"In health care, changes in the way we organize our work will most likely be the key to improvement. This means training students and physicians to focus on the patient despite the demands of the computers. It means creating new ways to build teamwork once doctors and nurses are no longer yoked to the nurse’s station by a single paper record. It means federal policies that promote the seamless sharing of data between different systems in different settings."
I think the author is right about the problems, and these solutions seem sound. These are the kinds of things ossified institutions always say, and they're actually usually right (e.g. Bill Gates's prescient Internet Tidal Wave memo which predicted the ways in which Microsoft would fail to become a dominant player on the web, or the peanut butter memo at Yahoo).
The trouble is that actually implementing changes like these at an incumbent institution is hard. Really hard. So hard, in fact, that failure is overwhelmingly the rule. In most industries, the way that plays out is that incumbents fail to change, new competitors emerge with the new processes baked into them from the beginning, and they then kill the incumbents. A few years later, those new folks ossify and then themselves get killed by the next wave. And so on.
A healthy industry offers all its players a choice: "Evolve or die. Do whichever one you want, but one of those two things will happen." There's no third option, "Do your best to evolve". The institution succeeds at changing or it dies, and that's all there is to it.
The trouble in healthcare is that incumbents do get that third option. And the reason they get it is that for the most part, there are no new competitors to kill them off.
Why does the article blithely take it for granted that we should treat investments by rich foreigners suspiciously while investments by rich Americans are no problem? The big problem in New York real estate is lack of supply — the vacancy rate in rentals hovers around 1%, and building new apartments is a nightmare. So of course, prices go up as demand keeps growing and supply is prevented from growing.
There may be some extremely marginal contribution to housing costs that you can blame on these ultra-premium buildings, but it's not the root cause, and playing whack-a-mole with these symptoms is what got the city's real estate so expensive in the first place.
Do folks think that if One57 hadn't been built, a building full of $150k studios would have gone up in its place? Because of the difficulty and cost of building, these money towers are increasingly the only thing that developers can afford to build. Build something more palatable and you'd go out of business.
The backlash to these buyers is IMO a misguided blend of economic misunderstanding and xenophobia. Something tells me that if the rich buyers were all from Colorado, people wouldn't have quite so much to say about it.
economic misunderstanding and xenophobia. Something tells me that if the rich buyers were all from Colorado, people wouldn't have quite so much to say about it.
It's not kind and successful foreign Tim Cooks who just want a place to live.
It's foreign criminals who are laundering money gained illegally through either graft or outright murder/exploitation into US property. Once money turns into property, it becomes "pure" and the chain of illegalness vanishes from view.
American politics has the revolving door between congress critters and lobbyists, but it's not nearly as bad as other countries. The US can't become a safe haven for all the powerful bad people in the world to hide from the consequences of their actions.
Vlad Pootie is worth over $40 billion dollars. Think he's just "a really good businessman?"
This may be too Talebian a reaction, but isn't the track record of "take this-doesn't-occur-in-significant-quanities-in-food chemical and your health will improve" quite poor? Non-food chemicals are often very useful for acute interventions (e.g. antibiotics, chemotherapy), but at least in modern times, they almost always do more harm than good when taken long-term.
(To avoid getting sidetracked by chronic medicines that some people swear by, I'm directing this point more at non-food drugs that are designed to take people from normal health to great health rather than from a disease state back to normal.)
Googled "Talebian" and came up dry, but yeah. One thing that comes to mind that's used widely to thicken things like non-dairy milks (Soy/Rice/Almond) or anything that needs to be thickened/gelled is carrageenan, a seaweed extract that's been tied in multiple peer-reviewed animal studies to cancer.
Google instead "Nassim Taleb", in particular his ideas surrounding iatrogenics (harm done by the healer), and "via negativa" as a heuristic for fixing systemic problems, i.e., removing things (chemicals/drugs) from a system (human body) to reduce the complexity of interactions and side effects.
Where do you get "your health will improve"? The point of caffeine is not to improve your health. It's to improve your mental functioning. Mental functioning is not something our brains evolved for. In fact our brains are quite profoundly flawed for that task.
