261–270 of 407 posts
https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/garry-tan-death-wish-sf-sup...
https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sf-garry-tan-x-threat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the frustrating part of these conversations because people act like you can just swap one country for another like they are interchangeable. They aren’t. For example, other countries get to keep drug costs low because the companies that make them get huge profits in the US. If the US charges the same, the profits and R&D also dry up unless you set up another system. Also, the US tends to rely on extreme measu…
New drug funding tends to come from the US government already. Drug company R&D looks more like "what patents can we buy out and jack the prices in?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VR won’t touch every aspect of society and government and corporate operations in five years. AI will.
"Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs, who got a sneak preview, said Kamen's creation was as big a deal as the PC, and that it would change the ways cities were designed. Renowned Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr said it might be "bigger than the Internet" and invested millions in it."
I mean, small LiPo vehicles did take over the world, it’s just that they’re flying cameras instead. They even have some that can carry humans, so the jury’s still out on this one being false I think.
"This year, we’ll fund more than 500 companies out of 50,000 applications, and almost all of them are related to AI in some way." So, what this means: that in 2024, if you want to get VC capital, your startup must be related to AI.
It's like VR in 2018. I'd love to see a Silicon Valley season for the current tech environment.
Now most VCs are actually somewhat cautious about AI largely because they over-invested in companies at ridiculous high valuations and aren't seeing the ROI. Especially with many companies simply not seeing the promised benefits from deploying AI.
YC is actually the one that is out of touch with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my point is that stripping non-human entities of 1st amendment is effectively repealing the 1st amendment in the US, if it allows the government to regulate newspapers/printmakers/movies based on political content. so your point is essentially that campaign finance trumps 1A, which might be true but i am not so sure
> stripping non-human entities of 1st amendment is effectively repealing the 1st amendment in the US Human individuals would still have a right to speak whatever they feel. And arguably, I'd extend that onto platforms above a certain size that can verify human identity (ideally anonymized after verification). IMHO, newspapers/printmakers/movies do need to be regulated. They deserve rights, but those rights should loo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read 26 CFR section 1.174-2. “Activities intended to discover information that will eliminate uncertainly concerning the development or improvement of a product.” Specifically, check out example three in this section. I would be very careful about sweeping all my expenses in this category, but my familiarity with this part of the law is not deep. I’d love a 174 practitioner to jump in here but that might be asking a…
Not a practitioner, just a startup cofounder affected by these changes.. not legal or tax advice. You can read the applicable text here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174 Section 174(c)(3) ``` (3) Software development For purposes of this section, any amount paid or incurred in connection with the development of any software shall be treated as a research or experimental expenditure. ``` That being said.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a benefit perspective: When apple uses its dominant position to tax everyone 30 percent apple benefits, and the market does not. When apple uses its dominant position to pay your team 30 percent more and stifle the free market by driving competitors out of business. you benefit, Apple benefits more and the market does not. Is apple being a giant market dominating force a good thing or a bad thing? Your getting t…
And importantly, once your old employer is gone, there’s no need to pay you inflated salaries anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most developed countries don’t have single payer healthcare. Obamacare is actually modeled on the system used in the Netherlands. And why is “national” a criteria? California doesn’t get single payer unless Montana also gets it? Neither Californians nor Montanans want that. It’s just political games.
>Most developed countries don’t have single payer healthcare. Obamacare is actually modeled on the system used in the Netherlands. No it's not. Most European countries that run private health insurance keep pretty strong regulatory regime where pricing and coverage is tightly controlled. In America, there is some basic regulatory scheme but pricing, coverage, limits and such is extremely open.
You're correct too: these countries have strong regulations where pricing and coverage is tightly controlled, though they do use private health insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> stripping non-human entities of 1st amendment is effectively repealing the 1st amendment in the US Human individuals would still have a right to speak whatever they feel. And arguably, I'd extend that onto platforms above a certain size that can verify human identity (ideally anonymized after verification). IMHO, newspapers/printmakers/movies do need to be regulated. They deserve rights, but those rights should loo…
What a terrible idea. Giving government the power to regulate newspapers/printmakers/movies can't possibly produce better outcomes than what we have now. Preserving maximum freedom of expression is far more important than any election result.
I guess that's where we disagree.
To me, democracy starts from elections with equality of opportunity.
Anything shy of that corrupts the very foundations, and we've been trending shyer for a long time.
Is it any surprise we get increasingly concentrated wealth (world wars aside) with a set of policies that allow spending unlimited money to buy votes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> institute a national, single-payer plan that covers everyone, like every other modern industrialized country The two (real, non-politicians are corrupt) downsides to contend with: - countries do this by limiting what they will spend; in the US you have access to unlimited treatment. E.g. in the UK the NHS will spend £30k for each good year it buys you - this one isn't fair, but the US is where health innovation hap…
I live in Canada and there isn’t a spending limit. The decision of how to treat is made by the doctor. The doctor is then paid. In my experience living on both sides of the border, you get far more care up here since there is no bullshit with finding a facility that accepts your insurance, and cost isn’t a consideration for doctors or patients. People will occasionally travel to the states for drug/therapy trials not…