Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | RunawayGalaxy's comments login

> If anything it’s the providers who are screwing over patients by gaming insurance and taking more than is necessary from the shared insurance pool of money.

If the 85% gets larger, so does the 15%. Both sides gain when the cost increases.


The title is far more general than what you actually mean. What's the reason for that if not click bait?


The concept of tolerance is most often used in the context of drugs, but it applies here too.


Does that go for Carta Marketplace also? Asking because it seems to be a separate business.


Yeah, the commitments in this post don’t preclude an entity other than Carta doing the same thing.

It seems incredibly risky and foolish to try, to the point that I don’t expect them to. But this post leaves room for other attempts.


Do you have any evidence at all to this assertion?


The Problem with Jon Stewart,” which launched on AppleTV+ in September, appears to be a flop, as it trails far behind its competitors on broadcast and cable TV, according to Bloomberg.

The show’s first episode was seen by just 180,000 US homes in the first week it debuted last fall, measurement firm Samba TV said. That number dropped to 78% to 40,000 by its fifth episode, which aired in early March.

Stewart’s comic rival John Oliver, meanwhile, pulled in viewership of 844,000 US homes for a March episode of his HBO show, “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” For reference The Daily Show with Jon Stewart had 1 million viewers in 2003, and by the time Jon left the program was averaging 2.5 million viewers.


Where are these people learning tailwind without learning css?


> ...it isn't an abstraction. It's a only a special syntax for applying predefined blocks of CSS to HTML elements.

How would you define abstraction then?


> especially likely, because he's talking about *defragging a hard drive*

Can someone explain why this is incorrect? I thought a hard drive is typically what one would defrag


The thing people are discussing is the 100GiB of RAM line. You wouldn’t typically defrag RAM (although that was a thing back then) and 100GiB is more indicative of HD space and not RAM. So the question is whether the two lines are related and did Weird Al say that defragging his disk freed up 100GiB of RAM (an impossible amount at the time) or 100 GiB of storage and got RAM and disk confused.


> and 100GiB is more indicative of HD space and not RAM

That's exactly what clearly points to it being about RAM.

> So the question is whether the two lines are related

There's no reason to think that they're related.


It's crazy how much energy is spent trying to constrain free information flow.


If you read the article it is certainly more nuanced.

* The money is going to a Top University.

* There are strict limitations about how the images / brand can be used. I especially like the idea of not mis-quoting and fabricating quotes associated with Einstein.


I find myself unimpressed by this "nuance".

* Does the "Top University" need the cash? Who is it coming from, and who is to say they do not need it more?

* Evidence suggests this has not in practice been prevented.


https://www.timesofisrael.com/hebrew-university-to-open-acad...

From 2016 - "The university is mired in debt amounting to nearly NIS 13 billion ($3.4 billion) over employees’ pensions."


Stanford for example costs several billions to run.


I am not clear why a person that lives in India should care about Stanford, when the cost of tutoring 1 person in Stanford can educate 10 people in India.

Especially when it is already so well-funded.

Stanford disproprotinately benefits very elite of an already wealthy nation. That's okay, but purl-clutching like they need every penny is kinda gross.


Actually, Stanford funds the academic portion of the enterprise from the interest off it's endowment.

It is common knowledge that Stanford is really a front for a real estate venture.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31266464


What's the angle? Who is profiting from this venture? How much?

(And pro-tip re linked post: ideas carry better without cryptoracist prose.)


I'm sorry, what makes his link racist? The "Old, elite, uber-wealthy white men" comment? As in all of stanfords presidents?


Exactly, it is not just operational cost for 1 year, but Stanford and Hebrew universities have to survive the next 500 years of humanity for the benefit of humanity. No amount of Cash in the Reserve is enough for a 500 year plan


So, they have to spend an inordinate amount of effort constraining the free flow of information, to make money off that information, so that they can ensure the free flow of information into the next millennium?

That doesn't seem that great.


These are top schools with huge endowment funds that act as investment vehicles.

Many of them could theoretically operate indefinitely without ever charging tuition, if the funds were hypothetically allowed to be used in that way.

Someone did some napkin math on this for Harvard on Quora: https://qr.ae/pvAQ7v

Now, this person didn't do a great job accounting for inflation, but I do think a professionally managed endowment can get much better than a 3% return on its investments to cover inflation.

Harvard's endowment is pretty close to the same size as Stanford.

It's really just the small, less prestigious universities that have financial issues [1]. The Stanfords and Harvards of the world don't need any help.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/27/more-colleges-face-bankruptc...


