skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is what I don't get about discussions of US healthcare online. Everyone has a max out of pocket.

Yes, 7% of the US isn't insured, which is a lot, but it's hard to believe they make up 99.9% of healthcare discourse.

Are people genuinely getting $100k in debt, or are they only telling the internet how much the total bill was and forgetting to add that their insurance picked up $94k of that.
Counter point... or more of a theory.. everyone who wants to have a child wants to be as good as, or a better parent than their own, and want to provide for their children's childhood as good as, or better than their own. I don't have references to back this up but it seems to be the case with most parents or aspiring parents I talk to.

In the western world we compare ourselves to our parents who bought their 1st houses when they were in their twenties.. something we are less likely to achieve even with the same status job until much later on.
6'5" and i have NO problem with you reclining your seat.

yea i've had my knees hit with a seat, yea i've had my drink spill a little. this is not an assault though.. this is a minor inconvenience not worthy of discussion.

i've had worse wounds inflicted intentionally by flight attendants ramming me with their cart to prove a point instead of waking me up and asking politely. that's a very low hill to die on but still higher than this one.
Sample size of one, obviously, but back when I was in a position to hire I absolutely checked those threads each month and reached out to people that seemed like good matches. Never got any responses that I can recall, though…
It seems that two very different but similar issues get lumped under the "healthcare" umbrella.

1. Is prescriptions people talk about how medicine is too expensive and they have to ration it.

2. The other problem is the surprise medical billing that people get hit with. that lasts forever and cripples them.

These seems to be the.major complaints I hear about the healthcare system, and yet are 2 very different issues with different origins and solutions.

Yet no one seems interested in solving the problems but instead just arguing (for and against) about universal healthcare or single payer healthcare or whatever the euphemism of the week is.
Late 20s to early 30s mostly. Some have been trying for years though.
I was hired from from one a little over three years ago. Still my current gig in fact.
> it cuts the major drawdowns by 50% and saves a lot of money, pain and anxiety!

You can also cut major drawdowns by 100% by staying in cash. What matters is the risk:reward and sharpe.

> but with approximately one portfolio change per year,

Even Vanguard and Berkshire Hathaway is not this passive. You probably don't need to be applying to accelerators if you've devised such a powerful financial instrument.

> you will have access to the internal investment fund reserved for employees/family (similar to the Renaissance Technologies Medallion Fund)

That's a very bold comparison when you intend on applying to YC, where you are receiving $125k for 7%.

In addition to the other comments, this has so many red flags and dodgy. There's so many typos I'm wondering if this is an intentional Nigerian prince email. This is also not the thread for finding a co-founder, unless you intend on paying that co-founder a salary.

> The backend is fully build and been tested for many years, but the front end/website is new and in a very early version

Are you actually and legally a SEC-registered ETF? What kind of "backend" are you talking about? An excel spreadsheet?

How do you reconcile the low management cost structures of ETF when you intend on taking VC money?
In CL, IF is a special form and COND is a macro.
I don't see his laws as sort of a macguffin, i saw them as a deeper though experiment, the kind of thing that scifi is built on.

I saw asimov speak once, and he tended towards deeper scifi than the pulp side of things.
Well no, if you believe that airlines as an industry are simply responding to incentives in a competitive marketplace, passengers are also responsible for being so much more sensitive to ticket price than to legroom...
If your kid is a Vulcan, give him this:

https://a.co/d/duMgX8q
Haven't read it completely or paid attention to the data yet, but the conclusion got me hooked:

> Conclusion

> The foregoing review of the statistical case for helmet legislation suggests that the faith of the BMJ in the reliability of the statistical evidence on the effect of helmet legislation is misplaced. But debates about sophisticated statistics should not be allowed to drown out the voice of common sense. The risk compensation hypothesis is essentially common sense. There is a wealth of evidence from everyday experience that suggests that people's behaviour is influenced by their perception of risk. People tend to be more cautious when up high ladders than when up low ladders. They tend to take more care when standing on the edge of a high precipice than when standing on a low kerb. They tend to slow down when they encounter bends in the road or patches of fog and to speed up when the road becomes straight or the visibility good-and so on. The possible illustrations of the phenomenon are countless.

> There is an impressive amount of propaganda designed to encourage people to believe that they are very much less vulnerable when using seat belts and motorcycle helmets, and common sense suggests that driving behaviour will be influenced by safety devices that diminish the user's sense of vulnerability. What unaided common sense cannot predict is whether the behavioural changes induced by a safety device will partly, completely, or more than completely nullify the intended effect of the device.

> The statistics which the NHTSA considers the most compelling evidence in support of helmet legislation are displayed in figure 1. The state which Watson et al (1980) consider has had the greatest increase in deaths as result of helmet law repeal is Utah.

