HN user

tapp

595 karma
Posts29
Comments105
View on HN
www.politico.com 9y ago

The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think

tapp
42pts4
www.csoonline.com 10y ago

Ransomware takes Hollywood hospital offline, $3.6M demanded by attackers

tapp
93pts49
fusion.net 11y ago

OPM breach – I am one of the millions of federal employees who just got hacked

tapp
1pts0
www.npr.org 11y ago

Everything Dies, Right? But Does Everything Have to Die? Here's a Surprise

tapp
5pts2
abcnews.go.com 11y ago

Two Anti-Aging Scientists Make Million Dollar Bet on Who Will Die Last

tapp
1pts0
www.bloomberg.com 11y ago

Snapchat Raises $485.6M to Close Out Big Fundraising Year

tapp
1pts0
www.politico.com 11y ago

Ever Wondered Who’s Behind Those Viagra Emails?

tapp
1pts0
fortune.com 11y ago

Here's a radical idea: Let startups choose whether to pay for mentorship

tapp
2pts0
www.businessinsider.com 11y ago

Founders of 6-month-old startup Secret take home 6M in recent financing

tapp
1pts0
www.slate.com 12y ago

The Airbnb Guest Who Never Leaves and Now Lives in Your House Instead of You

tapp
7pts0
www.joelonsoftware.com 12y ago

Fixing Venture Capital (2003)

tapp
1pts0
medium.com 12y ago

Replacing The User Story With The Job Story

tapp
5pts0
well.blogs.nytimes.com 12y ago

Look for Cancer, and Find It

tapp
1pts0
online.wsj.com 12y ago

Zappos creates social network “Zappos Insiders” to evaluate potential hires

tapp
1pts0
cyberlaw.stanford.edu 12y ago

The FCC changed course on network neutrality. Here is why you should care.

tapp
3pts0
pando.com 12y ago

The days of failure behind it, Slack forges onwards with $42.75M

tapp
3pts0
medium.com 12y ago

Create a Culture of Prospecting in Your Startup

tapp
2pts0
www.securityweek.com 12y ago

Surveillance is the Business Model of the Internet: Bruce Schneier

tapp
31pts3
pastebin.com 12y ago

Google Apps (GMail) misfiled messages

tapp
1pts0
bits.blogs.nytimes.com 12y ago

Did Big Internet Companies Handicap Startups in FISA Rule Changes?

tapp
1pts0
www.reuters.com 13y ago

WellPoint fined $1.7 million for exposing health data on Internet

tapp
2pts0
thenextweb.com 13y ago

Cloud-based event management company Cvent files for up to $100M IPO

tapp
1pts0
money.cnn.com 13y ago

Dying startup blogs its collapse

tapp
2pts1
www.theverge.com 13y ago

Inside Pocket: how a startup beat its rivals to build the 'DVR for everything'

tapp
5pts0
pandodaily.com 13y ago

SoftBank launches new non-seed, NYC-specific, $51 million fund

tapp
1pts0
www.fiercegovernmentit.com 13y ago

DoD passes on VistA, resumes plans to procure commercial EHR

tapp
2pts0
alexcabal.com 13y ago

The cult of design dictatorship (2012)

tapp
68pts43
www.internettrafficreport.com 14y ago

Details for North America /// Internet Traffic Report

tapp
2pts1
www.newscientist.com 14y ago

First life: The search for the first replicator

tapp
6pts0

It was just as hard 30 years ago as it is now. As it was 300 years ago. 3000 even.

I understand what you're saying, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that dynamics have changed - and we don't need to go back 30 years to see it.

As recently as 5 or 6 years ago, I would quite often strike up conversations with strangers at the bus stop or on the train or at the post office.

Usually these conversations would last for just a few minutes, sometimes an hour or more, and in a handful of instances I made a long term friend.

I find that this is vastly harder to do now, because nearly everyone in those common spaces is now engrossed by their phone. This changes the dynamics of interacting and striking up a conversation substantially by adding a lot of social friction.

Historically, the interaction was something like: slightly awkward silence -> random comment about the weather or some equally anodyne topic to break the awkward silence -> possibly a rewarding conversation.

Now, the awkward silence never occurs in the first place. It's been entirely replaced by everyone scrolling the feeds on their phones. To start a conversation, you have to proactively interrupt what the person is doing and ask for their attention.

What's more, even if you successfully navigate that dynamic and start a conversation, the soft dings and tapping reminders from the phone constantly pull people's attention back to the virtual from the physical.

Smartphones have been a boon in myriad ways, but I do miss the chances to engage in face-to-face conversation with strangers in the real world that existed before they commanded every second of our spare attention.

I'd add another factor the author did not mention: the market in which those "Elite U.S. men" compete is vastly more competitive than it was a generation ago.

I run a small technology business and have thought about ways to try and reduce the number of hours I work. One of the principal challenges is that every day I am fending off competition from offshore firms with lower cost structures and VC funded startups with resources to burn. That competition dictates a certain tempo whether I like it or not.

Is the distinction really as black-and-white as you suggest?

One example: Flatiron (Google Ventures' biggest health tech investment, if I'm not mistaken) is often described as 'Google for cancer data.' In fact, their mission is "organizing the world's real-world oncology data."

The card layout is generally big no-no in design community.

Interesting. Could you provide any links/citations for this?

I ask because it feels like practically every designer I talk with these days wants to force a card layout onto everything (even text-oriented sites) and I'd love to hear the other side.

This is the kind of statement that makes me long for a faceless, impersonal ISP.

