tuna-piano

When making policies on serious (and dangerous) topics for a large population, a single death is not a large risk. Even if this policy is wildy succesful, I'd still expect people with mental illness, police, and mental health processions to be occasionally killed in interactions (as they are today).

The point is these are difficult situations and the goal would be to decrease the rate of bad outcomes, likely not eliminate them.

Trying new ideas in low-risk ways is generally a good idea. Government is generally incentivized to keep the status-quo and not take many risks.

Your political position shouldn't affect your view of this effort, so long as it's novel, low risk and follows the data.

I think their key advantage is sales. Imagine a product that adds a small amount of value to a company but requires a long drawn out sales process including research on available vendors, pricing, security, use cases, determining requirements, etc vs a developer going to the AWS console and clicking "create databrew". It's no competition.

And with sales taking up such a huge percentage of a lot of these SAAS companies revenue, Amazon can pass the lack of sales to the customer as cost savings. Skip the sales process and the sales cost. win win.

Would you have said that before and after the first Lion Air 737 Max crash prior to the Ethopian crash?

Certainly a lot of people have spent a lot of time looking into a lot of the plane's systems. But are there more fundamental issues that can't or haven't been addressed?

Those same people spent a lot of time prior to certification looking into the plane...

737Max is certainly tainted now. But will that last forever? And do non-HN-aviation-geek consumers really care enough to check the model of the plane they'll be flying on, let alone make a flight decision based on the model?

Certainly another crash could be devastating to the model.

But was the 737Max a poorly designed death trap rushed to production or a super safe airplane with a single fatal flaw?

Time will tell...

"Polymun Scientific Immunbiologische Forschung GmbH is one of a handful of makers of lipid nanoparticles, microscopic vessels used to deliver genetic material into the body."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-one-leading-coronavirus-vacc...

Feel the same. Can't stop smiling. Never felt like a more accurate time to use the phrase "light at the end of the tunnel".

The US government is paying like $20 for each dose. I'd pay 100x that without batting an eye.

Thank you thank you thank you to everyone working on this vaccine and related Covid treatments.

Can't wait to get the needle in the arm!

For those wondering how their vaccines will be distributed among countries during the next year when supply is constrained... it seems complicated. Pfizer is a US company, but has at least one key ingredient from Austria, is made with technology from Germany, has manufacturing in US+Europe, etc.

Pfizer's CEO answered this question this morning on CNBC.

Pfizer has two separate manufacturing divisions- one in the US (Massachusetts, Missouri, Michigan) and one in Europe (Germany+Belgium).

They will be producing in parallel and he seemed to imply Europe manufactured->Europe distributed and US manufactured->US distributed initially (but didn't explicitly say this). But he then stated that it's important to share the vaccine across the world - "I hope that we will be able to ship to the entire world from these manufacturing sites without problems".

They have signed contracts with multiple governments in the world and in most cases have defined their monthly quantities distributed to those countries through 2021. I would guess these are public and am curious about the quantities and timelines for the various countries.

They are estimating to have 1.2 billion doses by the end of 2021 (enough for 600 million people, as each person needs two doses).

EDIT:

US: 100 million doses of this Pfizer vaccine (enough for 50 million people) by December 2020[1], but Pfizer now says they are only producting 50 million doses globally this year[2]

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/politics/pfizer-corona... [2]https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

Thanks for posting.

My takeaway thought: No matter how rich, how successful or how famous - most of us get the most satisfaction from the simple things in life. Never take even those simple things for granted, they will be the memories you may most cherish.

Downvoted because in 2016 there was a "social engineering hack" and Trump received 63 million votes. In 2020 I haven't seen much evidence of that and Donald Trump received at least 70 million votes. He's a popular guy among a very significant percentage of the population... like it or not.

Would we know if this mutated coronavirus is already spreading in the community (in Denmark+Europe+beyond)? Do we have that type of surveillance?

Does this mutated coronavirus from minks transfer human->human?

Any guesses yet on whether the vaccines in development would respond to this virus as well?

Does the rest of the world need to immediately cut travel to Europe? Would rather stop travel and wish we didn't than allow travel and wish we stopped it...

We literally just had a real life trial for how we deal with new pandemics in January... have we learned our lesson?

If Jeff Bezos has a $50 meal at a restaurant and tips $0, would you blame the restaurant for not having a mandatory tipping policy? Or would you blame Jeff Bezos for cheaping out and not following the community norm?

If Amazon employees started tipping 0% at restaurants in Seattle, they would be legally correct. But that would certainly impact the way restaurants needed to operate.

Sometimes communities get built up on a shared system that involves a certain amount of shame, embarrassment and feelings of communal good and following norms in order to continue.