> When the distorting effects of the analytical methods employed by the NHTSA and Watson et al are removed, their data (with the caveats discussed above) suggest that the effect, if any, of helmet legislation on motorcycling fatalities is perverse.

I'll have to read the paper with more attention later to see if I agree with this, but it's a fascinating hypothesis regardless.

Also, this is tangential, but I'm always impressed how different conclusions can be based on the same sets of data. Statistics is a truly fascinating field of mathematics because it's still an objective topic (regarding numbers, in isolation) but becomes very human and subjective when it comes to the different conclusions, transformations, and visualizations for the same data sets.
That's for the ashtrays in the bathroom, which can still be found on the newest jets.
Not having children at any particular level of "poverty" is still a choice. African women have >4 children in conditions that makes a food stamp life look like king's.
But not a human standpoint!

Billions of old people, dying alone.

I do not want to live in that world. Let alone encourage it!
All medical insurance plans regulated under the Affordable Care Act have an out of pocket maximum per year. This can be as high as $18K.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...
Gekkan PC Engine – Every Issue Now Scanned
indeed. Though of course, you're assuming you're gonna be one of those 2-3 billion, and not the 7 billion that is killed/died...
Math? City population has to be smaller than total population. If total population eventually shrinks to zero, city population must eventually too.
Can you provide sources for those claims?
I don't ride horses because I don't want my bicycle to have the ability to make bad (or any) decisions mid-ride. Fuck everything about this proposal for identical reasons. I nearly got myself and several other folks killed on the highway in a rental Forrester when lane assist decided it couldn't tell the difference between painted lane markers and pavement seams in the middle of Denver highway construction. If folks don't want to actually operate the vehicle they travel in that's fine, move to an urban area and use mass transit. For myself, I'll just keep driving continuously older vehicles until I finally get around to doing a full EV conversion on a vintage car, thereby permanently sidestepping all manners of similar bullshit.
Lean back, relax, and enjoy the flight :)
Degrowth is about shifting our focus as a society from growth at all costs to sustainability and quality of life. It's not about killing people, it's not about worse medical care, it's not about less food.

Our current growth strategy is not sustainable. Growth as a goal has failed. If we need to take a step back to reevaluate how to do it right going forward, that's fine.
But the US average max oop is a hair over $4k.
All of those sources are discussing average outcomes across the entire population.

None discuss outcomes among only those who "have the means to afford it" so none of them refute GP's claim.
100%

I think this popular narrative of "kids are too expensive" is mostly a media fiction. It's more about individual comfort. Money can be a factor in comfort, but it's hardly the only one.

Poorer immigrants tend to have many children. Even today, poorer people in general have more kids than wealthy folks. Just look at the data - it contradicts the headlines.

As Peter Zeihan likes to say, kids were free labor for the farm and made life easier. In today's world, they're expensive furniture for your condo or apartment and they break things.

People are focused on their own lives and careers and aren't ready to take a back seat and turn attention to children. They're main characters. I think a lot of folks feel that having children turns you into an NPC.

Poor people aren't climbing the corporate ladder. They don't need to worry about keeping their calendars clear for meetings. They're not filling their Instagram with travel photos.

Middle income folks have access to social media and easy dopamine hits. They want to stretch being single or unmarried or not having kids out longer and enjoy it more.

It's society, not wealth and cost of living, that is causing the dip in children.
Jesus, I'd hate to see the lowlights.
Good.

People are today essentially stand-ins for robots to work for elites who collude with each other and anyway deeply despise the 'plebs'. Little wonder, in this mad pursuit, there has been a big collapse in diversity of people, traditions, languages, cultures, are all a miniscule fraction of what they were when the world population was < 1B.

You can extend this to the way we treat animals and the world and things automatically make sense. Obviously uniformity has been good for control and productivity. And for what ?

Even the act of bringing up your child in a manner not dictated by the state and state-allied academics is seen as a act of iconoclasm in this day across the world. Little wonder it's very close to being criminalized.

Reminds me of the 'Clone army' from star wars.
Not forever, of course. But we are so, so, so early.

How much energy is in all of the uranium that can be mined?
SuttaCentral Early Buddhist texts, translations, and parallels
America has far and away the highest poverty rate of the modern world[0], there's a very strong economic divide in America.

I earn about $175K as a software engineer, which easily puts me into the top 1% of income earners in my generation. Just because life is good to me does not mean that I reflect the average lifestyle in America.

0: https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/ameri...
Now if only you could hide the tab-favicon sidebar...