A book called Catastrophic Care came out recently. It's written by a guy named David Goldhill, who wrote a cover story for The Atlantic in 2009 on broken incentives in the healthcare industry that tend over time to push prices up and quality down. (His unrelated day job is CEO of the Game Show Network.)
The book gets at the problems in the industry on a much deeper level than anything else I've seen.
It's a tough call sometimes. Or it feels like it. I didn't care for the site. Took too long to show what it was about so I closed the tab. Just a bit too cute for my taste.
I was going to post a comment about it, mainly as a data point, in case such things matter to the site owner. OTOH I have on iPhone and I don't have a Mac I use often enough to care about this sort of product anyway; it's in perpetual sleep mode 99% of the time. I'm not the target audience.
Does mentioning my dislike for the site make me negative? Is it to the long-term good that people feel reluctant to offer criticism?
I do get the point about "Knock stuff to show your IQ"; it's unpleasant and an easy habit to fall into. I've been with groups of geeks where it's impossible to discuss almost any piece of software because it turns into a dick measuring contest. (So to speak.)
Still, sometimes some things really are flawed and those flaws are worth pointing out.
I suppose that every criticism should be accompanied by some suggestion on how to fix or improve things, but that's not always possible.
I don't have any really good suggestions on how to temper negativity other than to encourage people to pause and consider why they are posting something, and for others to try to ignore the posts that irk them.
I like your point and it is a valid critique of HN commenting. Many dismissals are perfunctory and incorrect.
All the same, though, it is expected that almost all new startups will fail and most products will not be "the best" or even original. That's the nature of competition; only the top products get any traction at all. Given that, I would expect critiques of most new ventures.
The "Ugh", that's what the GP is talking about. A number of the posts come across as spiteful, which is not objective and as such, has no place here. In fact objective criticism is something that developers aren't good at at all, but such an important engineering skill. Speak to designers and learn how to do it. You'll be a better engineer as a result.
The other responses to this would probably be agreeable to most "techno-libertarians", but I don't think they're quite correct as to how this natural right is derived.
They don't actually posit a natural right to anonymity specifically. The core idea is that the only moral use of force is self-defense. Therefore, it would be immoral for people to use force against you (in this system, laws are considered force because the government backs them with the threat of arrest) if you're not using force against them.
"Anonymous communication being a non-violent act, it is immoral to use force to suppress anonymous communication" ~= "the government has no right to shut down sites like Silk Road"
My first reaction is that fallacies and double standards abound, in this brief description. Can you point me to a more in depth reference, so I can inform myself before trying to reply?
For example: Is it moral to aid someone in their self defense? How are groups of people treated in relation to individual people? Under what circumstances, if any, is responsibility transferable? At what point are my actions no longer force (even though the results of my actions might be)?
Okay, thanks. Some of the references from the article are good, too.
It's more or less clear how to apply the principle when two individuals interact. People form groups, however, both explicitly and implicitly. If I am part of a group that violates another's rights, am I still not accountable if I am not actually the individual(s) who does the physical act?
If seeing an applicant's Facebook profile is important to employers, then the market wage for an applicant who says "yes" is higher than that of an applicant who says "no". Based on that, allowing people to say "yes", even when they're doing so for lack of another good option, lets them make more money than they would otherwise make. Banning them from saying "yes" prevents them from capturing that higher wage.
A law that "protects" applicants from having the option to say "yes" lowers their income. Giving them the freedom to answer the question either way leaves them the choice between a higher income and the privacy of their Facebook account. It's not a happy choice, but if I valued the first more highly, I wouldn't like the government to force the second on me.
How the heck does it follow that the market wage is higher for those who say yes? What sort of mental gymnastics even get you to that point? You are making a big assertion with absolutely no evidence here, back up your statement with even a tiny fraction of a fact please.
It seems infinitely more likely that employers would blanket policy everyone to give up their passwords, and every other bit of personal info period, or they wouldn't get a job.