Slightly OT, but this statement reminded me of a question I've wondered about before and researched without finding a definitive answer:

Your average ISP probably has a lot of data which, in the wrong hands, would be excellent blackmail material. What regulations (if any) prevent the sale of that data to whoever wants it?

I've often thought that we should pay financial regulators competitively with what they could make in the private sector AND in conjunction institute some kind of sweeping moratorium (e.g. you may not take any corresponding job in the private sector for at least 10 years after your government service ends.)

I'm sure this would be politically untenable. Headlines would cry about absurd salaries being given to government employees.

However I'm equally confident it would save us money in the long run. The current system seems almost designed to create toothless regulators and a revolving door.

Today doctors obviously do understand the role of germs in spreading disease better

And yet study after study of hospital acquired infections show that simple hand washing between patient examinations is abysmally irregular (between 10 and 50%.)

Argument seems to be that patient privacy is moot because the patient's right to privacy expired when he died. From the article:

"...the state does not recognize a common law right to privacy and... any privacy right Mr. Chanko did have ended upon his death."

@dmor:

First - congratulations to you and your team on the raise.

Second - a question: your last post on the topic from June 28th announcing your 2M second seed funding said that after 27 consecutive months spent pursuing some kind of funding, it was time for you to take a break from fundraising mode.

Given that was less than 6 months ago, it doesn't seem like you took much of a break after all :) Would you be willing to provide more insight and details re: what exactly changed?

https://medium.com/mattermark-daily/mattermark-has-raised-2m...

I had the same general reaction when we tested it at our office, but I'm open to the idea that perhaps I'm missing the point.

In the press release, Butterfield says: "As the leader of a brand new product category, we have a huge advantage right now."

Does anyone know what product category he's referring to?

Enterprise collaboration seems like a quite old category to me, but maybe this is where I'm missing the point. Would be interested in hearing where I'm wrong.

How could they destroy hundreds of small businesses, if they themselves were not profitable?

The same way venture funded startups destroy bootstrapped, profitable startups: by massively outspending them.

Venture backed companies can get away with it for as long as investors will support them, regardless of how profitable their business may or may not be.

Even if they're not ultimately viable and fail, the pressure can be enough to crush the viable but not venture-funded businesses in the interim.

I'd start by highlighting the truth at every opportunity, which is this:

Medical mistakes kill an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 Americans every year[1], making it the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer[2].

"Frank from IT" isn't killing those patients - doctors and nurses are, largely through really stupid stuff like failing to wash their hands adequately, leading to hospital acquired infections.

[1] Journal of Patient Safety https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/781687-john-james-a-...

[2] CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

I apologize in advance for potentially thread-jacking, but this story reminds me of an issue on which I'd really like to get other HN readers advice:

I'm seeing more and more stories online including animated GIFs by default like this one does.

Even when they add value to the story, I find the constant motion distracting at best, and seizure-inducing at worst.

Does anyone have recommendations re: the best way to block animated GIFs from auto-playing in Chrome?

Quick initial searching turned up this Stack Exchange thread http://superuser.com/questions/23655/how-to-stop-animated-gi... but the user script listed no longer seems to be available, and there is a debate in the thread re the usability of the other extension options listed.

Interesting - I didn't know that as I haven't been following the story closely.

For others who may be in the same boat, I found some additional details here:

"Alibaba will not own most of its Chinese assets, including Taobao Marketplace and Alibaba.com. So the companies that are the core of Alibaba’s Chinese operations — the main reason for the anticipated heated investor demand — will not even be owned by Alibaba... Instead, the company is using a so-called variable interest entity structure."

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/i-p-o-revives-debate-...

FWIW - it can be done. What you describe is very similar to the situation I faced some years back.

Similar feelings motivated me to make a change, which is how I ended up working day-to-day with the late stage cancer patients I mentioned upthread.

It's definitely not an easy change (and not a cheap one, either) but I'm pretty sure I'd make the same choice if I had to do it all over again.

"It is often argued that life-threatening illness imbues its victims with a new vigor for life. I’ve always found this notion sort of idiotic..."

In recent years, I've spent a lot of time working with late stage cancer patients as part of my job.

When I first started, several friends speculated that it might give me a deeper appreciation for my own health, and "imbue me with a new vigor for life"

Perversely, similar to the author, I've found the opposite to be true - it can be difficult for me to shake the knowledge that this is a fate that most of us will face (if not directly, on behalf of a loved one) if we're lucky enough not to die of something else first.

I don't have any insight to share on what to do about it - I'm still wrestling with the issue. Just wanted to say thank you for posting the story.

"One of the most important characteristics of a successful business is that it's growing."

I hope this doesn't come across as nitpicking, but the lead sentence of the article is incorrect. It should be:

One of the most important characteristics of a successful STARTUP is that it's growing.

Businesses which successfully serve their owners, employees, customers and larger surrounding community, can easily be steady-state.

I realize HN is startup-focused, but I think in the interest of productive conversation it's important to make the distinction and use precise terms.

I've heard this statement used frequently to shut down debates re using market dynamics to improve the healthcare system in this country.

However, the substantial majority of healthcare services provisioned are non-emergency.

It is absolutely possible for us to have a freer market in those services (Lasik procedures are just one frequently cited example) and IMO that would be a huge improvement over the current Frankenstein system we have today.

The article's statement is misleading, but arguably true if you parse it the right way.

Medicare very likely does not allow for the prices featured on their online price menu. You could therefore say that it "won't allow for their online price menu" since without the underlying prices, there can be no menu.

I agree that as written, the statement is misleading and feels politically motivated. No way to know if the spin was applied by the doctor or the journalist.