nextn

Link three is largely a list of scientific papers that show the effectiveness of Ivermectin and Fenbendazol in curing cancer.

You laughing your ass off triggers alarms.

off-topic: hi dang. Can you help me understand why this got flagged?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44246859

FWIW, when potentially live saving content gets flagged on HN, effectively censoring it, I can't help but think there's a concerted effort by some actors (terrorist organizations, 3-letter agencies, foreign countries) to suppress information.

It's a big reason I avoid HN. I can imagine censoring free-speech being HN's downfall.

You're being a bit gratuitously negative, which is against HN rules, considering the magnitude of the potential impact of this work. Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize.

"First-in-the-World Ivermectin, Mebendazole and Fenbendazole Protocol in Cancer has been peer-reviewed and published on Sep.19, 2024!"

In case it saves a life, some papers report Fenbendazol cures some cancers.

https://vigilantnews.com/post/the-overlooked-miracle-drug-fo...

It isn't.

In case it saves a life, some papers report Fenbendazol cures some cancers.

https://x.com/MakisMD/status/1845353670407233817

https://x.com/skymeds_store/status/1919695848222687548

https://vigilantnews.com/post/the-overlooked-miracle-drug-fo...

Does not restoring the tax deduction for software dev in the US help solo founders who don't draw salary to compete with large businesses?

That assumes the vendor runs a buy-back scheme. That would cost

What would it cost? The vendor runs software that sells tickets. The same software can buy tickets back, invalidate the ticket IDs, and issue new tickets with new IDs. This feature can be part of the software at no additional cost.

Not running a buy-back scheme possible costs more to customers because of today's scalpers.

How do you distinguish between someone buying tickets as a gift and someone who sold them on in a manner you did not detect?

As the venue/band, you don't need to. Sell to anyone.

As the customer, when you're buying from a scalper you know you're buying at a higher price than the advertised price.

what if the group of friends changes - who pays the admin fees?

I don't see what admin fees must exist for this. Software manages anything. Printing a new ticket is cheap.

Many scalpers are rather experienced and organised.

So is law enforcement. Scalpers can't hide the fact that they're selling.

Congratulations on finishing this.

If you were to do this again, how would you organize the source code differently?

You don't permit ticket transfers. Instead you sell tickets back to the venue for the price they were bought. Your tennis buddies would better be ready to buy the ticket from the venue 1 second after you sold it back to the venue, else someone else might get it.

Scalpers can't transfer tickets in this system.

It's a question of price. No bot can afford a fee that increases exponentially based on the number of views.

Similar to quadratic voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_voting

Use quadratic post fees. The larger the number of people who try to view a post, the larger the fee becomes or the post stops being viewable.

So the fee isn't a one-time fee, but an "open" fee that keeps increasing.

Another mechanism is to require a fee to view. If after viewing the content the user deems the content isn't valuable, they flag it in some way or they don't bookmark it, and this indicates the poster should pay the display fee.

Anyone who sells is a scalper.

This is easy to notice. You can't go around saying "I've got two front row" when the mere act of saying it gets you noticed. You can't post online you're selling tickets because it gets you noticed.

Only the venue/band sells. Only the venue/band buys back tickets, and they're required to buy them back at the price they were sold. Full refund of ticket price and bond.

If noticing scalpers is easy, the bond doesn't need to be silly high. Catch a scalper and you get 50% of their bond.

If you resell, you're a scalper.

If you return the ticket to the venue/band, you get your money back, get the bond back, and you're not a scalper.

Charging the ticket buyer the price of the bond doesn't only harm the fans that want to see the show. It also harms the band that won't have fans come see the show. It's an incentive for the band to buy back unused tickets. Bands currently don't do that.

Fans demanding ticket buy backs puts pressure on bands to put an end to scalping. It's fans who pay the entire cost of scalping now, not bands.

An option I'd like to see implemented is to make the customer put down a bond. Besides charging the customer for the ticket, also charge them another higher amount that gets refunded x days after the concert. If the customer is found to be a scalper don't return the bond.

Scalpers can't pay high bond amounts at scale combined with the risk of not having the bond returned.

It's basically impossible.

Require a fee to post.

I ran into the same problem. Built a web app too to fix this that tracked ghost jobs and misbehaving companies. Nobody used it.

