HN user

cannaceo

600 karma
Posts0
Comments134
View on HN
No posts found.

"Solve the problem yourself". Yeah, you've never had to deal with being chased by bullies and having the shit kicked out of you for no reason. Bullying is not a conflict between peers anymore than a woman getting raped is a conflict between peers.

As an adult these problems are solved for you by either human resources, the police, or being able to avoid the situation. Maybe that's why you don't walk around the rough part of town alone at night. As a kid you have no control over your environment.

You need help from a utility if you have an old home without adequate service from the electric company. Common example is your home is on 100amp service and that is entirely consumed by TVs, kitchen appliances, HVAC, etc.

My personal belief is that binance agreed with no intention to carry out the deal. CZ tapdanced on FTX's grave on twitter with critical comments yesterday. It is now unlikely that anyone else will want to step up to look at the deal.

No advice but I can share my perspectives. I happened to be at the right place at the right time to start a company and be an early player in a new technology that created a multi-billion market that didn't exist before. I happened to have the cross-trained in the right combination of skills and showed up at the right time. Skill alone wouldn't have been enough.

Try to be forward thinking about what trends might be coming. It used to be easier to do this but now everyone hops on trends quickly so it's harder to maintain a head start.

I'm looking at my next venture right now and I'm mostly focused on the overall macro picture surrounding the growth prospects of an industry. Things like population dynamics are playing a bigger part of how I see opportunity. The best CEO won't accomplish much in a dying or flat industry.

Ignore people who say "X is saturated". Everything is saturated. What matters is if the market is going to grow.

Now I'm more focused on wealth deployment and preservation and trying to focus less on building new things. Building is where my passion is but it's high risk and I don't need to be taking risks anymore.

It sounds like you're operating under the assumption that nothing is predictable in the economy and that we're all looking in to a crystal ball. In reality we're looking at our financials and sales trends and then comparing that data up and down the supply chain.

We're not smarter than everyone else. No, we're just more clued in to what's happening with our capital markets, vendors, competitors, and customers.

As a CEO I speak to other CEOs on a regular basis about what we're seeing. That means I'm clued in to my customers' trends, vendors' trends, and competitors' trends. I see stuff happening in my industry from a more holistic perspective than my employees. I can tell the difference between a revenue decline from a lack of competitiveness versus industry decline. You might not see us working but we talk. A lot.

My experience in medical school is that your success is based on your ability to memorize large amounts of information that is of low conceptual difficulty in short periods of time. This isn't a trait that is selected for in passing ochem. Furthermore, ochem is the last time in your undergrad or medical school training where you'll be faced with that level of conceptual rigor.

You could just as easily ask all the undergrads to train for a marathon and see who has the discipline to follow through. It would probably be more relevant because at least its health-related.

I think overall we want our doctors to have high general intelligence so we'll continue to demand o-chem. We all have our biases against the kids who couldn't pass o-chem.

While I agree that we shouldn't lower the standards of the MD process I am not convinced that proficiency at organic chemistry is predictive of physician quality. I'd rather see physicians studying computer science than ochem as tech seems more relevant to the future of medicine. To that extent I'm always willing to entertain reform.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. Some of the concepts you mentioned, such as Gibbs free energy, are covered in intro physics, intro biology, and biochemistry courses that are also required as a physician. I believe one biochemistry class as an undergrad and one year of biochemistry instruction in the first 2 years of medical school.

A simplified organic chemistry course could cover the theory of SN1/SN2 attacks, orbitals, some ochem principles, some medical-focused examples of organic chemistry, and some basic mechanisms. It would not require students to creatively solve synthesis questions on exams or memorize long lists of reactions. To that extent maybe even the first of the two part classes is enough.

I never heard of anyone talk about organic chemistry as anything other than a filter class for pre-meds. It's a bit of academic hazing to wash out weaker pre-meds from the undergrad program. Maybe because it effects the university's match rate. Students care about their undergrad's medical school match statistics when they apply. From what I remember hazing does wash out the weaker students who don't have as high of general intelligence or work ethic.

I completed medical school back in 2012. Here's the unfortunate rub with this particular class--organic chemistry is a requisite for medical school and probably shouldn't be. The class is mostly pre-med students and very few chemistry majors. It seems that once upon a time some administrators decided that students should complete 2 years of chemistry and organic chemistry happened to be the most common second year course available.

Physics courses, at least at my alma mater, were separated in to physics for physics majors("honors physics"), physics for engineers, and physics for life sciences. A similar structure would be a great compromise to maintain the quality of education for those continuing on to perform organic synthesis versus those who want to be physicians. I was exposed to exactly zero organic chemistry in medical school or beyond.

Laundry isn't always cash. Sometimes you've stolen funds from a government or through a banking scam. That money needs to travel through other businesses to be effectively cleaned.

For example, say you were in charge of a private equity fund with a close overlap of executives with a government bank. When investments go well you put them on the PE funds books. When they go poorly you put them on the bank's books. The bank gets a few government bailouts in the process. You now have billions in dirty funds in your PE fund that need to be laundered through investments. A few additional degrees of separation here can be very useful. I've seen this exact situation play out and met some of these guys while trying to do business in Africa.

Someone has been reading their Zeihan! As a counterpoint--do you think there are other export-led countries such as China that are more than willing to guarantee the transit of their goods in exchange for people continuing to buy them? I think the answer to that question is clear.

You can do this indefinitely with commercial real estate including multi-family dwellings. Lenders are comfortable with 50% loan-to-value. You do need to have some cash flow from the properties to service the debt. It does require the properties to either appreciate over time or for you to build up more equity in them by paying down your loan.

You can do this indefinitely with commercial real estate including multi-family dwellings. Lenders are comfortable with 50% loan-to-value. You do need to have some cash flow from the properties to service the debt. It does require the properties to either appreciate over time or for you to build up more equity in them by paying down your loan.

My experience has been that when you go to call in these favors you get to encounter that person's boundaries. Often their boundaries are that they don't like to help in the same way that they ask for help.