Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 280 posts

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#241

Post by pg »

dylandrop wrote: post #194
pg wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did he say? http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/02/8539961/... He shouldn't have mentioned specific cases. If he felt the company had to cut elsewhere to compensate for high medical costs, he should have left it at that level of detail. But I don't see how you get from what he actually said to I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently…

I think saying "I'm utterly appalled" on an online chat board is a lot different from joining a mob to kill someone. Let's not make any Tom Perkins-esque comparisons here [1]. And people should certainly be allowed to react when those in positions of power say appalling things. Whether he thinks that is absolutely unacceptable is doubtful, but he clearly thinks that the $7.1M in healthcare spending is something that…

Using the term "lynch mob" metaphorically is a long established usage. But in case you weren't just pretending to misunderstand me, I didn't mean that HN users are literally planning to kill Tim Armstrong. I meant the forces that drive lynch mobs are driving people here.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#242

Post by shasta »

waps wrote: post #228
shasta wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you really think my argument was that anything that is a lump of cells that has never had a coherent thought has no value? I can understand a sense of loss in losing an infant at birth. You make plans for the child and are excited to meet the person they will become. It's a miscarriage. A similar loss is learning that your spouse can't get pregnant in the first place. It's not the same as losing a child of 3, 6,…

Just correction a misconception here. The human brain "boots" on the 18th day after conception (you can set your watch to it). It is obvious on echo pictures that coherent thoughts are present on the 21st day after conception (e.g. if awake, most kids are aware that they're being pictured and attempt to find and play with the source of the sound, I think that qualifies as coherent thought). It is quite obvious on the…

Thanks, that's very interesting. Whether it's a fish brain or frog larva brain or something more, though, my point is that it's not yet intrinsically worth protecting as human life. Its worth is all potential. Consider: how much would would this life be worth if brain development stopped at this point? For a newborn or earlier, the answer is not much.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#243

Post by ivraatiems »

therobot24 wrote: post #234
a3n wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

therobot, I can't reply to your reply. (Except now I can, so I moved it. /HN) No, I don't think you lack empathy, although I can see how my comment could be taken that way. Apologies.

No hard feelings. The article is important - especially being from one of the mothers affected by the statement, her words carry more weight than others for sure. However, i do also think her bias in the matter let the article drift from the costs of cost-cutting in health care (losing faith in a business), and slide into fearmongering. A harsh word, yes, but she has a platform, she has our attention, and she has exp…

Have you considered that rather than this being a calculated attempt to affect mass opinion on something, this is in fact primarily a mother expressing her distress about what she perceives as an attack on her child?

I didn't read it as trying to make any point other than "this is awful and unfair and my daughter is innocent of wrongdoing."

I don't know that it's as calculated as it seems like you think it is.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#244

Post by tptacek »

davidw wrote: post #189
pg wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did he say? http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/02/8539961/... He shouldn't have mentioned specific cases. If he felt the company had to cut elsewhere to compensate for high medical costs, he should have left it at that level of detail. But I don't see how you get from what he actually said to I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently…

> Frankly, posting and upvoting that sort of comment is the behavior of a lynch mob. Have you been reading the comments on the many political articles that now cross the front page of this site? The quoted comment is fairly tame stuff compared to some of the opinions expressed in those threads.

Yes. For instance, this thread, unlike others, has not included anyone directly advocating violence.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#245

Post by dylandrop »

pg wrote: post #241
dylandrop wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think saying "I'm utterly appalled" on an online chat board is a lot different from joining a mob to kill someone. Let's not make any Tom Perkins-esque comparisons here [1]. And people should certainly be allowed to react when those in positions of power say appalling things. Whether he thinks that is absolutely unacceptable is doubtful, but he clearly thinks that the $7.1M in healthcare spending is something that…

Using the term "lynch mob" metaphorically is a long established usage. But in case you weren't just pretending to misunderstand me, I didn't mean that HN users are literally planning to kill Tim Armstrong. I meant the forces that drive lynch mobs are driving people here.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm well aware you weren't claiming that people are planning to kill Armstrong. I'm just saying you're making ridiculous claims over a fairly tame paraphrase. Even from the well established metaphorical usage standpoint, this is nothing like a lynch mob. It's one guy expressing his frustrations. And he should be able to do that without you saying that the people supporting/upvoting him are like a lynch mob. Why do you think that everyone else responding to your post drawing those comparisons also thought the use of the term "lynch mob" was out of place?