Arc does this, but they don't give you the URL bar. It may sound nitpicky (and it is) but I really want the hidden tab sidebar AND a visible URL bar. Here's hoping either Arc or Brave will make this an option.
Managing EFI Boot Loaders for Linux
Yeah soon there will be models small enough to run even on phones to reword things slightly differently. If not, an app will do it
The checkerboard pattern was explicitly the form of land grants to railroad companies to compensate them for laying track across the country. Early national equity compensation :)
If I were to use an iPhone I would jailbreak it on the first day.
They dont seem to leave the cities. they just stop having kids. If the world wants more kids though, it should allow cities to expand
As much as Brave New World is discounted as being about a dystopian society, being able to automate fertility would be a game changer for humanity. We can’t depend on hoping people voluntarily make irresponsible financial decisions by having children in order to save the economy.
Exactly. Just a few years ago people were panicky because earth cannot support the "billions and growing" human inhabitants.

Don't forget every human conceived less on earth also means fewer cars, plane trips etc.

We need to change from a growth-oriented capitalist consumption economy to an elastic (robust against dynamically growing and shrinking) sustainable economy.

Part of this is to chain the attitudes about consumption, but part of it is also re-organizing production and supply chains after globalization in ways that ensure goods are produced as locally as possible and as globally as necessary to reduce transportation pathways.
I'm waiting for a Firefox / chrome extension that will auto-mark and optionally adblock GPT-generated content.

Would even be willing to pay for it.
http://archive.today/ozyyG
6'5 and i don't fit sitting 'however i like' regardless of reclined or not. it is a very narrow range of heights under a limited set of postures where this actually makes any difference.

but i do fit in any seat, even frontier, ryanair $50 plane seats, even on 14 hour econo flights by uncomfortably bearing a variety of postures and regular stretching breaks.

that's just life.
I did, I applied to a start-up with 2 people in 2018. I was hired as engineer number 1. Worked there for 2 years and left right before the series A investment and the team had grown to 35 people.

It was a pretty good experience.
> Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is a scarcity of intelligent people willing to devote their entire lives to the study of medicine across specialties

Why? Are money and social status insufficient motivators? Or is there another reason?
You know that thing i want from your large language model?

I just submitted my query for it in Finnish, Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, German, French, Latin, Farsi, Basque, and English. plus a few dozen more for good measure and to cover the linguistic landscape

Is there any reason to believe watermarking LLMs will hold up in this scenario?
such a simple point -- how come no one will accept this? And the rich nations with heavy footprints "wants" the rest of the world to "achieve" the same lifestyle.

There are a few big problems - waste management, particularly plastic and other toxic forever chemicals; overuse of toxic chemicals in agri that ends up in the food chain; depletion of soil and water; not enough will to tackle problems sustainably.

So a few people can consume more and more -- exacerbated by marketing ads and infinite profit motives.
A checkerboard pattern is a horrifically inefficient way to claim territory in go.

It might be useful to consider why checkerboards are good shape in legal systems, but bad shape in go. Also why the legal system rejected checkerboards after some thought, at least provisionally.

(historical rant: You might as well resign if your opponent is not also 30k. Who comes up with these analogies? People who have barely heard of the game, like 10ks or sth?)

Finally: yeah, Go is a bad analogy for this.
IMO this is getting a bit too ahead of ourselves. IIRC, Russia and Japan are the countries with the most population shrinkage, and they've just lost 5 million and 2.5 million people off their peak.

- 5 million / 148 million is 3% down from peak for Russia.

- 2.5 million / 128 million is 2% down from peak for Japan.

Most importantly, Russia's population decline (which started before Japan's) has leveled off. It hit a local minima in 2008. It has wobbled up and down, but stayed close to 143m for almost 20 years [1].

This is how populations usually work; they level off and oscillate around their carrying capacity. It's often studied in biology [2].

Shaving off 3% of the population of a country doesn't lead to deserted cities any more than other factors do. Natural resource depletion and economic factors are and will most definitely keep being bigger worries for cities (ie, droughts leading to water shortages, big employers moving out, etc).

[1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=R...

[2]: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/hs-biology/x4c6733622308...
One of the issues you mentioned is inherent to city living itself. Although we have been led to believe that city living is more efficient, let's examine whether this perception holds true. The cost of constructing single-family homes in non-dense areas is significantly lower, averaging around $150 per square foot. In contrast, high-rise buildings can cost five to ten times more, with an average of $800 to $1500 per net rentable square foot. Infrastructure costs, including roads and utilities, typically range from $30 to $60 per square foot for a 1500 square foot area, with sewer systems being the most expensive component. Yes, you don’t get paved road in rural. But gravel road is just fine there.

Considering these figures, it becomes evident that city living cannot be deemed cheaper based solely on the cost per square foot.

However, the lower cost of construction in non-dense areas doesn’t translate to ample of low cost housing because it has its own zoning and regulation that prohibit from happening.

