It's insane to me that this even needs to be written – showing you care is just not that hard! And it absolutely doesn't have to come at the expense of business goals.
I've had some amount of success running a startup, and honestly the only thing that reliably paid off was hiring great (i.e., smart, thoughtful, kind) people and treating them like family.
Caring and showing you care can be independent. Some people care and don't show it. Some people don't care but pretend to. If you don't care, showing you care is harder, and your acts might betray your true feelings
I think it helps to remember that those posts are basically sales pitches, and that if they don’t resonate for you, then you are probably not their target audience.
But another thing is that most tech people really undervalue good marketing and end up doing either the bare minimum (e.g., LLM puke) or narrowly targeting themselves as an audience. Either way, they often fail to get their message out to their market.
There are specific rules for Show HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html) and tips (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336638) from the HN moderation team, a couple of which are "Drop any language that sounds like marketing or sales. On HN, that is an instant turnoff. Use factual, direct language. Personal stories and technical details are great." and "Don't have your username be that of your company or project. It creates a feeling of using HN for promotion and of not really participating as a person. You don't have to use your real name, just something to indicate that you're here as a human, not a brand." It's pretty clear that using Show HNs to deliver sales pitches is not part of its intended purpose.
Just picking a semi-related stock, NVDA trades at ~30x gross revenue, so a $300B "only" translates into ~$10B in revenue. And OpenAI can ask for a better multiplier because I'm sure they're forecasting a ton of growth and a ton of cost savings.
NVDAs valuation is insane. At 30X revenue, they could double sales and reduce expenses to zero and they'd still need a story about future growth to justify the valuation.
Consider this: Nvidia doesn't do the manufacturing, just the engineering. If we had AI super intelligence, you'd just need to type "give me CUDA but for AMD" into chatGPT and Nvidia wouldn't be special anymore. Then someone at TSMC could type "design a gpu" and the whole industry above them would be toast.
There's no reason to expect an engineering firm to win if AI commoditizes engineering. It's very possible to change the world and lose money doing it.
Anyone can make up an I, Robot movie in their heads. It doesn't make them right. You will never be able to type "bring me a moon rock" and have it happen, AGI or not, in the next hundred years.
Sure, but even assuming OpenAI gets to a tamer 20% net margin, 25x earnings wouldn’t be surprising so they’re raising on a projected $60B/yr revenue which might not be where they end up, but doesn’t seem like an unreasonable bet to make.
I’m lucky to schedule an appointment of any kind less than 8 weeks out, unless there’s a cancellation. Recently, it took me like six weeks to get an MRI to diagnose a broken pelvis.
I live in a rural area and there’s a hospital system here that owns basically all the providers - everything is all remarkably expensive and booked out way into the future. There’s a smaller independent provider that I recently looked into but they’re scheduling new patients out by more than a year!
There are apparently more MRI machines in Pittsburgh than there are in all of Canada. Access to imaging is very definitely not a comparative weakness of the American system; most analysts would say part of our problem is we do way too much imaging.
Agreed. MRI machines are not the bottleneck - we have 3 in my area, serving maybe 100k people. Assuming most people are like me and spend about an hour in an MRI machine every 40 years, we should be at something like 25% utilization, which seems comfortable.
I’m in my early 40s and have had 1. Everyone I know well has had 1 or (more typically) none, including my parents and in-laws, so I figured ~2 lifetime MRIs would be in the right ballpark
Well apparently there are ~40m MRIs per year in the US, implying around 9-10 lifetime MRIs, which seems... pretty high? It's also wild that, at 85-90m CTs per year, apparently the average person is getting more than 20 lifetime CT scans.
And the distribution is likely heavily skewed in one direction. For example, Medicare recommends and covers annual chest CT for smokers and ex-smokers.
Oh for sure it’s skewed, and it doesn’t surprise me that there are people that will get 20+ CTs. Wild that that’s the average though - the skew must be massive.
from a system cost perspective, absolutely. For specific beneficiaries, not so much, especially after they have aged out of paying into the system. This is a textbook challenge with the US healthcare economy.
Not just from a cost perspective: overuse of imaging, particularly in orthopedic medicine, is apparently a major driver of iatrogenesis in American medicine. It actively does harm.
