Hit men aren't what you think • Hacker News Board

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#241

Post by jmpman » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 1:11 PM UTC

jajko wrote: post #21

big-green-man wrote: post #4

This is an interview with someone presented as some type of expert that obviously is not an expert. 1) it is not hard to get a silencer. You can make one in under an hour with cheap parts from a hardware store and a drill. 2) the CEO was at a conference. It's not surprising that this person "knew he would be there", it's interesting that this interviewee stresses this point like it is some big one to be made. The CEO…

No need for speculations, literally any theory may be a valid one and we simply don't know. Agree re that silencers, they are trivial to make if one has some basic skills and equipment, the problem is usage - you can't use them anywhere where folks may ask questions. Don't mean for hits obviously but some training with silencers is required to wield them well. But maybe in rural US nobody bats an eye, hard to say fro…

My friend used to shoot his silenced pistol in his garage, in a suburban neighborhood. Now it was just a .22lr, but he was never noticed.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#242

Post by acdha » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 1:31 PM UTC

jongjong wrote: post #148

I suppose everyone assumes that being high profile and earning a multi-million dollar salary involves such risks naturally so it's not shocking when it happens. Why didn't he have security? In NYC? TBH, I'm kind of shocked it doesn't happen more often in a nation with over 300 million people and insanely high inequality... Especially in terms of media exposure, not just money. There is a reason why most humans are na…

> I suppose everyone assumes that being high profile and earning a multi-million dollar salary involves such risks naturally so it's not shocking when it happens. Why didn't he have security? In NYC?

Your point about income inequality is important but NYC is one of the safest cities in the country:

https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/nyc-ranks-safest-among-big-...

It gets covered a lot because it’s a massive media hub and also a tempting political target for Republicans but the average person in NYC is more likely to need to worry about getting hit by a car, especially if they’re not engaging in high-risk activities. Muggers target drunk people leaving clubs at 3am in dodgy parts of town. They’re not gunning tourists down in Manhattan because that guarantees a police response.

Brian Thompson wasn’t born rich - according to Wikipedia his father worked at a grain elevator - and he probably retained that middle class sensibility of not feeling targeted even as he got wealthy. People don’t want to think of themselves as targets, and they don’t want to give up the privacy and independence which having a security detail involves. If he wasn’t involved with one of the most hated companies in the country, that almost certainly would have been fine.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#243

Post by empty_space » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

Remember that the current narrative is an average person with nothing to lose taking down a powerful person who uses their power for greed and evil. That's a very powerful and empowering idea.

Other powerful people, who know they are just as greedy and evil, desperately want to change that narrative because they know how weak their position truly is if we collectively decide we're done with the capitalistic status quo.

Bringing in an "expert" to explain to how it's probably something else, without any evidence to support that hypothesis, and while completely ignoring the observer bias of the chosen expert, is a good example of trying to subvert the story.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#244

Post by moomin » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 1:48 PM UTC

BoxFour wrote: post #217

chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

> I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. If you mean that certain acts are just as morally contemptible as violence, or equally likely to cause harm, just say that directly. Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical for…

So why is physical force so important here? If I poison someone, they’re just as dead as if I’d stuck a knife in them.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#245

Post by oskarkk » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 1:50 PM UTC

michaeljx wrote: post #113

I don't understand the comments excusing the CEO of his responsibility. I work for a scale-up insurance company, and the CEOs are pretty clear with their mandate: customer service is paramount, we make money by streamlining our processes, negotiating hard with our network, and pricing properly our products. NOT by denying claims. This philosophy is enforced from the top all the way down, with Chinese walls between pr…

But wouldn't denying less claims necessitate raising prices?

I see stats like these: https://i.redd.it/7aa6zytdox4e1.jpeg

If the company is denying so much claims (32%), and they have quarterly profit around $6B on $100B revenue (and they had less profit in earlier quarters, even a loss in Q1), I think they would need to raise prices to stop denying most claims that they deny. And what then? Someone would kill the CEO because they can't afford the insurance?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#246

Post by wholinator2 » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 2:15 PM UTC

oskarkk wrote: post #245

michaeljx wrote: post #113

I don't understand the comments excusing the CEO of his responsibility. I work for a scale-up insurance company, and the CEOs are pretty clear with their mandate: customer service is paramount, we make money by streamlining our processes, negotiating hard with our network, and pricing properly our products. NOT by denying claims. This philosophy is enforced from the top all the way down, with Chinese walls between pr…

But wouldn't denying less claims necessitate raising prices? I see stats like these: https://i.redd.it/7aa6zytdox4e1.jpeg If the company is denying so much claims (32%), and they have quarterly profit around $6B on $100B revenue (and they had less profit in earlier quarters, even a loss in Q1), I think they would need to raise prices to stop denying most claims that they deny. And what then? Someone would kill the CE…

How did we enter a world in which the only given fact that must be held true is that "the business profit will grow unceasingly for all time, no matter the consequence"

Instead of, "the human beings that we serve matter, and our duty to them comes before all else. We will profit by being the best in the market"

I think monopoly and MBAification of every leadership position at every company in at least America. Some of the curriculum is disgusting, anti human propaganda. It's absolutely not a given that shareholder profits come above everything else no matter what. The buck does not stop with fiduciary duty, the buck stops with the actual human beings you're company "serves", as we've just seen. Shareholder profits didn't order that person dead. Humans did.

