HN user
The details of how this is done seems to matter quite a bit, and if I'm reading this[0] right, if the officers have the discretion about when to turn them on or off use of force might be higher compared to no body cams.
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-016-9261-3
One thing I haven't seen in the discussion is the effect of the tax on the distribution of outcomes.
I'm not sure what the latest numbers are, but if 90% of startups are near 0 return for founders, and 1% are the home run swings which made it worth starting the company to begin with - then when do proposals affect the expected value for starting a company. This notebook doesn't show anything other than 'if you were going to make a bunch, you'll still have more than zero' which isn't useful.
Startups are in the land of "fat tails" - so talking about a policy saying it's fine for for most people since the people at the extreme in the fat tail are doing fine seems to be thinking under-critically.
If I can continue your analogy (though I admit it's a little confusing) - if a gang member is caught breaking the law and we have another law preventing prosecution, let's fix that bug.
Structural issues which create gangs need to be addressed, and it's true that convicting the gang members might detract from the need for those structural reform, but enforcing laws is still a part of the incentive system we have to encourage people to not break the law.
We should fix structural issues, but that doesn't mean we need to leave clear bugs in tact to increase pressure on fixing those issues.
When you say 'as long as the end user is not financially benefitting' - is the end user the lab conducting the test?
You said in an earlier comment that the reimbursement for testing is too low to justify buying expensive equipment. You are also proposing to charge half the reimbursed rate for it to run on someone else's equipment.
Are the current equipment owners expected to donate this crucial equipment, because if they are the bottleneck, shouldn't they be the ones compensated to encourage more equipment to be made available?
The innovation is personalized hydrogels built to avoid rejection, not the induced pluripotent stem cells which were re-differentiated into things. The key was the structural materials which hold those cells.
[ie, up front]
Did you have (even a vague) source for this - I'm willing to search for it given even a vague gesture? I think this indeed sounds like it could be strong evidence, so I'd love to see it. Indeed, I would also think that a high skill population living mixed with a low skill population would have a higher birth rate than a high skill population NOT near a low skill population.
Yours is not a unique sentiment, but I find it so disheartening. Vague laws enforced selectively are bad for the rule of law. Is the schadenfreude from sticking it to whatever American company is selected worth that?
This sounded interesting, do you have a link to this study? I was going to try to do this analysis for where I live, and after looking up median income for the area, I realized I wasn't sure what you meant by 'down payment and interest consume 100% of income.' Did you mean a 20% downpayment and interest on a loan would consume one year's worth of income... because that actually seems pretty cheap if a median income in my area was enough more than the 20% down payment for a median home in my area that it could also cover the interest for year...
Had you meant 3% + 1% PMI + 4% interest for an FHA consume 100% on median, because that definitely implies either high prices on houses or low median incomes.
1) A major difference is the fact that currently they are generally 'unfunded' in that the money isn't actually invested on your behalf.
2) The next is where the risk resides - even in cases where they are fully funded (ie: some model suggests that the returns on investment will be able to pay out obligations), there's still the issue of the risk models are wrong or investments underperform -that risk will still reside on the state to pony up the difference.
3) Lastly is the highly speculative nature of the obligation - most all pension plans use a subset of the worker's last years to determine the defined payment, so a common practice became to inform your (district, organization) that you intend to retire in 5 years, where they will then boost your pay for your last few years, thus providing a much larger pension. This esoteric issue is possibly dominating Illinois' financial problems as (from a few articles I read) retirees are receiving many times returns-compounded contributions, since their last 5 years are boosted so much over their average pay over the whole career. Gaming the system was not accounted for in the models.
It looks like a combination of semantic analysis not being there for the automation to work at the time and maybe some regulations issues (with each state probably having their own, I imagine compliance is/was more difficult)?
If I recall correctly from my bioinformatcs classes (years ago) - the non-coding DNA still serve many functions - a protective role by containing sequences which stabilize the structure of the DNA, or providing binding sites used in promoting or suppress gene expression. The non-coding are recognizable by different characteristics from the coding sections. Not to mention the fact that by definition, at least half the sequences are just the complement of a coding sequence - so putting in stop codons before and after on the complement would be useful to make sure it's not expressed. Add in structural sequences to create preferences of where it's safe to swap genes with the sister chromosome DNA during meiosis, and all sorts of other things, and you end up with quite a but of non-coding DNA still serving a purpose.
Is the process of adding 'rooms' which are actually arbitrary 'things' (like your laptop, company car, or spare parking permit which is picked up from reception) in calendar not a viable hack for some reason? I imagine this can scale to whatever you want to reserve.
This sounds like a great case for publishing negative results: it will result in meta-analysis about what practices routinely cause bad results and then those papers will be used to reduce the number of bad results. Labs keeping secrets in how to do research seems like a bug not a feature.
That's just the externalities around publishing negative results. The major reason being that it will tell people where the minefields are, resulting in people not all reproducing the same negative results.
Supreme court justices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Suprem...
I imagine that a company can present a plan for complying with a ruling which they also disagree with. Maybe you seemed to be implying they were contradictory?
I get you might not have officially trained a model, but similar model evaluation questions might apply to your diagnosis system.
For example, did you do any hand tuning of thresholds? Did you do this tuning while looking at the scans, or did you design it without looking at ANY of the mentioned 3000 scans - and are you are basing your 90% accuracy on diagnosing a sample which is how representative of the population at large?