I don't think the term "elective medicine" means anything useful in this conversation. But, yes: I'm referring to unnecessary surgeries consequent to MRI; a big problem, especially for stuff like knees and spines.
eh, If I have elected to undergo a procedure, I would want the best and most imaging possible.
I dont see data as the problem, but the decision making around it. Preventing the generation of data may be a solution, but I dont care for it as a strategy.
"Elective" medicine is simply medicine that can be scheduled in advance. The opposite of "elective" is "emergency". Plenty of elective procedures are not in any meaningful sense optional.
I feel we are quibbling about terminology instead of the central point. Feel free to substitute discretionary procedures if that is clearer, although nearly all medicine is discretionary (elective or emergency).
Is it Boston? It's one of those cities. I went and Googled for it because I remembered hearing about it on Derek Thompson's "Plain English" podcast last year with Jonathan Gruber (the MIT health economist, not the Apple guy). I don't know if it's Pittsburgh or not, but it's not a made-up stat.
The point Gruber was making in the podcast wasn't that Canada didn't have enough machines. It's the opposite: the point was that --- Massachusetts, I think now? --- has way too many, and conditions that would never get imaged in Canada get imaged as a matter of routine in MA, which then leads to unnecessary further treatments.
If you Google it, AI / Gemini says it's true, and it's Pittsburgh. If you go into the references, Canada has roughly 432 MRI machines and at last count Pittsburgh has roughly 142. But, you know, AI is going to take all our jobs. Or at least the ones where we email each other poorly researched urban myths.
Again: I'm comfortable with the claim that the Pittsburgh thing is AI slop, but the underlying claim I'm making is not based on AI (though I apparently have the city wrong).
> Recently, it took me like six weeks to get an MRI to diagnose a broken pelvis.
Bruh, where I am in European socialized medicine land, six weeks wait for an MRI is rookie numbers. How about 6-12 months. Sure, you might die until you get your turn, but at least it's "free"*.
EDIT: Spot checking in a Canadian town with similar demographics as my own shows wait times roughly comparable to mine, and nothing anywhere near 6-12 months - worst case is about 14 weeks.
Right. I still don’t think your original contention that for-profit systems are, in general, orders of magnitude better than socialized ones is accurate, but I do concede that your particular situation seems pretty bad.
EDIT: Just checked NHS too, most recent month had ~3% of MRIs waitlisted more than 13 weeks, so pretty similar in that European country as well.
I mean if we’re doing analogies here, I’d say it’s more like you said “the sky’s always blue in the US”, and I said “actually it’s kind of cloudy here right now, and in fact it’s often as cloudy as other places.” To which you just keep responding that I’m wrong because there’s a tornado outside your house.
The US medical system is objectively bad, period. It's not even an argument so please stop trying.
Not only do we pay significantly more, but we have significantly worse health care outcomes. The hallucination and delusion that Americans get "good healthcare" because they pay so much is just not true. We, objectively, get worse healthcare.
Yes, these are often referred to as "Magic Links."
When it comes to the security implications, consider that email has long been a "single point of failure" for a lot of services in the form of the "forgot password" feature that emails you a link to reset your password.
When I'm talking to non-tech people in my life about how best to protect themselves, I usually tell them to think about priorities and disaster scenarios. What would suck the most if it got hacked? The two that are usually at the top of the list for pretty much everyone are email and online banking. Others might include Amazon accounts (hackers can order themselves gift cards with your CC if compromised etc.) Prioritize securing those with a strong password + MFA. The rest is case by case but make sure to use a password manager so you're not reusing passwords.
I have never seen a use of a Magic Link that wasn't because I asked the Magic Link to be sent to me. Never, ever had one sent to me in a marketing/engagement email.
Facebook is able to realize outsize cross-web tracking benefits by having you logged in as long as possible. Few other companies are able to realize comparable benefits because they don't have the same ad-serving aspirations coupled with "Login with Facebook" reach.
Google is comparable, but it's too risky for them to have so many magic links hanging around in customer inboxes, because Google identities tend to be tied to far more sensitive 3rd party applications. Which is not to say that there are no sensitive applications with "Login with Facebook", but I'll argue there are fewer.
> So if someone gains access to your email, they also get FB access…?
I mean, that's how it works for most websites. I think I have 2FA turned on for FB, but honestly the phone system is way less secure than email at Google/Microsoft.
