You should consider moving to a rural area and staying away from technology altogether. Having access to information seems to be making you insane via anxiety.
It’s nothing but upside for you; less WiFi radiation and conspiracy addled inner monologue.
It would be so much nicer if services just hosted APIs, provided a key, and users could code their own interface, share them as Docker containers (for desktop web anyway).
I don’t need a Gmail or Lyft UX as they see it, I need to CRUD records in their database for them to distribute accordingly.
If the roles are both equally necessary, why does the CEO make so much more than the secretary?
The CEOs entire enterprise is due to others. If anything explicitly highlighting that undermines the myth they’re the experts.
Both of your models rely on the CEO delegating to focus on the right state change for the business, so I’m not sure why you create two scenarios with squishy ideas of a CEO being efficient or slacking. Some CEOs have casual demeanors, others addiction to Adderall energy; neither is slacking if that’s just the vibe they need to “make it better.”
You seem to be circling the core meme it’s the CEOs job to improve the company and wrapping it up in subjective modals for doing so. Not sure how this refutes the article.
> If the roles are both equally necessary, why does the CEO make so much more than the secretary?
Most jobs don't set salary based on the necessity of having someone in that role, it's usually based on how difficult it is to find a capable person in that role.
If there are 100k people capable of doing the job of the secretary, and 5k people capable of doing the job of the CEO, then the CEO will be able to negotiate a higher pay rate.
Right, the old supply and demand; a heavily accepted model drilled into us.
It’s not the only viable one to the species.
Given automation and first hand experience building analytics systems for VCs and investors; they’re not that much more capable. They’re humans at the same edge of knowledge as any grad of a decent university, of which there are millions.
Teaching “stay in your lane” tacitly props up apathy and disbelief in the proles.
Don’t forget to mention they still have full health coverage in the EU.
It’s not possible to afford housing or robust healthcare in the US.
Keep in mind there’s no rule we have to tolerate either.
Imagine being a teenager in the US, having just seen how essential workers are treated, knowing in all likelihood your future is an “essential worker”.
I replied to that comment as well. Affordability of housing the EU (or Japan, or China, or India, etc) isn't really that relevant to the situation in the US.
Based on your green account name, it appeared you were new to HN. I commented because the site guidelines include:
> “ Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.”
Your comment, “Don’t forget to mention they still have full health coverage in the EU.” was doing exactly what the guidelines ask us not to.
My hope was that bringing attention to this would help deflate the impending generic argument about health care and help you improve future conversations on the site.
It's not a ToS, they're guidelines. You're not legally bound, relax.
The point of these guidelines is that _generally_ most people follow them and it stops this place going to garbage like every forum before it, and allows it to stay a place for professionals to discuss topics, rather than us vs them flamebaiting and boring jokes.
You're totally welcome to go, but you're also welcome to stay. If you step back and calm down, you might find you like it here :).
Non-essential surgeries tend to have longer wait times (such as hip replacements in elderly people), but conversely, essential care is accessible to everyone at no cost and in a timely manner.
I live in Canada, and recently had appendicitis. My appendix was removed less than 24 hours after symptoms began, and 10-12 hours after I arrived at the hospital. I walked in to the ER (after a very painful car ride), they asked me some questions and gave them my health card, they said how much, I said 7, they did blood tests and I had a CT scan, I waited a few hours, and then I was wheeled up to the operating room, after which I spent the night in the hospital and discharged the following morning. Not once did the question of insurance or payment come up, and I even had a private room after the surgery.
> Non-essential surgeries tend to have longer wait times (such as hip replacements in elderly people)
Something ridiculous like 70% of lifetime healthcare spending in the US occurs in the last two years of a person's life (half-remembered number from like 10 years ago). The uncomfortable truth is that we spend way too much on hail-mary treatments for people who are almost certainly going to die, and too much on useless shit like knee replacements for the elderly, and far too little on the earlier stages of their life. But nobody wants to tell the elderly "no" because they vote.
Obamacare had the right idea with "death panels". A lot of treatments that happen near the end aren't medically justified by quality-adjusted years-of-life or similar metrics. And that money comes out of the healthcare of younger people, whom the US treats like shit compared to the elderly. Because they don't vote.
But nobody likes the optics of "pulling the plug on grandma".
What you describe in your last sentence is one of the reasons I went with Kaiser. Yes, there are still co-pays for most treatments and prescriptions, but they have in my experience never been more than $20. This includes an elective procedure. It seems to share some aspects of the Canadian system you described, such as longer wait times for non-essential care, and a relative lack of choice in which doctor you see. But to me that is an acceptable trade-off for care where no single visit has cost me more than I would have spent on lunch that same day, and has been consistently of high quality.
I’ve waited longer for basic treatment in the US than I did anywhere else in the world and still paid exponentially more.
And all that extra time and money got me was people saying “You should be glad it isn’t socialized health care!” Yeah. If it were, I would’ve gotten treated faster and cheaper.
Both of these things are true. I don’t want to fully derail the larger discussion, but having lived in both EU and US and used healthcare in both, basic care is significantly better in the EU than the US on nearly every facet. The exact reverse is true for specialized care.
NHS Health Check is the equivalent of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit. It's recommended every five years, starting at age 40, for people without pre-existing conditions.
For people with pre-existing conditions it begins at a younger age and is recommended more frequently, based on the determination of your GP Surgery.
You should get your first invitation to an NHS Health Check around the time of your 40th birthday.
The same was true with religion. There was no wonder, just gospel.
Again we’ve made a truism that we’re doing for the greater good by setting ourselves aside for the hustle. Yet no science gives anyone omniscience; we follow along because what else to do, but the high minded goals we follow along with do not have to be rockets to nowhere.
Notice how all the rich people do little real work to provide material things they need? They externalize the necessary effort required for their survival, despite being mortals who are expected to support themselves, they gossip and babble and produce little that truly supports them.
The public needs to let go of the Protestant work ethic, the mountain man struggle and become a better negotiator. The grind keeps them from imagining in detail for themselves.
I wonder what social media discourse would look like if it wasn’t full of ad spam, lamenting inequality, freedom to be oneself without old politicians being mad, and environment concerns for young people.
It’s not social media at all; it’s the reality they live in which happens to include social media. It’s plain truth; the majority don’t give a fuck about their future.