Open source software seems to be that type of community. Sure, you can be a freerider and tip 0%, but at a certain point others in the community may glare at you with a "really?" face and of course restaurants will eventually just raise their prices.

Human information sharing has changed so much in such a short time. In the history of the US, the transitions from newspapers to radio took roughly the first ~150 years of the country. In just 30 years we've gone from TV->Social Media. Social media and the internet are just so different from anything we've had before.

1. Local newspapers (controlled by few)

2. Mail (1->1)

3. Radio (controlled by few)

4. Phone (1->1)

5. TV (controlled by few)

6. Internet (1->Millions)

7. WhatsApp/Texts (1->Few)

8. Social Media (1->Millions)

My first reaction to the social media companies is one of fear that a private type of "ministry of truth" is being setup. However, it would seem that in the vast majority of our history that is the same setup we've had. Of course newspapers, radio and broadcast TV all had small groups of people determining truth and what was worthy news. That gives me some comfort that maybe these problems aren't that dire or new.

My big fears are:

-Internet infrastructure companies blocking access to content they disagree with[1]. While yet that blocking has started with the most egregious content, will they continue to block less egregious content?

-The lack of trust in institutions and the differing priorities and truths pushed by different institutions. Why should the people trust any facts coming out of any of these major institutions when they appear so biased? Yesterday (when I looked) on the homepage of FoxNews.com Hunter Biden was referenced >20 times. Completely missing on CNN.com or MSNBC.com.

-How can these companies maintain a semblance of neutrality when their employee bases are so skewed and seem to have such a huge level of groupthink?

[1]https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/08/05/0323200/cloudflare-...

The problem with all review-centric companies is two fold:

1)Fake reviews are an actual hard problem to solve. Good reviews can really make or break your company so the incentive to game the systems is quite high.

Positive reviews for your own company, negative reviews for your competitor, or cunningly, clearly fake positive reviews for competitors to get them in trouble with the review site.

2)Incentives lead these review-centric companies to some bad outcomes (or at least the lack of trust by consumers). Interestingly, companies with better revenue models outside of the reviews may end up building the most trust among consumers.

I would think Google is very well positioned here. Both because they don't need to get the $$ from scammy tactics and because their user data can help them find fake reviews much more easily. Did user XXX use Google Maps to get directions to the location? Did user XXX get an emailed receipt from that company?

I recall reading something about how Amazon threatened to block them unless CamelCamelCamel stopped crawling other retailers as well... Surprise, CCC now only does Amazon.

Can't find any info on that so may be mistaken though.

The author is missing one big thing: The main point of life is not optimizing for optimal spending, its optimizing for enjoyment.

Of course the rational break-even level math for some of these purchases can be analyzed, including taking into account tail risks and hassle costs.

But I think the point the author is missing is that some things are affordable luxuries that people enjoy. For a long time I didn't have a car in the downtown part of a city I live in. Public transit+rideshare+zipcar was a totally fine substitute (like the author).

But owning a car is better/easier/more enjoyable/more freeing! We didn't do a fine-grained analysis on how much using zipcar+hertz would cost vs buying a car. The car isn't costing a significant percent of our income, we were annoyed with alternative and wanted it, so we bought it.

If you used a blender 2x a year and it cost $1 to rent vs $30 to buy, would you really consider going through the hassle of saving money to deal with renting a blender? I'm not suggesting a car is the same significance for all, but certainly it can be rational to own one even for people in the same position as the author.

Well for many reasons (good and bad) healthcare is more expensive in the US than any other country.

But why is healthcare bought individually more expensive than healthcare an employer buys for all their employees?

One is real and one is hidden.

The hidden price difference is that most employees think they pay $200 per month in health insurance, but actually their employer is paying $600 and chips in $400 so the employee only pays $200. And of course, $200 taken out of a paycheck before you receive it doesn't feel as bad as a monthly $200 charge to your credit card.

The other reason is adverse selection: When an entire employee base gets health insurance together, the people needing expensive care and the people not needing any care all average out together.

But in the individual market, less healthy people are insured but more sick people are. Healthy people forgo health insurance, so the average cost per person rises.

Depends on the state, but seems like if you're single, the individual plans in most states are around $3-500 per month with a ~$6k out of pocket max. This means annually:

-$4,800 in premiums -$11k maximum health costs

If you clicked to the comments and are debating reading more... here's a passage from the above link:

"So that leaves the option of Aviva settling with him. How much should he take in a settlement? Well, how much is his claim worth? Conservatively, I would ballpark it at an infinite amount of money."

Thoughts:

-I love reading Matt's stuff. The praise of his writing is totally deserving.

