bumby

38 ms·

661.
by bumby 2y ago
There is a saying I healthcare: you can optimize for access, cost, and quality but you only get to choose two. So for “true abundance” (access) you will generally have to put up with higher cost or lower quality. How you find the appropriat
662.
by bumby 2y ago
Me too, I just don’t think what you suggested is it (or a net positive for anyone but yourself). My current preference is to 1) start with covering veterans completely at the VA and 2) have Medicare for all phased in over decades by gradual
663.
by bumby 2y ago
> maintaining the status quo is just as, if not more, selfish than protesting the system with a non-payment. The point was that your approach won’t change the status quo, just makes it a little more expensive for everyone else.
664.
by bumby 2y ago
Most large systems can absorb a certain level of free-loaders and remain stable by shifting that burden to other people. What you’re advocating is a collective action problem and will just make matters worse for everyone else. Unless you ha
665.
by bumby 2y ago
The man in the article was living in a studio apartment. I doubt he was in a position to be paying the equivalent of a mortgage for many insurance options. Even if he could, I’m not sure that’s the system/solution we’d want.
666.
by bumby 2y ago
Steelmanning the OP (which I’m not sure I agree with), it’s possible they are alluding to regulatory capture, implying the laws are crafted to benefit for-profit companies first and patients second. However, I’m not sure going in the direct
667.
by bumby 2y ago
Tbf, if you assume humans have agency, there’s plenty of people who would claim you’re making the same mistake because the reductionist view is that people are just either deterministic chemical soup (or maybe with a bit of randomness baked
668.
by bumby 2y ago
I witnessed this quite a bit in software development. People use the frameworks they are comfortable with, even when they know they can't meet requirements. I've at least had some who were upfront about why by stating "becaus
669.
by bumby 2y ago
I see you only cherry picked a part of that statement. Surely you understand that research grants are awarded to professors and departments? As are many donations are earmarked for specific programs and departments. Those research dollars a
670.
by bumby 2y ago
> Well, the humanities tend not to get a lot of research dollars, period. And it’s no coincidence that the humanities have the highest rate of self-funded PhDs. > my point is that they’re not as closely related as you seem to believe
671.
by bumby 2y ago
> No. I don't know where in the world you got that from what I said. I’m trying to be generous by helping to clarify what you mean otherwise it comes across as someone arguing for the sake of arguing. > You want to make it unifo
672.
by bumby 2y ago
So your point is that well-renowned graduate programs are on an equal financial footing as those that are less well regarded? I think it’s fairly well established that better programs have better funding. This generally results in more fund
673.
by bumby 2y ago
To reiterate, I was making a general point. You making it personal does not negate that point. If you re-read what I wrote, I was not implying you were mislead, but also that it isn’t rare in lesser programs. Not everything has to be true a
674.
by bumby 2y ago
> then why would you let money stand in your way? Just because money isn’t a primary motivation doesn’t mean it isn’t a consideration.
675.
by bumby 2y ago
I think what may be going unsaid is there are some predatory practices that puff up the idea of a PhD to get people to attend a department that is otherwise struggling. It sounds like what you describe is rarer in better programs. That shou
676.
by bumby 2y ago
There are a lot of economists who make arguments against protectionist policies. A common refrain is that it leads to higher consumer prices.
677.
by bumby 2y ago
It’s an implication of a system that pays commensurate to what one contributes to the economy rather than commensurate to what one contributes to society.
678.
by bumby 2y ago
The irony is that part is not commensurate to the risk of the software being developed.
679.
by bumby 2y ago
Good idea from a job severity/ protectionist standpoint or from a “protect the craft and quality for the good of the public” sort of way?
680.
by bumby 2y ago
> Plenty of smart people who get liberal arts degrees from top schools do just fine. There's research that also shows smart people who get degrees from "non" top schools do just fine as well. They studies those who got ac
681.
by bumby 2y ago
Is there good data on how many are fraudulent? I know there’s reasonable data on replicability issues, but that’s potentially different.
682.
by bumby 2y ago
The VA has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars trying to rewrite their antiquated software.
683.
by bumby 2y ago
> a lot of plans and drawings were lost. Even if the drawings are there, they are often not as good as you may hope. It’s not uncommon to have missing specs, part numbers etc. Modern engineers have to fill in the gaps and sometimes buil
684.
by bumby 2y ago
That’s why i said “healthy” and “civic-minded.” I think there’s some truth to the saying “You get the government you deserve” It still seems to be better than all the alternatives.
685.
by bumby 2y ago
> Who regulates the regulators? In a healthy democracy, the civic-minded voters do.
686.
by bumby 2y ago
I get the pragmatism argument, but I would like to think certain professions should hold themselves to a higher standard. Doctors, lawyers, and engineers have a duty to society IMO that runs counter to a “just mail it in to cash a paycheck”
687.
by bumby 2y ago
I have a feeling it probably depends on the personality. People who are high on the conscientiousness scale will probably have a greater feeling of duty to still perform whereas people low on the agreeableness spectrum may coast out of spit
688.
by bumby 2y ago
> It is a shallow dismissal, you've read it correctly. Your analogy was silly, You may want to familiarize yourself with the HN guidelines: > Please don't post shallow dismissals > When disagreeing, please reply to the
689.
by bumby 2y ago
I don’t think anyone is advocating intolerance towards children, but rather trying to define what is reasonable. A loud child in a restaurant might be ok, but a child screaming and throwing food less so. After reading both accounts, I get t
690.
by bumby 2y ago
This reads as a shallow dismissal. If your goal is to arrive at first principles, I disagree. As others have said, it's difficult for many to have a discussion about parenting because it's so central to many people's identity

More ›