You could lower the immigration rate and ignore trans-nationalist calls to perpetually increase the GDP, primarily for their benefit. The Asian Tigers + Japan (minus Singapore, with a higher rate, but it's not a true democracy), don't have this problem. You could perhaps more importantly do better to alleviate world poverty, a strong driver of population growth, consequently immigration, consequently large environmental footprints from increasingly more people adopting 1st world lifestyles, such as this American dream of the house, car, education & healthcare, flights overseas, etc.
It’s Time to Build
841–850 of 1001 posts
Re: It’s Time to Build
#842But in a dynamic economy is really hard to sustain the cost of continuous preparedness because needs are infinite.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-2005-wait-pandem...
Re: It’s Time to Build
#843I build tech enabled, innovative physical infrastructure solutions for buildings. People do want them. VCs, less so, unless it's as high margin as a photo sharing app, destructive and lucrative as consumable businesses like Kurig, etc. Consumers don't know what they want until the possibilities are presented to them. VCs are literally the gate keepers of much innovative possibilty at the early phases of enterprises.…
> I build tech enabled, innovative physical infrastructure solutions Can you explain what it is you do without copying and pasting a line from your pitch deck? This sentence could literally mean any of at least a dozen completely different things.
Re: It’s Time to Build
#844Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please could you link some of the papers you mention on the scale of the coronavirus problem? I'm not doubting they exist, I'd just be interested to have a read.
This page has many links to such papers: https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
That's an incendiary claim, so please let me provide an example. Here's point 4 on the overview:
> The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality. Up to 60% of all Covid19-related deaths have occurred in particularly vulnerable nursing homes.
"Nursing homes" is highlighted and links to an article talking about mortality in nursing homes and long term care facilities. It is both cautious about its claims (pointing out data is not very good yet) an doesn't make the point that nursing homes are in fact the fatality concentration point. It's not clear how we'd draw a larger conclusion from this.
Another example, next point:
> Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 have proven to be false upon closer inspection. Many of these people either (did not)[1] die from Covid19 or they in fact had (serious preconditions)[2] (such as undiagnosed leukaemia).
Firstly, I'm not sure anyone has disputed that young people are much less likely to die of the virus. But there are two links in this point, one to a Daily Mail article about how a coroner is waiting for a toxicology report before ruling the cause of death is COVID-19. This is probably the right call, but an infant testing positive for COVID-19 appears to have died over respiratory distress. It's difficult to just shrug and go, "Oh well that's SIDS not the virus even though the nature of the death is identical."
Really, these points read like someone with an agenda trying to make a lot of cites for legitimacy. But there isn't a lot of evidence of a larger pattern here, just a lot of data which is then presented in a leading way to facilitate a narrative.
Another example of this:
> The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are (misleading)[3], since the number of tests also increases exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to total tests either remains constant between (5% to 25%)[4] or increases rather slowly.
This is another really misleading bullet point. Looking at [4], we see indeed that the over-time ratio of tests has remained at an average of 25% positive by country (this is of course averaged, hotspots see totally different numbers). But the author has previously pointed out that testing administration has risen exponentially, so this is a constant proportion of an exponential population. If we decline to extrapolate from this, the author cannot make their point. But if we do, we see an exponential growth in COVID-19 cases.
I see more examples but I won't further belabor the point. This resource is written by someone with an agenda they want to execute on. It doesn't appear to be someone honestly engaging in inquiry and arriving at a data-driven conclusion.
[0]: https://ltccovid.org/2020/04/12/mortality-associated-with-co...
[1]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8193487/Coroner-ref...
[2]: https://sports.yahoo.com/spanish-football-coach-francisco-ga...
[3]: https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/coronavirus-irrefuhrun...
[4]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200415203945/https://mobile.tw...
Re: It’s Time to Build
#845Earlier quoted context omitted.
The failure of Lidl in Norway due to vested interests is an argument for one world government. Maybe if we had one government we’d finally be able to settle on one electrical plug, which side of the road to drive on etc. etc. Imagine if every country developed its own indigenous WiFi standard? How lovely, until you want to read your email. Charm and uniqueness is great on a postcard, but not when you want to actually…
That's great if you are Napoleon and have the power to just force the matter. EU comes to mind... But I don't want your rules. I want my rules. There's plenty of world to take from in order to do just that, without trying to impose yourself on the rights of others. In the end, Lidl didn't respect Norwegian conditions. Moreover, they didn't respect Norwegian customers and so most were quite happy looking the other way…
No it doesn't, any examples? EU laws are voted on by the member countries and some even have veto power.
> and what kind of electrical plug to use (I've noticed that the British one could seem a little safer).
They're not, they're more expensive and designed in a time when those safety features were still relevant.
Re: It’s Time to Build
#846I build tech enabled, innovative physical infrastructure solutions for buildings. People do want them. VCs, less so, unless it's as high margin as a photo sharing app, destructive and lucrative as consumable businesses like Kurig, etc. Consumers don't know what they want until the possibilities are presented to them. VCs are literally the gate keepers of much innovative possibilty at the early phases of enterprises.…
What do you think of my proposals to fight regulatory capture? https://joelx.com/how-to-beat-regulatory-capture/15780/
Re: It’s Time to Build
#847Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't have it because building these things requires long term investments and folks like Marc and his investors are not interested in long term investments. I don't know where you get this from but as far as VC goes a16z are especially willing to take long-term bets. Case in point, when we pitched them, we explicitly said it's going to take us a decade to achieve our goals and they were okay with that.
