HN user
Do you have a single source to back up these claims?
I have many. You should start with these:
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jense...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/pdf/mp2...
I’m not spending time reading a salon article, but I’m willing to bet money that their definition of “repeat misinformer” is total bullshit.
Poverty is actually a quite weak predictor of crime rates once you condition on demographic factors such as percent single-parent households.
You’re describing monetization, not a pyramid scheme.
The biggest gaslighting of this whole affair has been the political adherence to clearly insane propositions like forcing everyone to wear masks (questionable in any case) but allowing cloth masks (which do, at best, ~nothing, unlike actual rated masks, so definitely pointless) or quarantining billions of young people who accumulate less than 25 micromorts of mortality from covid contraction in the name of adding (on expectation) a few life-months for geriatrics who are not contributing to society and are about to keel over anyway.
The unnecessary manmade destruction of utility over the last year is nearly unprecedented, perhaps the most devastating since WW2.
Jane Street isn't that successful.
Their historical record is very good.
Yes. I’m not even using their wifi box.
Affinity’s iPad UI is quite nice and relatively full-featured as well.
Why would they have dumped billions into developing these vaccines in the first place if they expected to just lose the IP rights right away anyway? You might be able to save a small number of extra people this time by screwing over the vax manufacturers, but a lot more people will die next time when no one is willing to put up the R&D money.
Last time I looked into this, Apple actually used quite a bit of clever crypto engineering to protect user privacy. It's not just a big database of locations that Apple keeps.
Do you support the right of businesses to refuse business to homosexuals, for example, on religious grounds? If you come back with “homosexuals are legally a protected class”, that’s evading the question and functionally equivalent to “no I don’t actually support freedom of association”.
I ask because in my experience most people on HN only support freedom of association when it’s politically expedient for them.
The evidence is quite clear that going to college doesn’t actually improve life outcomes very much at all. We mistakenly thought it did for a while, but what was actually happening is the people who were going to college were smart and very likely to succeed anyway.
What in the world do you mean? Lightning has excellent privacy; payments are onion-routed.
If they weren't using this as an opportunity to pump some shitcoin, this might make sense. Bitcoin Lightning integration would be much less suspect, for example, because A) it's already well established B) they're not going to make a quick buck off it.
Ideas don't need to be correct to be adaptive.
How dare you! We need state-run pre-school to get those kids sitting at desks even earlier!
I really doubt that any industrial-chemical process will have a net better environmental or economic impact than, say, re-foresting desert areas.
Sure, in a magical world where we suddenly switch to a perfect utopian medical system, the problems will go away. But none of the concrete proposals in this thread will make the problems go away.
My evidence is that I've lived in countries with market-based healthcare (Thailand, Mexico) and countries with socialized healthcare (Canada, UK), and the market-based healthcare is always infinitely better. My wife had to wait months to see a psychiatrist in Canada, before we moved away. WTF? In Thailand it's like $50 and you get in right away.
empirically do those things better than the US
Why are you bringing up the US? It's not market-based healthcare.
The factors that cause America to spend a lot of money on healthcare don't go away when you switch to a single payer. If anything, they get worse.
Reform needs to happen elsewhere; for example, we need to stop using taxpayer money for extremely cost-ineffective treatment of very old people (which is where most of our money goes).
This website is full of overconfident midwits - nothing new. I appreciate that you're still willing to put in the effort to show them the evidence. Unfortunately, I'm at the point where I don't think it's worth it; it's not like they developed their current opinion by looking at any evidence, so they're not going to change it on account of evidence.
US healthcare isn't good. I never said it was. But the correct direction of reform is towards market-based healthcare, not to make it even more DMV-like.
universal healthcare does not imply government-run healthcare
There is no practical way to implement one without the other in the US.
More people are in favor of universal healthcare than against it.
In the US, you can get an answer in either direction depending on how you phrase the question. When you bring in the fact that this will cost money, people tend to flip. Most people in the US already have healthcare through the government or through their employer, so they don't actually really care enough for anyone to pull this off politically.
Therefore, we should change the system
I agree, the current system is sub-optimal.
given the success of universal healthcare schemes throughout the developed world
What success? Most countries with "universal healthcare" A) are poor relative to their demographic-imputed economic capacity B) have low-quality care compared to market-based healthcare systems, and even compared to the worst-of-both-worlds American healthcare system often have horrendous metrics on quality of doctors, procedure wait times, etc.
The bill of rights includes the right to an attorney.
You can't just show up whenever and get an attorney. You only get an attorney when the government is prosecuting you.
I cannot comprehend why anyone would be against health care for all?
Then you probably shouldn't voice an opinion on the issue. If a lot of people disagree with you can't come up with a coherent explanation for why, then you almost certainly don't understand the problem space.
Can someone help explain to me what the oppositions point of view is?
Government-run healthcare is not socially optimal.
Edit: The people downvoting me are salty because they realize that they can't form a coherent argument for an opposing opinion. Guess what - I already know all of your talking points. I would engage with you on them, but this shitty website won't let me post more than like 5 times an hour.
It is clearly more economically efficient to treat malignant cancers earlier.
This is not necessarily the case, because additional screening has costs - both direct costs of running the screening, but also hidden costs like costs associated with false positives (which represent the vast majority of cancer diagnoses). For example, we realized recently that for many years we had been too aggressively encouraging women to get breast cancer screenings, and it ended up not being socially optimal due to the high cost and false positive rate.
Gwern is great. One of a small number of people I support on patreon. Really high quality authorship on a huge range of topics, from drugs to cartoons to AI research.
Broadcom seems to pump out a lot of garbage in general. The SoCs on the raspberry pis are particularly terrible.
The raspberry pi is pretty popular here, but as someone who works on both embedded and server applications, I find it to be a massive piece of shit. The broadcom SoCs they use are complete garbage, with really poor reliability and several badly broken peripherals.
I don't really object to the first 4 layers of the OSI model as applied to the current network stack - it's a pretty useful model of the separation-of-concerns between, say, Cat5, ethernet, IP, TCP.