mstratman

What worked best in my experience is having a roundtable discussion between all the interviewers about their experience, and any concerns or objections they have. i.e. soft veto.

The hiring manager had the ultimate say, though. But he/she had to acknowledge, address, and own any objection and take personal responsibility for it if the candidate was hired.

When you have a good team who is earnestly focused on preserving a good team, it works really well. Red flag objections were pretty much never ignored, and were effectively vetoes. Minor objections or slight concerns about experience or aptitude, if they were overridden, prompted hiring managers to take extra time and care to help ensure the new hire's success.

While it's more about the flaws in how scientific consensus are used with respect to areas that are (or should be) debatable, the video does a good job of introducing some of the problems with the overlap of the pharmaceutical and public health agendas.

I'd love to see a followup that takes this idea and looks at a different angle, such as ways that scientific "consensus" was invented and propagated to benefit political agendas. Or done so from a lack of respect for the public's ability to deal with information and nuance (e.g. simplify the situation and distill complex factors into a one-size-fits-all prescription for behavior).

Reason TV did an interesting video recently looking at several angles of homelessness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcZhmUfDePE

There are a lot of things you can take from it, but one overarching opinion is that "housing first" gets in the way of helping those who are down on their luck and find themselves hopefully-temporarily without a home (as opposed to those who cannot or will not work to change their situation).

It makes the case you need multiple approaches to deal with the vastly different homeless situations.

Check it out.

Those are usually straw bales from what I've seen.

Most small businesses require the owner to take significant financial risk, or work for free for years or more.

Each growth stage presents tough choices of additional risk, as well.

An employee doesn't shoulder any of this. There is a world of difference!

Limits on property ownership are a very different topic than taxation or crime.

They are treated fundamentally different in law, economics, and philosophy.

You need a large amount of capital for it to do enough good for others (e.g. via investments into companies) that the returns you receive are enough to live on.

Most wealth already is in the economy, providing capital to companies and jobs to their growing workforces.

It's not sitting around collecting dust.

Any time the first line of a project description reads "This is NewTool, written in <language>" it's an immediate red flag that makes it hard for me to continue reading.

Obviously it doesn't necessarily mean the project has no merits, but language choice is one of the less relevant details and it signals that the author wanted to make a toy in a language new to them. Good for them, but most of the time the rest of the world doesn't care.

If the project has merits, and this one might, it should talk about them in the intro.

Sure for some things, like elective surgeries (lasik for example) or routine dental care, people can shop around, and prices will reach a sane level. But the majority of healthcare does not work like that.

This is precisely because there is no health "insurance" middlemen for purchasing those services. The market drives those costs down.

If - like in pre-ww2 America - instead people saved up for the inevitable doctors visits and paid out of pocket directly to the doctors and hospitals, costs would be FAR lower both due to competition and price sensitivity. This is the fundamental problem with using health "insurance" for expected costs, rather than just unpredictable emergencies.

I've been using v2 for years, and unless 3 changed significantly, the syntax is truly minimal. More importantly it only is introduced where it makes sense, ie not forced. It's also very succinctly documented in a well organized help menu item.

Eg "what % of 198 is 22" You can still calculate this the normal way, but this syntax sugar is natural enough and easier to remember.

Or the other big example somebody already posted is currency conversion. "1 USD to GBP"

Even if you don't use any of that, the ability to have a readable notebook, variables, and other features make it far better than a traditional calculator. I could never go back.