meditation. The 10 days of silence - no phone, no eye contact, no books/distractions - along with the surprisingly simple technique, yielded incredible results for me. Some of the other people meditating with me for 10 days were also tech executives. The tremendous power of mindfulness is something for each individual to experience for themselves.

The 10 day course is free, entirely funded by past students. (Dhamma.org)

I personally recommend staying away from ADHD medications if you don’t have severe attention deficit issues (e.g. inability to have even short conversations).

Beautifully stated. I can only speculate, but I'd say the reason it is this way is due to the collective apathy/cynicism toward government. We have collectively come to expect a certain level of corruption and influence peddling. We have a high tolerance for incompetence in carrying out government operations. Only the most egregious offenders are brought to the public's attention, and in an age of increasingly short attention spans, people have forgotten by the time elections roll around.

That is, if they vote in the first place - in that example I gave above of a corrupt mayor stealing millions (Tiffany Henyard of Dolton, IL), the voter turnout was only 15%.

The area where I see this making the most transformational change is by enabling average citizens to ask meaningful questions about the finances of their local government. In Cook County, Illinois, there are hundreds of local municipalities and elected authorities, all of which are producing monthly financial statements. There is not enough citizen oversight and rarely any media attention except in the most egregious cases (e.g. the recent drama in Dolton, IL, where the mayor is stealing millions in plain view of the citizens).

This is simply a move by the seller, who is also the buyer, to reassess the property tax at the lower base price. Don't try this with your home or the IRS will come after you.

I went back to the Twitter thread to understand your perspective better - agree that the title could be worded differently. I think the immense amount of contention on that thread was from you making a statement on what should be the responsibility of such reviewers - i.e. that they have some responsibility to protect entrepreneurship.

As much as we'd like to believe, most entrepreneurship is not in the form of AI pins and apps and gadgets, it's people starting small businesses and handling some existing facet of commerce. If MKBHD started making videos titled "The worst mom and pop store I've ever reviewed" then there might be a more compelling debate about ethical behavior by reviewers. In this case, it is a heavily funded product experiment by wealthy venture capitalists, so people are a lot less sympathetic when they hear "give them a chance, v2 will be better".

Also, this is by no means a new phenomenon - here's a TechCrunch review of the iPhone from 2007 titled "We Predict the iPhone Will Bomb": https://techcrunch.com/2007/06/07/the-futurist-we-predict-th...

Related: Sid Meier used a modern rendition of the First Delphic Hymns to Apollo (the earliest known instance of recorded sheet music) as the background music in Civilization 3.

https://youtu.be/0iwPolnMXEc?si=ZlVPcClhT_aOK4tu&t=55

This is a very strange use of "ergodicity", which would be more suitable for an essay titled "How every possible startup idea will be tried at least once". Using a probabilistic term to describe deterministic activity (i.e. choosing where to dig, checking the soil, giving up if no treasure is found) indicates to me that the author is reaching for some high-minded mathematical justification for his perspective.

The native ad for a $375 course further erodes credibility, and his recent statement that Youtube product reviewers like MKBHD should feel compelled to protect the fortunes of a VC funded company appears quite hypocritical [1].

1. https://twitter.com/dvassallo/status/1779928354118111278

Thank you! :)