Drawing from my personal experience as a software engineer turned builder/developer, these observations are rooted in real projects and data.
>Consumption of resources is proportional to standard of living

It's not and you know this. It's at best correlated. The resources have to be used effectively, and right now they're definitely not. My quality of life does not go up because using up more resources instead of living sustainably.
I got hired. About three years ago. Thanks HN.
We’re the Selefra open source team, nice to meet you all. We have open sourced a PolicyAsCode tool, and hope that you can give suggestions.
Per the great Wikipedia, “In 2020, [diclofenac] was the 72nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 9 million prescriptions.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diclofenac
> Evidence to support my claim that Zuckerberg has destroyed trust include Cambridge Analytica and the pixel trackers that scraped health data without consent.

Yet the number of users using their services is still in the billions of users even since Cambridge Analytica according to Meta's own numbers [0] and as shown in historical numbers on Statista [1], rising to a total to 3 billion daily active users across all their services. So, for the fourth time:

The users do. not. care.

> Your suggestion for a "test" is to log into facebook and/or instagram and communicate with an account that Zuckerberg does not use to express your sentiment. This is the most ignorant approach I've read on communication.

So when are you going to 'seriously' tell Zuckerberg and Meta to shut all their services down then if you won't tell him on his page(s), assuming you are 'serious'? It's fine to back out of what you said earlier about shutting it down:

>> How about Meta pulls itself out of social media altogether. Zuckerberg has destroyed all trust at this point. Shut it down. Seriously.

> I guarantee that you are not intelligent. You are a puppet. Suggestion is to pull out the hand lodged inside you, in hopes you can reclaim your mental capacity.

That is more of a reflection on yourself in denial especially with your first comment. But as expected unsurprisingly, you are full of talk on this website.

For someone like you to tell Meta and Zuckerberg to seriously consider shutting down all their services with billions of users still using their services is someone who has already shown that they aren't remotely serious.

[0] https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1092227/facebook-product...
> It does suck that the burden of the payment falls on the patients

Who should the burden of payment fall on it not the patient seeking care?

A huge majority of Americans do at least have some level of insurance coverage with a max out of pocket which helps, and our Healthcare system is horribly designed with regards to keeping costs low, but really where else should they send the bill?
I think it's a valid argument, but I don't think it's particularly strong. Humans are driven to have children and have for our entire history.
Could you link me? Thinking of posting myself.
US Air Force AI drone 'killed operator, attacked comms towers' in simulation
Feel free to look at the numbers in the PRIA [1]. Those 360 deaths are a significant reduction in fatalities from baseline in the types of collisions they expect to be impacted by this rulemaking. That baseline itself assumes some 65% of new vehicles will come with compliant AEB systems regardless of this rulemaking.

[1] https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2023-0021-0004
It is true that in science nothing can be proven but this fact doesn't apply if you think in terms of statistics. Science is broad and doesn't always give answers in terms of a boolean falsification. You can be given a ratio as the result.

This result is usually A probability established to a degree within the context of a sample size. This is the closest thing to proof that science can offer and we just go with it.

EBM goes a bit further then just a probability in the context of a sample size. There's a further degree of rigor in the qualitative sense that the probability is causal and not correlative. It's subtle but causality is even closer to proof then a correlative study.
Pen and paper has most of those advantages.

There's a critical mass of tech, anything smaller than that can sometimes just be a worse emulation of pen and paper, unless your task is specialized or your goal is to explore ideas in computer science.

If a technology is available to anyone, and people choose to use analog stuff instead of it, I take that as an indicator the tech did not meet critical mass.

Old and small stuff has lots of great ideas to look to for inspiration, since it's simple enough people can build it in a day and there's lots of experimentation, but if I had to choose a command line notes app or a pocket notebook, I'd probably choose the one I could carry that doesn't require power.

Google keep on the other hand has so many features in one place plus sync, and just-works reliability, that the net value seems to more than just using paper and not doing tech at all.
I’m 51 and had this conversation too many times to indulge this. All I can say is that I wish you luck if you or your loved ones ever have a serious medical issue in the US. And you may be lucky. Or you may spend years on telephone calls trying to get a pharmacy benefits manager to send you the prescription your doctor prescribed. Or calls with your insurance company to get them to pay what they are supposed to pay.
One of the handful of objectively positive things to come out of the COVID19 pandemic is a significantly increased awareness amongst many citizens of the USA just how uniquely awful their healthcare system (and to a lesser extent welfare system and award conditions) is/are.

I'm sure the comparisons have been made for many years, but by mid-2020 it felt like almost everyone in the USA must have been exposed to some hard truths about how 'the rest of the west' handles these fairly fundamental services.

As an Australian, and I suspect the Brits and others feel similarly, the pandemic also reminded us of what we stand to lose if we were to allow the eagerly nefarious agents to talk us out of (AU) Medicare or (UK) NHS, etc.
https://www.fastmail.help/hc/en-us/articles/1500000277942-Ca...