It's insane that you can let your company perform so terribly, so catastrophicly evil for the public that it becomes impossible to know which of the millions of people who've has their lives damaged or destroyed would've actually decided to order your ceo dead rather than just gleefully commiserate about it at their mothers funeral. I think we get there by destroying the real market. I don't get to choose which insurance my job provides me! I don't know how that would work but all they have to do is pay more large companies to choose them and bam, locked in audience, disgusting parody of a free market, death for thousands of sick people and one CEO. Antitrust needs to block every merger for the next 10 years and obliterate any company that's powerful enough to capture over 20,000,000 customers while the vast majority of them _actively despise you_.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#247

Post by Ygg2 » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 2:47 PM UTC

wholinator2 wrote: post #246

oskarkk wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wouldn't denying less claims necessitate raising prices? I see stats like these: https://i.redd.it/7aa6zytdox4e1.jpeg If the company is denying so much claims (32%), and they have quarterly profit around $6B on $100B revenue (and they had less profit in earlier quarters, even a loss in Q1), I think they would need to raise prices to stop denying most claims that they deny. And what then? Someone would kill the CE…

How did we enter a world in which the only given fact that must be held true is that "the business profit will grow unceasingly for all time, no matter the consequence" Instead of, "the human beings that we serve matter, and our duty to them comes before all else. We will profit by being the best in the market" I think monopoly and MBAification of every leadership position at every company in at least America. Some o…

> How did we enter a world in which the only given fact that must be held true is that "the business profit will grow unceasingly for all time, no matter the consequence"

What do you mean enter? This was always the model of capitalistic acquisition. Early industrial revolution was not known for it's blue skies, labor friendly laws and preventing children from working in the mines.

The moment you have inflation, which you need to suppress wages of people living from wages (i.e. labor), is the moment you entered the magical roundabout of infinite growth.

The only time capitalism had to placate labor was when communism was a credible rival.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#248

Post by quickthrowman » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 3:21 PM UTC

wholinator2 wrote: post #246

oskarkk wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wouldn't denying less claims necessitate raising prices? I see stats like these: https://i.redd.it/7aa6zytdox4e1.jpeg If the company is denying so much claims (32%), and they have quarterly profit around $6B on $100B revenue (and they had less profit in earlier quarters, even a loss in Q1), I think they would need to raise prices to stop denying most claims that they deny. And what then? Someone would kill the CE…

How did we enter a world in which the only given fact that must be held true is that "the business profit will grow unceasingly for all time, no matter the consequence" Instead of, "the human beings that we serve matter, and our duty to them comes before all else. We will profit by being the best in the market" I think monopoly and MBAification of every leadership position at every company in at least America. Some o…

> How did we enter a world in which the only given fact that must be held true is that "the business profit will grow unceasingly for all time, no matter the consequence”

The Federal Reserve (or central banks in general) has a dual mandate to stabilize prices and maximize employment. The Fed uses monetary policy to manage inflation and attempt to keep a slight amount of inflation without having too much inflation or any deflation. If your profit growth is lower than the rate of inflation, you’re be making less money every year this is the case. Shareholders generally want to achieve a return that is higher than the rate of inflation, aka a ‘real return’.

Tl;dr - Central banks using monetary policy to achieve a constant low rate of inflation is why profit must keep growing forever to remain in business.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#249

Post by acdha » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 3:43 PM UTC

oskarkk wrote: post #245

michaeljx wrote: post #113

I don't understand the comments excusing the CEO of his responsibility. I work for a scale-up insurance company, and the CEOs are pretty clear with their mandate: customer service is paramount, we make money by streamlining our processes, negotiating hard with our network, and pricing properly our products. NOT by denying claims. This philosophy is enforced from the top all the way down, with Chinese walls between pr…

But wouldn't denying less claims necessitate raising prices? I see stats like these: https://i.redd.it/7aa6zytdox4e1.jpeg If the company is denying so much claims (32%), and they have quarterly profit around $6B on $100B revenue (and they had less profit in earlier quarters, even a loss in Q1), I think they would need to raise prices to stop denying most claims that they deny. And what then? Someone would kill the CE…

That’s profit, not basic functionality. If they denied claims at the level KP does, the CEO would still be a millionaire but they’d be spending tens of billions of dollars of the money their customers are paying for healthcare on healthcare instead of diverting it to shareholders. This should be like a regulated utility, not a private equity fund: comfortable living but nobody should be getting wildly rich because they’re taking money away from medical care.

The other thing to remember is that people don’t get healthcare for recreational purposes. The American healthcare system delivers quite poor outcomes because so much money is being pulled away by various levels of middlemen. Each layer of people second guessing your doctor, processing claims, negotiating rates, etc. is a lot of professional jobs taking money away from actual medical treatment. If people actually need care, that’s a negative savings they’re simply shifting to society.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#250

Post by chiph » Sat, Dec 07, 2024, 3:55 PM UTC

oskarkk wrote: post #245

michaeljx wrote: post #113

I don't understand the comments excusing the CEO of his responsibility. I work for a scale-up insurance company, and the CEOs are pretty clear with their mandate: customer service is paramount, we make money by streamlining our processes, negotiating hard with our network, and pricing properly our products. NOT by denying claims. This philosophy is enforced from the top all the way down, with Chinese walls between pr…

But wouldn't denying less claims necessitate raising prices? I see stats like these: https://i.redd.it/7aa6zytdox4e1.jpeg If the company is denying so much claims (32%), and they have quarterly profit around $6B on $100B revenue (and they had less profit in earlier quarters, even a loss in Q1), I think they would need to raise prices to stop denying most claims that they deny. And what then? Someone would kill the CE…

When I shop for insurance my #1 priority is seeing if the company will pay a claim. Either because they have the reserves, or because of corporate policy. Premium cost is #2.

What I have observed is that starting about 8-9 years ago any retail insurer that uses a mascot in their advertising, is difficult/slow to pay a claim. Both to other insurance companies who are being forced to subrogate to make their own customers whole, but also to their own policyholders. The sarcastic part of me is saying: "If they spent less on marketing, they'd have deeper reserves"