-In my daily life there's rarely a topic I come across that I'm unable to understand. In an otherwise boring day full of mundane work tasks, his column gives me intellectual challenges that I really appreciate.

-Matt's ability to understand and synthesize topics reflects incredibly highly on his intellect. I don't know anyone on Wall Street... is his level of intellect common among investment bankers and such there?

-He was valedictorian at Harvard and became a public high school teacher after!?

-Apparently MoneyStuff has 150,000 subscribers, the total income+power of which is gigantic (multiple billionaire readers along with presumably many thousands of high 6-7 figure readers). But yet they don't seem to do much at all of monetizing it (there's an easily bypassed Bloomberg paywall and a tiny ad in the text of the email newsletter).

-I would really love a weekly Matt Levine podcast. But sadly I don't think we'll ever get that.

Mind sharing (or linking to) the story of why he wrote ahout you?

Similarly- Is there a way to get a list of all his longform pieces (not the daily newsletters)?

No one would support it if it were against Jews instead of Asians. And in fact, Yale used to have this policy against Jews! Absolutely disgusting.

In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in." He notes that Dean Milton Winternitz's instructions were remarkably precise: "Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all."[1]

It's quite bizarre how we realized that quota system was unethical so dismantled it. But later re-established the same system but think totally fine because we changed the numbers?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/04/nyregion/yale-s-limit-on-...

Shocked me when I first heard of it! Liberals and racists agree on a fair number of policies regarding race these days.

Relevant (satirical) video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg

Funny, I don't see anyone complaining that Fruit Gushers hasn't taken a stand on child pornography?

I will disagree somewhat with the people who say that companies never have a place for political stuff. If you are any company involved in South Africa during apartheid you should choose a side on apartheid and voice that position.

If BLM means just the simple definition of what the words imply (that black lives matter), there's no point in saying it. Because there's literally no one on the other side. I suspect that's not what it means, because saying a broader statement "All Lives Matter" seems to be considered a kind of slur.

So "Black Lives Matter" means something deeper. More like "Black people are killed indiscriminately by police in this country. The cops get away with it, and it's a huge problem." That is full of assumptions and political beliefs that reasonable people can disagree about. And I don't see why every company should take a side on that issue.

Something tells me the real money comes from future consulting contracts and that this PR will more than pay for itself. Just like how everyone on HN agrees writing a book isn't a great use of time besides what it allows you to put on your resume.

Just because Apple got an amazing bargain doesn't mean the payout for them won't be great as well.

I'm not sure. But if you're looking more than just a general idea of the change, I am not the person to ask.

I see a lot asking for the specific salary numbers but no answers. I believe (could be wrong) that the required wage increase for old->proposed new H1B requirements changes would be close to the below examples:

1)Software Developer in Chicago - Old $71k->New $105k

2)Software Developer in San Francisco - Old $96k->New $145k

My Opinion:

1. Free trade is generally good. That includes things, people and ideas. But the effects of immigration policies are very uneven throughout society.

Imagine if the US had 200 qualified TV meteorologists. If the US opens its borders to unlimited TV meteorologists from the developing country of Meteoroligistan, what would the effects be? It's pretty clear that the news networks would be able to hire cheaper meteorologists. Because the meteorologists are cheaper, the news networks would also hire more of them. TV viewers would then get better, more frequent weather forecasts. The networks and the consumers win! But conventional wisdom says that the original 200 qualified meteorologists here lose.

But I kind of think conventional wisdom may be wrong. I'm not sure there aren't significant second order effects. With so many meteorologists, maybe the US becomes the world's capital of TV weather people. Maybe because of that, new weather companies are formed and new opportunities arise for those original 200. This really seems to be what has happened in the technology industry.

2.

It seems completely dumb bring in some of the most talented students from abroad, train them at our universities and then send them home. H1B is primarily how these students stay in the country. Without H1B most of these bright students will go elsewhere after graduation.

3.

And for the humanity of the H1B program. I'm mixed...

The worst parts about being in the H1B program: uncertainty, stamping process, delays, the constant fear of losing a job and being kicked out within weeks - serve no benefit at all for any side.

But to my most controversial thought which I have no data to support. I see many H1B workers who feel entitled to so much from the US without feeling any sense of gratefulness back to the US. Unlike many of our Grandparents who immigrated here and who seemed to feel grateful for their new country - I get the feeling many H1B workers+current immigrants are here just because it's a good place to make some cash. They don't take the time to appreciate what this country is and what it has given them. Maybe that's fair given that the H1B program also seems to view them as temporary labor.

To the H1B holders who have been here for years, had children here, bought a house and just yearn to be part of the American dream - I'm sorry our country hasn't given you the stability that you desired when you arrived.

[1] https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=1698...

[2] https://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=4186...