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#247

Post by clavalle »

shiven wrote: post #239
clavalle wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My father in law is a neonatologist and was given an ownership stake of the NICU he started in a midwestern hospital. He makes around $4 mil/year. Granted, he does sometimes stay at the hospital for two weeks at a time with only very brief visits home but at this point he also owns apartment complexes, office buildings, a gentleman's ranch with a few dozen horses and staff and on and on. I think it is shameful, perso…

I think it is shameful, personally, that he profits so much. Profits from saving human lives. Can a price be really put on a human life? Sure you can cite economics and a number like $7MM or whatever, but would you, personally , decide against paying that amount (assuming you had the money) to save your or your loved one's life, push come to shove? And of course, it is always about resource availability, in this case…

>Can a price be really put on a human life?

This is the crux of the problem. You can't really.

The interesting thing is that his brother is a physician with very similar training in the UK (they both went to Trinity in Dublin). Does he get $4 million a year? Not by a long shot. Is he hurting for money? No. He has a large house and equally large family, travels all over the world and in general has a wonderful life. Granted he's never bought a yacht on a whim 6 states away, neglected the insurance and have it sink in a hurricane before he ever got it out of the marina (true story) but he is not hurting. Is he any less responsible or hardworking than his brother? Were any fewer lives saved under his care?

You can't measure these things in terms of widgets and currency.

To do so is mere rationalization as if the current state of affairs isan economic inevitability. It clearly is not.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#248

Post by aestra »

waps wrote: post #228
shasta wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you really think my argument was that anything that is a lump of cells that has never had a coherent thought has no value? I can understand a sense of loss in losing an infant at birth. You make plans for the child and are excited to meet the person they will become. It's a miscarriage. A similar loss is learning that your spouse can't get pregnant in the first place. It's not the same as losing a child of 3, 6,…

Just correction a misconception here. The human brain "boots" on the 18th day after conception (you can set your watch to it). It is obvious on echo pictures that coherent thoughts are present on the 21st day after conception (e.g. if awake, most kids are aware that they're being pictured and attempt to find and play with the source of the sound, I think that qualifies as coherent thought). It is quite obvious on the…

>It is quite obvious on the 23rd day that fetuses are swimming around and exploring their environment purposefully. They are at least as alive and coherent at that time

Um well it isn't a fetus at 23 days its an embryo...

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#249

Post by tiquorsj »

russtrpkovski wrote: post #192
ekidd wrote: post #31

I'm delighted to hear that this child is doing well, and I'm utterly appalled at Tim Armstrong's attitudes towards the lives of his employee's children. Apparently it's possible to pay a programmer $100K/year, but spending ten times that to save the life of one of his employee's children is absolutely unacceptable. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I hear from an AOL recruiter. The whole point of insura…

AOL may be a self insured group where it pays all of the medical costs for its employees. The insurance company merely provides administrative services such processing claims and paying providers.

Or, like every other group they get rerated periodically based on claims.

Re: That “distressed baby" Tim Armstrong blamed for benefit cuts? She’s my daughter

#250

Post by gwern »

sgk284 wrote: post #197
gwern wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the child lives to 80, she only needs to contribute $12,500 worth of value to civilization per year for this to make economic sense. No, that's not correct. You're not thinking at the margin.

Still makes sense at the margin. Updated wording slightly to clarify.

That's still a terrible argument.

> The "extraordinary" expense of this child actually only requires a 14% increase in value over the average citizen to make sense.

Ok, fair enough, we'll ignore the question of whether average really makes sense, but there's a bigger problem: there's absolutely no reason to expect this hugely premature baby to have >14% increase of value. Why? This is completely unfounded, completely unjustified. In fact, as a premature baby with massive expensive health problems, wouldn't we expect the opposite? Early childhood trauma seems like it'll matter to their future prospects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Prognosis (As makes sense. If babies could be born months premature with no negative effects, why aren't they being born that way already so they can start growing up quicker?)

Post reply on HN