People will better use this app, lest they find themselves in the same situation, laid off, with no one to turn to for help.

A different payment policy for ads, similar to stacker.news, is worth exploring.

Have ad publishers pay users, instead of pay ad companies.

Instead of make an ad that already consumes the visitor's attention to also consume their cpu, and this to enrich the ad-tech company, consider making a website pay the visitor for having their attention consumed by the ad instead of pay the ad-tech company.

This would be open to abuse by visitors, where visitors reload a page over and over to get paid. To prevent this type of abuse, require visitors to submit money as collateral to the website. Users pay $x per month to be part of this "ad network". If users view and get paid for more pages than their submitted collateral, they keep the money the ad paid them but they don't get their collateral back. In a way this forces users to pick which pages to visit.

well, the comparison is quite far off the track:

Might not be that far off the track.

A post on X says "US Military Intelligence leaders (MJ-12) didn't like this idea because it would antagonize the Extra Terrestrial Biological Entities who inhabited to the dark side of the moon."

https://x.com/Andercot/status/1904692633697730644 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gm7T2wBbYAMEN3_?format=jpg&name=...

To stay relevant.

Big platforms don't have an incentive to pay users. They collect the ad revenue themselves. Possibly because big platforms agreed among themselves to behave this way.

It only takes one big platform to start paying users to flip this around. Twitter started paying users for ad revenue derived from the user's feed. The next step would be for ad-tech to pay users directly.

Why don't we all decide to start paying for software?

We pay for software indirectly when buying an iPhone or Mac.

It wouldn't shock me if an email services monopoly/duopoly would prefer email spam's only workaround to be signing up for their services, instead of fixing the root of the spam problem.

Sorry, I didn't clarify something.

Require a fee to deliver email. If the email is deemed legitimate by the recipient then refund the fee.

No, they will happily pay money to spam you

It's a question of price. They can't spam at scale at high enough price.

Spammers are worse at something no one tried to use AFAIK: require a fee to deliver email.

There is at least something at risk if you work on something people start to use because people start to have expectations about it continuing to be useful. They want bugs fixed, new features, the project not to die, etc. One risk is you make a lot of people upset. Another risk is you're viewed as irresponsible for starting something and leaving it half-finished.

So if you're "just" volunteering and don't deliver you possibly risk as much as your career.

The time constraints you're under are the time constraints of your free time in your life.

Sending it to them isn't.

You don't know that across all candidates. And you can get paid for sending it.

"they did not appear to be good enough" is very useful feedback for me compared to no feedback. Especially when my resume isn't even selected to interview. It at least tells me there's competition.

Else I never learn which of the tens of possibilities is generally the reason for rejection. This matters if the reason is something important that I don't know about, like "didn't have same role for at least 3 years."

Doesn't know React. Not enough Javascript experience. No k8s. No professional DevOps. Only 1 year in DevOps. Resume too long. Resume too short. Didn't provide GitHub, must mean he's not a coder. No LinkedIn. Not enough connections on LinkedIn. Don't know anyone from their LinkedIn. No public website, must not be passionate. Too many side projects. Too academic. Not enough research experience in this area. Too much research experience in some other area. Probably likes theory. Not enough theory, probably likes building things. Not a local candidate. No Luigi experience. Not enough Airflow. Hasn't used MySQL for a while. Hasn't used ClickHouse. We started interviewing. No consistent job titles. Too generalist. Too specialist.

Candidates can deposit a fee as promise they won't badger the interviewer. They get the money back after a year if they don't badger or lose the deposit. This might make interviewers less sour.

In some open source projects you have to deal with stakeholders, work with a known set of requirements and deal with organizational and time constraints.

You could gain consistency of evaluation; being a lot clearer about the #1 thing you're looking for; hiring faster; paying for hiring costs.

There must be some reason a candidate is rejected. Putting the reason down in writing makes you accountable to the role, to the company, to the ideal candidate, and to the candidate currently evaluated.

Posting a job and not hiring until 6 months later doesn't make the hiring manager accountable.

To protect from legal liability, require candidates to sign something that clears the company from legal liability. Companies make candidates and employees sign all sorts of NDA/non-compete/etc documents anyway.

I wish HR accepted payment in return for feedback.