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

The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#91

Post by deadbabe »

the_third_wave wrote: post #59
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can afford 1k/month and will if that's what's required. My life is well over 1k/month better with a healthier weight. I preform better at work, I'm happier, and I should live longer. That's worth the money.

Or you eat less and/or healthier food to achieve the same result without the side effects. Spend part of that $1000 (but not too much) on better food which you (or someone in your family) prepares at home, keep the rest for other purposes. For some reason this suggestion, i.e. the suggestion to solve a problem by eliminating the root causes, does not seem to be popular on this forum. I'd very much like to know why th…

This might not be a popular opinion: but I think that for roughly 99% of people losing weight and keeping it off long term is impossible once they’ve become overweight. They are just destined to be fat at that point no matter what they do. Weight may come off for a bit, but it returns… their body is irreparably compromised.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#92

Post by from-nibly »

Centigonal wrote: post #71
from-nibly wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unchecked capitalism Of all the industries in the US Health Care is the MOST regulated. How on earth is that "unchecked"? The problem is the checks are (and always will be) written by the companies.

you're right, I really should have said "poorly regulated capitalism." My comment on "unchecked capitalism" was more of a commentary on the lack of trustbusting for vertically integrated behemoths like UHG/OptumHealth/Optum PBM/OptumRX and for regional near-monopolies like UPMC. Healthcare has a lot of regulations, for sure, but it adds a lot of complexity doesn't result in a good system for users -- so, bad regulati…

I'm not an expert, but I've worked at a bank and had to go through all the regulatory trainings. I didn't hear about any good regulation other than things that should be covered by regular law. Like apparently there's special regulation about basically not commiting fraud?!

Everything else is some weird sneaky BS.

Again not an expert. Just a guy who had to listen to some awfull training courses.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#93

Post by mckn1ght »

Atheros wrote: post #88
timewizard wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and still someone complains. That you perceive it as a complaint is hilariously ironic. I'm just telling you that your notions of "common" are wrong. You are attempting to use your economic situation to justify the outcomes for others. That, my friend, is poor posting. > about 20% of households This is super easy. 1 out of 5 is "not common." You can be as parsimonious as you like it doesn't change the ground realit…

He didn't say 1 in 5 is common. He said 1 in 5 is not that uncommon. He's right. If 1 in 5 people in 1991 have a computer in the house, having a computer is not that uncommon.

This is a circular argument. In order for it not to be, you need to show how “having a computer in the house in 1991” is already a not uncommon thing for that to then apply to 1 in 5 not being uncommon.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#94

Post by namaria »

phil21 wrote: post #85
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It hinders individuals from making purchasing decisions that affect price. Less clarity on the actual price means that it's harder to shop around.

I’m convinced nearly every problem in the modern US economy boils down to a principle agent problem in the end.

I think you mean principal

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

namaria wrote: post #94
phil21 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m convinced nearly every problem in the modern US economy boils down to a principle agent problem in the end.

I think you mean principal

Properly its neither a "principle agent problem" nor a "principal agent problem" but a "principal-agent problem" (that is, the problem is a conflict between the principal and the agent [both nouns] nominally acting on behalf of that principal, not a problem with the principal [adjective] agent [noun].)

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#96

Post by namaria »

dragonwriter wrote: post #95
namaria wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean principal

Properly its neither a "principle agent problem" nor a "principal agent problem" but a "principal-agent problem" (that is, the problem is a conflict between the principal and the agent [both nouns] nominally acting on behalf of that principal, not a problem with the principal [adjective] agent [noun].)

That's still two words and only one was wrong. Hyphenation is not mandatory, there is no formal description of a "problem with the principal [adjective] agent [noun]" to be disambiguated from.

Re: The Ozempocalypse Is Nigh

#97

Post by the_third_wave »

dave333 wrote: post #58
the_third_wave wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, slowly it will pay out on one side and get back a bit on the other until it becomes a major stock holder and the whole house of cards collapses.

Why would it collapse? Can limit govt holdings to say 25% of each company to maintain profit motive. I think this would attract other investment - front running the govt money - and greatly increase the ability to research new drugs. Can also direct some research money into drugs with significant benefit but little profit. Over time increased investment would allow lower prices. Over time compounding would help fund…

It collapses because by the time it is the majority owner the state will pay for it's own "profits".
Post reply on HN