bhupy

61 ms·

481.
by bhupy 6y ago
Do you have any examples of software patents that survived post-Alice? IANAL, but it appears that it's been a difficult question to answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_... ? > Wha
482.
by bhupy 6y ago
Aren’t software patents already all but abolished?
483.
by bhupy 6y ago
> Cons: you need EVA to move between modules I’m imagining this tether in your idea as a long, taut cable (or set of cables). It could be the first practical use for a space elevator.
484.
by bhupy 6y ago
Just pulling from your own quote: > is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger The "clear and present danger" standard is no longer used. It's been
485.
by bhupy 6y ago
> So they're OK with yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Assuming that the ACLU generally supports the Brandenburg v Ohio standard, which overturned the US v Schenck standard, I'd say the answer to that question is
486.
by bhupy 6y ago
That's true only when every car is a self driving car. In the interim, if only a subset of cars is running Level 3 autonomy, then including a quick acceleration into the adaptive cruise control is a good way to minimize these phantom t
487.
by bhupy 6y ago
Easier to do with self driving cars, and can probably be attained with Level 3 autonomy.
488.
by bhupy 6y ago
That's less than most Americans spend on food per year, without which you die.
489.
by bhupy 6y ago
We all understand your point of view, but beating your chest and “How. The. Fuck. Is. This. So. Difficult”ing your way around actual discussion isn’t going to change anyone’s minds. > By your logic, the FDA and the CDC shouldn't hav
490.
by bhupy 6y ago
> It makes sense that one centralized entity coordinate the production and distribution Centralized planning can work, but when it doesn't work, it's disastrous for everyone. Decentralized systems trade off a little bit of hy
491.
by bhupy 6y ago
There needs to be a game of Uber HN/Reddit thread BINGO. Squares include: * Uber being a simple CRUD app * Uber having no moat because it can easily be disrupted by those able to build the app over a weekend, because Uber is a simple C
492.
by bhupy 6y ago
I think the argument is more that even if you were to magically get rid of the cruft introduced by institutional bloat, the app will still necessarily be large given the nature of the business. Uber isn't some outlier here either; Ly
493.
by bhupy 6y ago
Uber app contains very similar functionality, namely real-time map view that needs to be able to render any part of the globe (or at least serviceable area), a location search engine, the ability to render drivers around you in real-time. J
494.
by bhupy 6y ago
Does it blow your mind that Google Maps is ~190MB?
495.
by bhupy 6y ago
I mean, if we're throwing around lived experiences, my mother had thyroid cancer and after health insurance we ended up spending ~$1,000 all things considered. These kinds of anecdotes are important, but for every anecdote on one side
496.
by bhupy 6y ago
You might be right, but the current price point of watches could also be inflated. Let's not forget that once upon a time, pocket-watches were only for the rich. It wasn't until the advent of quartz watches that you could find a s
497.
by bhupy 6y ago
> Median income in the USA is $68,703. Be that as it may, there's absolutely a non-trivial amount of revenue available at the low end of the market. Apple historically never participates in that market, but that's an opportunit
498.
by bhupy 6y ago
Chiming in, as a founding member of a venture backed startup, the idea that our success is guaranteed strictly because of the capital investment is honestly a bit insulting. If only that were true , I wouldn't have to worry about half
499.
by bhupy 6y ago
This is a great discussion. I'd push back on the idea that prizes should be used for treatments like side-effect free drugs to reverse baldness, because the market for that is large enough that even in a regime without patents, R&D
500.
by bhupy 6y ago
The way you describe it makes it sound like there’s some theoretical ideal that has never been attained, and there’s a group of people arguing for that...except that’s not true. It’s important to have that discussion because it has implicat
501.
by bhupy 6y ago
Yup, and a strong analogous policy in healthcare would be for US government to spend billions of dollars subsidizing medical education and hospital construction. It's also not the same as price controls.
502.
by bhupy 6y ago
You might be putting words in my mouth. What I am advocating for is not merely “access”, I’m literally advocating for giving money to people that are unable to afford healthcare. That’s effectively what SNAP is. No doublespeak vagaries here
503.
by bhupy 6y ago
> Almost every other wealthy, developed country guarantees healthcare itself, not the right to get surprise billed or screwed by your insurance company. I'm not sure who argued that "the right to not get surprise billed or scre
504.
by bhupy 6y ago
> which is why Medicare can claim to spend less on administration In addition to this, it's worth pointing out that the idea that Medicare is the solution to all of our problems because of the cost savings of administration is way o
505.
by bhupy 6y ago
You really think that? The US spends more on its military per capita than just about any other country, save for Israel. The F-35 has been one of the US military's more noteworthy embarrassments, chronically behind schedule and over bu
506.
by bhupy 6y ago
> The US Pharma market is full of "found $20 bills" that just shouldn't exist if markets were as efficient as people wishcast they would be This presupposes that the US pharma market (and healthcare writ large) constitute
507.
by bhupy 6y ago
It's incorrect to say that premiums are only prepaying for coming expenses, but not risk sharing. They cover both. That's the whole point, health insurance today is a bundle of all of those things. While FICA taxes (partially) p
508.
by bhupy 6y ago
Yes, that's the whole point. SNAP and directed subsidies are decidedly NOT the same as government prices-setting. The analog in healthcare is targeted subsidies for poor people that cannot afford care, not government negotiation and pr
509.
by bhupy 6y ago
Not being able to afford food can also kill you (you would starve to death). Is that a sufficient justification for the government to step in to negotiate food prices on behalf of its citizens? There are merits to government price controls
510.
by bhupy 6y ago
That’s captured by (1) risk sharing. Pooled risk sharing is great for things like fire departments where out of 1000 homes, one might catch fire every few months. It’s also great for societies where out of 1000 people, a small handful suffe

More ›