> 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
"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!
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.
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!
If the 85% gets larger, so does the 15%. Both sides gain when the cost increases.
reply