291–300 of 633 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's insurance that pays, I believe . So it's a function of price. He changed the price based on market condition. Agree on the second point. Personally, I don't think that's relavent.
And who pays insurance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a jury trial that would absolutely sway things
Which, all things considering, is ridiculous. People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). I don't live in the US, but being convicted by a "jury of your peers" is frankly, ridiculous. When has the average person been able to grasp complex matters relating to say, securities fraud? Most people aren't even able to stay out of debt. A panel of judges with specialised experience…
He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. I think the fact that he was acquitted on 2 of the 5 counts is evidence that the jury made a determination based on facts, rather than their feeling towards him.
That being said, in a trial in the US, the judge applies the law, and the jury determines the facts, especially as they pertain to the credibility of testimony. If the defendant is an outrageous asshole, it's possibly more likely that the jury would interpret inconclusive evidence less favorably. I don't think that's necessarily the worst thing in the world, and it's also not clear that a panel of judges wouldn't be subject to similar biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar to OJ's recent parole that had nothing to do with the murder he was accused of committing. MSM, the previous victim's families, etc, seem to be conflating the two.
That's different, though. The goal of a parole suitability hearing is to determine whether an inmate poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. A data point like "this prisoner murdered some people" is very relevant to that determination.
I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube, whilst he was live streaming. He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. He does, however, have a couple of major flaws. 1) He trolls. Hard. 2) It seems he lies. Which I picked up from a previous news article. (He claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund. It was more like $1.6mm. Something like that). I can forgive the trolling. It's over the…
I can only hope when you grow older you realize how ridiculous your current way of thinking is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe he corrected the price of a drug. & no one went without. Those unable to pay for insurance got the drug for free. Also, I said two major flaws. Obviously, ppl have many flaws. Edit: It's economic illiteracy if you don't understand that. If you have evidence which says otherwise(?), I'm happy to look at it.
One thing to consider is: why is he the one who decides who can afford the drug or gets a free version? Seems horrible to me - we have laws to protect equal access to services like this (Medicare, Medicaid). Another argument of his I found extremely disgusting is that he claims he's reinvesting profits from the price raise to further drug research. Ok, but again, we only have his word for that (and he's been convicte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. People keep saying this as if it matters. What did you expect, that he'd be a drooling idiot? So he's smart and personable. Of course he is, most con men are.
There's this weird feeling that somehow, even though he's gouging everyone who pays for insurance at best and just the sick at worst and after being found guilty of fraud we should still like him and because why? Because he's familiar with internet culture in the same way we are? Afterall, he may be a fraudster and a gouger but he's not so bad because he's also a troller! He may be a conman but he's our conman (and i…
I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It was nice to see his side of the story. I don't know much about this case in particular. It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Vice inter…
The YouTube video of him doing an Ebay Analysis [1] was very interesting I thought, both from a technical point of view and another look at his character. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFSf5YhYQbw
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:EBAY (click 5y)
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/11/why-shares-of-ebay...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fuck you people, frankly. 27 minutes ago You might find that waiting a few more minutes might make readers more sympathetic to your thoughts. Often I suspect some users may downvote because they see both the impatience and the swearing at "you people" which they see as being every user except you. Just a helpful hint. By the way, at 29 minutes, your comment was in the black and was not downvoted and was at #3. Welc…
I've been around HN for a while. It went from 2 points to 0 to 1. I had already written the edit. I decided to keep it. I probably shouldn't have. I thought it would help. I guess it shows I'm human. I don't want to come across as a psychopath. I have a tendency to stick to ideas others feel are wrong (vs actually being wrong). Actually, HN is quite good on that front. Accepting logic. Edit: Could have lied here. Jus…
> It went from 2 points to 0 to 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's this weird feeling that somehow, even though he's gouging everyone who pays for insurance at best and just the sick at worst and after being found guilty of fraud we should still like him and because why? Because he's familiar with internet culture in the same way we are? Afterall, he may be a fraudster and a gouger but he's not so bad because he's also a troller! He may be a conman but he's our conman (and i…
Gouging is a debatable economic concept.
EDIT: Also, is that the only flaw you found with my comment? If so, lol.