"This person didn't do a great job of accounting for inflation"

Listen to yourself. This is like saying "we have a perfect earthquake prediction model, except it doesn't predict certain types of earthquakes"

This comment along with the massive down-votes that my posts have received proves that a majority of HN is absolutely clueless about running businesses and I'm glad for that


While the person doing the napkin math didn't account for inflation, they were also wildly conservative in terms of how much of a return endowments can get from their investments, mostly just referencing the 4% rule that's useful for retiring individuals with very low risk tolerance.

They estimated that free tuition for all students would cost 3% per year, but the S&P 500 has returned over 10% yearly over the last 100 years, 7% adjusted for inflation. [1]

This math also assumes that the school never receives another donation ever again, which is quite unlikely.

It should also be obvious that my point isn't that schools should literally run entirely on their endowment. My point is: giving money to a school like Harvard or Stanford isn't really an act of charity at this point, because they are juggernaut institutions that are too big to fail. They don't need to be raking in licensing fees from images and quotes from people who have been dead for decades.

It's also interesting that, in your last sentence, you are implying that HN viewers don't know anything about running a business, but last I checked we were talking about universities. There's a little bit of irony here: my whole argument revolves around the fact that these supposedly "non-profit" educational institutions are acting very much like businesses in ways probably shouldn't be.

In my view, images and text for deceased historical figures like Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King, Jr. should be part of the public domain much sooner than copyright law currently allows so that we can all enjoy and learn from their legacy freely without capitalist incentives.

I think Reddit is a better place to complain about fake Internet points. I highly recommend it!

[1] https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1926


Stanford releases most of their courses for free for the world to consume and improve their knowledge and help humanity.

It is not about internet points, but the fact that how anti-capitalists the intellectual elites have become despite massively benefiting from it and the single biggest factor that has driven down poverty on a global scale.

No one read the article. It was beautiful well-written. Instead HN, like reddit went all pitch-fork "Hurr Durr, Bad Capitalists"


The name-calling ("anti-capitalists," "intellectual elites") seems like an attempt to discredit the healthy practice of investigating or criticizing potentially corrupt practices within our institutions.

Anyone who dares question the status-quo is an "anti-capitalist," a snobby "intellectual elite," or is a very stupid member of a dangerous mob, "hur dur.”

An institution being a net-positive and the institution needing reform and oversight are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I most certainly read the article, and I still don't understand why anyone's allowed to own exclusive rights to profit off of someone who has been dead as long as Albert Einstein. I can’t think of anyone who would benefit from that system besides the rights-holders.

I'll see you over at https://einstein.biz, maybe I'll buy you a t-shirt or a mug.


That they benefit "humanity" is a dubious claim. They certainly benefit the small club that uses their services.


Well, two flaws.

i) if Einstein had patented his ideas and had left Billions of Dollars to a top university, would it have been ok with you?. To answer your question, Universities are institutions that last centuries. To survive and attract the best in the world for 300 years, there is no limit of cash that such an institution will need (they need to survive economic crashes, world wars, climate catastrophes, pandemics etc)

ii) You don't have counterfactual evidence. There is a difference between mis-quoting in the comment section vs in Billion $$$ Marketing campaigns


Why should it be illegal to misquote someone who is dead? That doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense to me.

As Abraham Lincoln once said:

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."

Uh oh, time to throw me in jail, right!?

I realize that misinformation can be a powerfully bad thing in this world, but I think there must be better ways to deal with it than turning a dead person's image into a lucrative capitalist enterprise.

Apple gets to use Einstein's image to advertise their products because they could afford to pay the $600,000 fee, but I can't use Einstein's image to promote my business because, sorry, I'm not a worthy enough capitalist.

> The money is going to a Top University.

Oh, that makes it all better! Top Universities (TM) have the unique ability to avoid all issues monetary related to corruption prevalent in other institutions. (/s)

I'm going to guess that this money is going to be spent on things like academics, perhaps the next Einstein will earn $9 million per year to perform groundbreaking research!

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/06/congressional-probe-int...


Is the argument that because it's a shark, we should accept that and avoid feeding any contenders?

Was the shark perfect at its inception or did it adapt as all things do?

Doesn't its shark-ness come by virtue of surviving against the best efforts of challengers through time?

Isn't that continual evolution at least in part dependent on a continuum of challengers?

Don't we implicitly give up on searching for something that could potentially overtake the shark by dogmatically accepting the shark's shark-ness?


Go for it, but also admit you’re trying to out-compete a shark.

The bar for success in that case is pretty high, and the challenge significant.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: