HN user

abnry

3,340 karma
Posts3
Comments687
View on HN

I don't think serious reader is a cringe term. Reading is a skill like any other and we use terms like "serious golfer" or "serious painter". The flip side of serious is causal. It's okay to structure your life so that reading is a big part of it.

The guiding analogy of the piece is that of planting a tree and waiting for it to mature.

The reason we need to wait is that it takes time for some things to mature.

I love it!

I typed "hello".

Your thought's hash is: 4358f43b660389eecd435dc2a5f5cee29786245cd2cff27bd4de0b3e8fd53b79

Including you, 267 persons had that thought already!

First time was 4 hours, 14 minutes ago, last time was less than a minute ago.

Of course, everyone else has thought of this. But what if I "type": 4358f43b660389eecd435dc2a5f5cee29786245cd2cff27bd4de0b3e8fd53b79

Your thought's hash is: c37d0a8c512b9ec7074d3bc77c4545d58fdfcde55bad89a70ede71ac2ac0000d

Including you, 8 persons had that thought already!

First time was 2 hours, 1 minute ago, last time was 1 minute ago.

That's hilarious!

And also, "typing": echo "hello world" | curl -d @- https://subth.ink

Your thought's hash is: c5ba1c7e35345dbb8c2dc6be0972d0b6ddf6c6515143b64c057296948e2ba8cd

Including you, 10 persons had that thought already!

First time was 1 hour, 52 minutes ago, last time was 2 minutes ago.

I think the response is a great comment. It really is insane that they felt the need to damn the flooded campsite.

The comment actually does a great job of accentuating the point of the story. Everyone offended is too caught up in their achiever mode mindset to truly appreciate the absurdity.

I would really like a tool to reliably get the title of PDF. It is not as easy as it seems. If the PDF exists online (say a paper or course notes) a bonus would be to find that or related metadata.

The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.

There is always a defense in court. This is not necessarily the defendant explicitly testifying. That's what I meant by the defendant making their case.

Justice can fail in the courts, I agree. But you can't have justice without (a) an authority with the power to judge, usually the state, and (b) a court proceeding where evidence is weighed.

If you say the UHC CEO killing was justice, then you must, to be consistent, allow for other such killings. Should all healthcare CEOs now be knocked off?

There's martial law and there is civil law. Martial law applies to enemies and in wartime. In this case, killing enemies like Bin Laden is acceptable.

However, in civil law, for the state to kill someone it has to be done through the courts. There is evidence given on each side. Killing someone without this is not justice.

People talk as if it is so obvious UHC CEO was responsible for the deaths of many people but he never got to make his case. That's not justice at all.

But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants

But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies.

Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable.

But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death.

But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.

See, you put the caveat at the bottom, but I think you are just having a normal discussion. You aren't speaking "very confidently," you are just making an argument.

What I think happens is people who are very knowledgeable about a subject are hyper-sensitive to slightly incorrect information. And to boost their egos they like to diminish the people making the incorrect statements as not just incorrect, but confidently incorrect, a la Dunning Kruger.

See how confidently I made the exaggerative statement above? I don't necessarily mean it to be completely true, but I am making an argument. I think an assessment of confidence requires more than seeing no mollifying qualifiers like "I think" or "it might be". There's no verbal tone on the web.