5 ms·

“Then you have these tone-deaf millionaires going around imposing their preferences, like Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Jay-Z investing 500 bitcoin toward bitcoin d

“Then you have these tone-deaf millionaires going around imposing their preferences, like Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Jay-Z investing 500 bitcoin toward bitcoin development in Africa which will supposedly empower its population. Vested interests anyone?” —https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html https://www.cynicusrex.com/file/cryptocultscience.html

varispeed 5y ago
Altruism is a myth. Anyone does something for their personal interest. If a doctor gets satisfaction from helping patients, should we be pointing at a doctor that they have a vested interest?
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  If a doctor helps ease a patients pain using a drug whose rep takes them to the opera when a better treatment would route out the cause then yes.
  - varispeed 5y ago
    What is the difference? Wouldn't it only matter if the patient was somewhat in disadvantage? I think this practice is widespread and kind of why doctors despite not earning much seem to be happy with how things are. In my country they don't even have to declare any cash and hospitality benefits.
    - askonomm 5y ago
      In Estonia, my home country, public opinion of doctors in general are pretty bad. They only want to subscribe you pills and never actually treat you and so those with money go towards private clinics to fix their issues. I have anxiety disorder and my publicly assigned doctor flat out refused to allow me a therapist (the general practitioners e.g family doctors are gate-keepers to all actual treatment) and instead insisted on more pills that don't cure anything, but symptoms.
    - quickthrower2 5y ago
      You get the shitter remedy because the doctor got a kickback. Not sure if I can make it plainer than that.
      - varispeed 5y ago
        Correct, but isn't that a socially accepted thing? You don't see people protesting doctors being corrupt? Quite the opposite, people praise them. I can't even recall any party that would have tackling this in their program, not even making disclosure of such benefits mandatory...
        africanboy 5y ago
        > isn't that a socially accepted thing? not where I come from! > You don't see people protesting doctors being corrupt? You don't? Really? > Quite the opposite, people praise them Because the vast majority of them help people in dire times. And also because if they save people or don't, they get paid anyway, so what would the vested interest be, except it's their job?
        ssalazar 5y ago
        To an extent yes, but there are limits: > OxyContin, introduced in 1995, was Purdue Pharma's breakthrough palliative for chronic pain. Under a marketing strategy that Arthur Sackler had pioneered decades earlier, the company aggressively pressed doctors to prescribe the drug, wooing them with free trips to pain-management seminars and paid speaking engagements. Sales soared.[26] The drug was marketed as "smooth and sustained pain control all day and all night" when taken on a 12-hour schedule and as having lower abuse potential than immediate-release oxycodone because of its time-release properties, even though there was no scientific evidence backing that conclusion and the addictive nature of opiates had been known for thousands of years. > In August 2019, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family were in negotiations to settle the claims for a payment of $10-$12 billion. [55] The settlement would include a Chapter 11 filing by Purdue Pharma, which would be restructured as public beneficiary trust and the Sackler Family would give up any ownership in the company. Addiction treatment drugs currently developed by the company would be given to the public cost-free. All profits of Purdue would henceforth go to the plaintiffs in the case. On top of that, the Sackler family would contribute $3 billion in cash. The family would also sell Mundipharma and contribute another $1.5 billion from the sales proceeds to the settlement. However, the Sackler family would remain a billionaire family and would not be criminally charged for contributing to the opioid crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma#Controversy
- africanboy 5y ago
  difference being you can't buy or sell satisfaction.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  This is a tautological definition of altruism that, if accepted, renders a useful concept meaningless. To be clear: I am not saying your attitude is wrong, I am saying it is useless.
- dang 5y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

varispeed 5y ago

Altruism is a myth. Anyone does something for their personal interest. If a doctor gets satisfaction from helping patients, should we be pointing at a doctor that they have a vested interest?

quickthrower2 5y ago
If a doctor helps ease a patients pain using a drug whose rep takes them to the opera when a better treatment would route out the cause then yes.
- varispeed 5y ago
  What is the difference? Wouldn't it only matter if the patient was somewhat in disadvantage? I think this practice is widespread and kind of why doctors despite not earning much seem to be happy with how things are. In my country they don't even have to declare any cash and hospitality benefits.
  - askonomm 5y ago
    In Estonia, my home country, public opinion of doctors in general are pretty bad. They only want to subscribe you pills and never actually treat you and so those with money go towards private clinics to fix their issues. I have anxiety disorder and my publicly assigned doctor flat out refused to allow me a therapist (the general practitioners e.g family doctors are gate-keepers to all actual treatment) and instead insisted on more pills that don't cure anything, but symptoms.
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    You get the shitter remedy because the doctor got a kickback. Not sure if I can make it plainer than that.
    - varispeed 5y ago
      Correct, but isn't that a socially accepted thing? You don't see people protesting doctors being corrupt? Quite the opposite, people praise them. I can't even recall any party that would have tackling this in their program, not even making disclosure of such benefits mandatory...
      - africanboy 5y ago
        > isn't that a socially accepted thing? not where I come from! > You don't see people protesting doctors being corrupt? You don't? Really? > Quite the opposite, people praise them Because the vast majority of them help people in dire times. And also because if they save people or don't, they get paid anyway, so what would the vested interest be, except it's their job?
      - ssalazar 5y ago
        To an extent yes, but there are limits: > OxyContin, introduced in 1995, was Purdue Pharma's breakthrough palliative for chronic pain. Under a marketing strategy that Arthur Sackler had pioneered decades earlier, the company aggressively pressed doctors to prescribe the drug, wooing them with free trips to pain-management seminars and paid speaking engagements. Sales soared.[26] The drug was marketed as "smooth and sustained pain control all day and all night" when taken on a 12-hour schedule and as having lower abuse potential than immediate-release oxycodone because of its time-release properties, even though there was no scientific evidence backing that conclusion and the addictive nature of opiates had been known for thousands of years. > In August 2019, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family were in negotiations to settle the claims for a payment of $10-$12 billion. [55] The settlement would include a Chapter 11 filing by Purdue Pharma, which would be restructured as public beneficiary trust and the Sackler Family would give up any ownership in the company. Addiction treatment drugs currently developed by the company would be given to the public cost-free. All profits of Purdue would henceforth go to the plaintiffs in the case. On top of that, the Sackler family would contribute $3 billion in cash. The family would also sell Mundipharma and contribute another $1.5 billion from the sales proceeds to the settlement. However, the Sackler family would remain a billionaire family and would not be criminally charged for contributing to the opioid crisis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma#Controversy
africanboy 5y ago
difference being you can't buy or sell satisfaction.
mannykannot 5y ago
This is a tautological definition of altruism that, if accepted, renders a useful concept meaningless. To be clear: I am not saying your attitude is wrong, I am saying it is useless.
dang 5y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html