notjesse's comments

I'm not sure it needs to be like that.

Most developed nations have a public health system. Akin to how the US has public schools and emergency services.

The revolution could be the government bitting the bullet, and spending a fortune on bootstrapping a public health system that undermines insurance and private health.

Yes, it will hurt that sector a lot, it won't happen overnight, it will cause huge deficits, and it will inevitably cause higher taxation. But it's ultimately what needs to be done. We just need to give up on the sunk cost fallacy and go with proven models.

That's the problem. As a healthcare consumer, there is no way to discern between costs of providers. Just that some are "in-network" (meaning your insurance works with them and they agree to your insurance's rates) and "out-of-network".

It is extremely difficult to determine how much things will cost in the US system ahead of time and there is no reasonable way you can "shop" around for better prices when it comes to healthcare.

It's like you go out for dinner, but the restaurant won't tell you how much things cost, just that you should definitely order X,Y, and Z. And all the restaurants in town have the same policy. You order it, and then they mail you the bill 2 weeks later. Only for you to find out the exorbitant costs. Plus, they decided to charge you for the extra ketchup you requested.

I kind of want these issues to continue and get worse. Because then we will have a healthcare revolution, rather than more bandaid policy fixes.

It seems like the US healthcare system is too far gone, and we need to hard reset it. Anyone who lives in another developed nation would be absolutely outraged if they had to deal with half the things Americans do when it comes to healthcare and the respective insurance.

I’m curious what people think this would mean for hiring? If all of a sudden there a 8 or 9 smaller, but still quite large, giants competing for talent, I could imagine competing for talent would hit fever pitch.

Almost all states are at-will. So severance isn’t required. But it’s usually for the employer’s peace of mind, it can prevent class-action lawsuits as well as former employees speaking negatively about them. Given they are a media company, a lot of the people laid off would be fairly good at getting lots of eyes on anything they say about Buzzfeed. It definitely makes sense for them to offer reasonable terms in the agreement to shut everyone up.

Gotcha, yes that makes more sense. I find a lot of unicorns are already doing this sort of interview, anyway. While I have never observed studies, it seems to provide better signals than white-boarding.

I agree with that. Sounds like a good process. Although, I am too cynical to believe any company that tells me this will be the only technical part. Too often do recruiters lie/misrepresent the recruitment process. Some seem to operate on the sunk cost fallacy, where you just see it through because what's one more round after already doing several?

But it’s not generally tolerated. You end up optimizing for sub-prime candidates because those are the only ones desperate enough to take 4-6 hours out of their free time for a company that hasn’t even bothered interviewing you, yet.

If they want to turn the onsite into one big work sample, by all means, that sounds very effective (and something I’ve seen work well). But in my experience, you’re going to deter qualified candidates by forcing them to do take-home assignments.

Do you have a source for that? Sounds pretty egregious.

There are other reasons to not pay off you mortgage, especially in the US. The two most prominent being:

1. Usually a certain amount of equity in the house is protected by state law (varies from state to state). So if someone sues you and/or you go bankrupt, no one can touch your principal residence provided your equity in the home is below the state's threshold. That is assuming you stayed current on your repayments and the bank is still good with lending to you.

2. No recourse loans. If you pay off more earlier, you are just opening yourself up to further risk. I'd much rather lose a bit on super low interest rates (and maybe a little in lender's insurance, too), than lose out if the housing market crashes.

You should honestly consult a tax professional about this, as it's not a good idea to get tax advice from strangers on the internet.

But according to the IRS, you are only taxed at time of disposal when capital gains were realized. I am not at all familiar with Chinese or Japanese tax law, so I couldn't tell you what your liabilities might be there.

Australia did this. Ask any Australian what they think about the NBN, I doubt any will speak highly of it.

Not necessarily. My mother is a natural blonde and her roots come through similarly.

If you do a quick google, you will see there are many natural blondes with this issue for a variety of reasons.

Of course they don't want what is best for us. They are an incorporated enterprise. Sergey and Larry may sometimes want to do things that make the world a better place, but at the end of the day, Google will do whatever is best for them, their founders, and their shareholders.

This concept that companies should be expected to act in the best interest of their users/consumers/employees is why some people have the misconception that all regulation is bad, and leaders are applauded for blindly repealing them.

Personally, I don't expect anything more of a corporate enterprise than that of which they are legally obliged.

For one Australia does not have a "bill of rights". In the US, the police require probable cause to even stop or question someone. In Australia there is no such requirement. While they can't just arrest or detain people at will, they have far more power over every day people.

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_Lawless_Association_Di...

This law would not be possible in the US due to the US constitution's protection of freedom of association, while it has been strictly enforced at times in the state of Queensland. These sorts of powers substantially weaken organized crime but at major cost to civil rights.

Of course it is. But who is to say that those legal businesses don't partake in human trafficking?

There are legal brothels in Australia found with links to international human traffickers. If Australia has this problem with far more police powers than American police have, who is to say that the problem won't be rampant in the US?

I am all for legal prostitution if it reduces human trafficking. My argument is just that you can't assume that what works in Australia will necessarily work in the US.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/legal-brothels-linked-to-inte...

The thing with Australia is it's very difficult for the US to learn from Australian social experiments and determine if they will be effective. Australia has extremely tight border control and far more police powers. So while legalized prostitution has been a huge success in Australia, it may open avenues for human trafficking to thrive in the US.

While I generally agree with the notion that legalized prostitution reduces human trafficking, this wouldn't be a certainty from looking at the effects on Australia/NZ.

The article title makes Genesis Mining sound like a bunch of amateurs, but they are a fairly large private company. Ordering express bulk freight for any company of this size doesn't sound so crazy.