Weird, they told me "it would take too long for that to work."
Re: It’s Time to Build
#848Re: It’s Time to Build
#849Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're actually not running out of ventilators anywhere. Existing installed base is sufficient and moreover, it turned out the federal government had a large stockpile anyway, which rather invalidates the central thesis of the article re: lack of preparedness. The claim about ventilators was one of the first dodgy claims I noticed but really the entire first part of the article is a pack of lies. Andreessen says: "We…
I want to make sure you know that this post is full of bizarre falsehoods. New York and Seattle definitely have ventilator shortages. California had a shortage and that federal reserve of ventilators netted us a small number of broken devices that had to be repaired. Lucky us, the State had a corporate partner that could do it. I especially want to take issue with this falsehood: > All three are in plentiful supply.…
Re: Ventilators in New York.
New York doesn't have a ventilator shortage and never did. It had a predicted shortage based on bad simulations, but never a real one. In fact it's now sending ventilators elsewhere:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/coronavirus-crisis-ve...
"On April 2, Cuomo predicted the state would run out of ventilators in six days “at the current burn rate.” But on April 6, Cuomo noted, “We’re ok, and we have some in reserve.” Now New York appears to have passed the apex. Deaths, a lagging indicator, crested at 799 on April 9 and hit 606 on April 16, the lowest figure since April 6. Hospitalizations are also declining, and on April 16 also hit their lowest level since April 6. Cuomo today has so many ventilators he is giving them away: On April 15, he said he was sending 100 of them to Michigan and 50 to Maryland. On April 16, he announced he was sending 100 to New Jersey."
I'm morbidly fascinated by what you're reading that has led you to this belief.
Re: ICU beds: I was talking about the world generally rather than New York specifically. For example in New Jersey on April 8th only 3 hospitals were load balancing to others:
https://twitter.com/alexberenson/status/1247920918640410624?...
In New York city (vs state) the field hospitals that were built have hardly been being used.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/16/coronav...
"the field hospital constructed inside the massive Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Hudson Yards, had 340 patients as of Tuesday afternoon ... The facility has a maximum capacity of 2,500 hospital beds. As of Tuesday afternoon, the Javits Center hospital had treated about 700 patients"
Even on April 1st, the New York Post visited an ICU and found it was only handling double the normal case load, well within capacity (13 patients normally, 26 then):
https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/a-look-inside-an-nyc-hospital-...
Certainly there are cases where single hospitals ran out of space and started load balancing onto nearby hospitals. But, that happens during normal times too.
Where are you reading this? [empty hospitals]
The essay isn't only about New York, it's trying to generalise not only to America but the whole western world. And across the world hospitals are laying off staff due to underload:
https://news.google.com/search?q=hospital%20furlough&hl=en-U...
Who would CPAP machines be for? Why bring them up?
CPAP - the pressure type, not the sleep machines - is now a common therapy for treating COVID-19. For example the British Prime Minister wasn't put on a ventilator but rather given only CPAP (basically, a mask connected to the hospital oxygen supply). This is because there's a growing belief in the medical world that ventilators can cause more harm than good for COVID patients.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928156
None of which are actually effective in the face of historic unemployment.
That's not a rebuttal. Systems to distribute money exist. The idea they've never been built, as the essay argues, isn't right.
If you want to argue they aren't designed for sustaining a world under house arrest, by all means do so, but no country on earth has created schemes specifically for that.
Making masks which reduce individual aerosol dispersal is easy. N95 masks are harder
Andreessen was talking about medical-grade masks designed to protect doctors from patients, not ad-hoc home made things. And for those masks the point stands: it's hard to make them but he says it's easy.
As for medical literature, go read the links to papers and studies here:
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
There are many links to papers, comments and articles by doctors and other specialists who are arguing that the virus is clearly not as deadly as feared. For example, the serology survey that's in the first link under the April 18th update was discussed here on HN just recently.
That's good news, by the way! Don't you hope they're right? My experience is that some people posting on HN don't actually want to study what people bringing good news are saying.
Re: It’s Time to Build
#850Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, if anything good comes from this open letter it will be from people in his own demographic (investors) reading, internalizing, and acting on it.
They won't :( They'll retweet to get more follows. They'll +1 and forget about this. They'll brag about some lab-grown meat investment that is really 0.01% of their portfolio that's chock full of productivity apps and luxury home goods. They'll broadcast "we invest in the boldest founders changing the world with science and tech innovation", then back yet another consumer goods startup that literally perpetuates the…
> I very much wish to thank John Collison, Patrick Collison, Paul Graham, Reid Hoffman, Fiona McKean and Tobias Lütke, Yuri and Julia Milner, and Chris and Crystal Sacca for their generous support of this initiative
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/fa...
In the intervening week, $7m in funding was distributed:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/04/fa...
It will be interesting to see what returns society gets on this $7m.
But in general, I don't think we should be expecting VCs to fund innovation, it is hard to capture most of the value of most innovations, so you end up with VCs writing about how you need to seek monopolies.
Funding innovation is something we should be asking more of our government.