Is there a further description of this 90% statistic - do you have precision / recall and some sort of description of possible biases in this 3000 sample set? Based on another answer, it sounds like half are alzheimer's and half are 'similar' but non-alzheimer's. I don't want to be flippant, but I am always sceptical of 'accuracy' in medical diagnostics where a simple diagnosis of 'false' is 95% accurate.
Edit: I see you answered this second section in another comment, nevermind.
I think the 'new FCC' comment is a reference to the current FCC Commissioner being a former general council at Verizon (though it was awhile ago). Additionally, he's been strongly opposed regulation of the telecoms and opposed net neutrality for awhile. It's not all him, but the FCC has sharply changed course on net neutrality since December.
Speaking for myself, I tend to alternate between fiction and non-fiction books. Generally, fiction books are story-driven (any sci-fi/fantasy/general fiction) and center around relationships between characters overlaid with some other topics. This means any good fiction is a setting custom built to examine specific aspects of humanity or some aspect of the world we live in or could live in. Any reasonably 'good' fiction is an exploration of highs and lows and challenges and redemptions, and I believe that these lead us to be better able to understand our fellow humans, and allow us to better think about and imagine the situations we might face in our lives or re-examine experiences we've had.
I think he is saying that this is not capitalism. The existence of bailouts and government programs to direct the markets is not capitalism's 'need' for those programs, despite any politician's attempt to sell that idea.
Nit: number formatting - is there such a thing as a fractional prescription, why is there a "NNN.0" highlighted everywhere, and are you also able to add in the commas which will make it clearer the magnitude when scanning?
I bought a house in Seattle 2 years ago through Redfin, and had a GREAT experience. We had started with a more traditional realtor first, but the Redfin one was way more responsive. Maybe it's realtor-specific.
The original 4.8M valuation (which is his strike price - extrapolating from his share price and ownership %) has now increased to ~40M (extrapolated from 20M raise, estimating ~100M preferred shares valuation and 40% of that for 409A valuation[1]). This means 4k outlay for initial stock, but they are now valued at ~33.2k, incurring some short term capital gains of ~5.6k. This still seems like a steal, as is the value dropped on that valuation of 33k I think it can be recognized as a loss to offset other earnings, so generally I don't think the tax is that bad a deal (if the person has the cash on hand).
[1] 41% is average ratio from here: https://www.capshare.com/blog/409a-valuation-guide/
FTA: "Amazon’s founder has added $10.2 billion this year to his wealth and $7 billion since [Nov 8th]" - I'm going to interpret that as meaning that it's 10 billion over the course of a full year, which makes more sense than making losing 3 billion in December and making 10 billion in Q1/Q2 which would be necessary for your interpretation (of 10 billion in Q1/Q2) to make those numbers make sense.
Counterpoint: my sister is an NP in Illinois and her employer did effectively this. She was asked to sign a new contract with strictly less benefits after having worked there for 9 months (specifically I think they wanted to reduce the vacation). She countered with requesting some compensation increase to offset the decrease in vacation, and they fired her. IANAL, but I'm also assuming that in at-will employment cases, this might be allowed. Again, I don't live in Illinois, so I'm not sure about how employment law is there, but while it might be shady, it might not be 'clearly illegal'.
Could I ask for a little clarification about your critique? I understand what his perspective is: socializing the cost is a moral hazard (people will make different decisions if they don't have to pay the cost of them). That's the perspective I assume GP has, as I feel similarly.
If what you are implying is that the eventual result of non-forgiveness is access to education only for the wealthy, I would disagree - there are other options, none of which are perfect that I'm aware. That said, I'm trying to figure out what reasoned argument you might be making with this statement which might be an exercise in futility.
This reminds me of the recent Planet Money "The Experiment Experiment" and they pointed out some journals requesting pre-registered experiments (pre-commited experiment methods and analysis submitted to somewhere online before the experiment is run), it's at the 18-ish minute mark.
google.com/compare
Maybe this should have been a Show HN, but I've been working (mostly on the mobile version) for over a quarter now, and while I'm usually a lurker here, I was so excited to launch an actual consumer product people here might use, I wanted to post it to my favorite news site.
Am I missing something here? I tried to use his number to run a net present value assessment of a few example cars and came up with wildly different numbers of NPV. I think a Tesla is cool, but if you are trying to save money by buying a 93k Tesla rather than a 50k BMW, you might not be saving all you think you are (assuming a 3% depreciation factor for future money, I didn't see what he was using, looking only at the year 8 when the car is sold back):
Tesla S85:
[year one] 93,970+8222+1170
[Tax break] -(10000/1.03)
[resale] -(30,160/(1.03^8))
[electricity and maintenance] +(600/1.03)+(1900/1.03)+(600/1.03^2)+(650/1.03^3)+(650/1.03^4)+(1300/1.03^5)+(1300/1.03^6)+(1350/1.03^7)+(1350/1.03^8)
= -78383 NPV
BMW 382d (ICE with greatest depreciation / maintenance):
[Year one] 50000+4480+1200
[Resale] -(15000/(1.03^8))
[Gas and maintenance] +(1594/1.03)+(1631/1.03^2)+(1669/1.03^3)+(1706/1.03^4)+(2288/1.03^5)+(4327/1.03^6)+(2365/1.03^7)+(2404/1.03^8)
= -59385 NPV
Did I make a mistake here?
Are you aware of anyone who's done a similar analysis of graduate degrees?