I’m not surprised.
The attitude of build a prototype and ship it fast, we can fix problems with software updates only works if the hardware and the UX are really compelling.
IMHO humane pin was dead on arrival, using a pin to interact with an AI sounds great on paper until we realize it’s awkward and slow in real life use
Most new products and companies are dead on arrival. That is simply the statistically correct assumption and the weirder it looks, the more reasonable it feels to make that assumption.
Its one thing to lay-off employees, I understand executives not wanting to take responsibility of the problems they created, human selfish behaviour and such.
Its a whole another thing to kick those workers when they are down. Imagine trying to find a job in this difficult tech market and being labelled as an underperformer! That's just plain evil !
Not sure if its possible, but I hope this turns into a defamation class action lawsuit by the former employees against Intuit.
As frustrating as the US visa system is, large numbers of people are still applying for visas which is funding USCIS. Until either the numbers drop, or congress changes how USCIS is funded, I unfortunately think this is not going to change.
I don't think this is quite what's happening here. Overall USCIS is funded by fees, but operates a system in which some kinds of applicants subsidize other kinds of applicants. So, applications for asylum are free to make even though they cost USCIS a lot to adjudicate. To make up for this, USCIS charges extra for applications in other categories, like employment-based visas.
I'm not sure what exactly is happening in this case, but by saying "Because the US can’t seem to get a handle on its borders" the article author seems to be claiming that artist visa fees are subsidizing asylum claim applications.
My hot take on these GLP-1 drugs is that they won't work long term for most people. If the plan is to give the drug to as many obese people as possible and take a victory lap, thats going to fail.
I don't think its resonable for most people to continue taking GLP-1 antagonists all their lives. Its been widely shown that most people rapdily gain back ~2/3 of their weight after stopping semaglutide. This means that the people who lost weight did not build sustainable weight management habits during their time on these drugs.
IMHO a better solution would be to design individualized weight loss programs which would help people build sustainable healthy eating habits, and change their relationship to food while using GLP-1 as a tool to help the process and motivate people. I understand that is much easier said than done, especially at such a large scale.
Maybe the answer lies in a combination of various actions, some ideas include,
- Medicare and Medicaid negotiating to reduce the cost
- Possibly offering lower/higher dosages based on needs to better manage cost
- Offering incentives/discounts when GLP-1 is used in-combination with health coaching.
- Offering GLP-1 drugs with lifetime maximums similar to Orthodontic procedures such as braces or clear aligners, with some exceptions based on medical needs.
- Reduce food deserts, especially in rural and low income areas.
- Penalize companies which sell seriously addictive / unhealthy foods. We did that with Cigarettes! Unhealthy diets filled with addictive sugary processed foods cause similar harm to families, society, and future generations.
> I don't think its resonable for people to continue taking GLP-1 antagonists all their lives.
Why not? People take statins or beta blockers for the rest of their lives. Sure it's not that feasible at current US prices but they won't be that expensive forever.
While I 100% agree that GLP-1 antagonists won’t lead most to making actual changes to their behaviors with food outside of forcing them to not over-eat when actively taking the drug, I am not so sure about your hot take here.
A woman I know has been on this stuff for a couple years now and while she has plateaued for about 6 months, her current weight is now in a healthier spot.
It’s crazy what losing some weight can do to people’s mental health too. Like her home is more organized, she’s more active with walking (doesn’t hurt anymore), she just overall describes not fearing food anymore.
And now for the bad news, her insurance no longer covers it. It’s kind of insane but apparently this stuff has a black market, like she buys it from one of her coworkers like it’s some sort of street drug.
In summary I think we need more time to see but from what I’ve heard this does seem to be a long-term solution similar to insulin shots if you had to compare to something existing.
I agree that obesity can be a chronic condition for many people, especially when combined with societal pressures causing mental harm.
> And now for the bad news, her insurance no longer covers it.
This is one of the reasons why I think these GLP-1 drugs are going to be classified by insurance as a temporary tool to help people improve their health. Rather than a long term medical necessity like insulin.
> I think we need more time to see
I agree with this statement, we definitely need more time. We don't fully understand the long term effects of GLP-1 in large populations.
I'm in the camp of, if its possible to use GLP-1 as a ramp to building sustainable habits and then wean off the drug, then as many people as possible should be weaned off.
There is also a nexus with the reward system of the brain in general, and semaglutide definitely seems to have effects similar to ADHD medication in these respects. It also seems to help alcoholism for the same reasons - it helps reduce the underlying dysregulation in the reward system that keeps people in that loop.
Probably this will be the next patent-ever greening strategy pursued after the weight loss thing.
It’s an absolutely wild drug in medical terms. “The white whale” is an understatement here. It literally is a white whale for multiple whole fields of medical science.
Speaking of the effect in the brain, a rare but real side effect in many people is anxiety to the point where they have to discontinue the med. I wonder why.
I'm not an expert, but I see some major flaws in this post doesn't make sense to me. Please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood any concept.
>At 22,870 inhabitants per km², Macau is the densest jurisdiction in the world, denser than Singapore which itself suffers ultra-low fertility. Virtually everyone in Macau lives in an apartment tower. Studies (see below for a thread reviewing the literature) find that density is linked to low fertility, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if the densest place on Earth also has the lowest birthrates.
Exteremly high density will obviously lead to lower fertility since most residents barely have space for themselves. This is not what most people are talking about when asking for higher density housing. Looking at extreme cases does not mean moderate density will have the same outlook.
> Tokyo, Japan, provides a great natural experiment. What happens when you build urban high-rise towers in abundance? We once thought of Tokyo as expensive, but that is no longer true. Apartment towers have been added to the Tokyo skyline at a rapid clip, making it eminently affordable for young people.
This statement ignores a lot of the socio-economic problems in Japan. Problems such as decades economic stagnation, the extreme work culture, younger people being straddled with the burden of caring for older generations. These and many other problems combined are the reason for low fertility.
> Australia, where the pricey suburbs are much more fertile
I wonder who can afford to move to expensive suburbs ? Oh right its wealthy people.
I wonder who can afford to have enough free time to take care of children and also afford expensive child care services ? Oh right its wealthy people.
The problem isn't density, the problem is that people in child bearing age cannot afford to have children.
> New Zealand may not show what people think it does
Similar problems to Australia, people in child bearing age cannot afford to have children.
> After the war, Korea saw a housing crisis and resolved to build huge apartment towers as fast as possible. China too has gone the path of ultra-dense apartment blocks. Now both countries are stuck in an ultra-low fertility regime. They desperately try to pivot to higher birth rates, but their built housing stock dooms them. Young people in both countries are drawn to low fertility city life, and the depopulation conveyor belt runs hot.
These countries have problems similar to Japan, extreme work culture, lack of free time, lack of affordable housing, younger people being constantly burnt out. Mostly wealthy people with free time are having children.
> My only regret was going with a Rheem heat-pump water heater in this mix. It does not perform well at all.
Heat-pump water heater's performance depends a lot on where its installed and the airflow+heat available. If the water heater is undersized or if there isn't enough heat in the air, it would perform worse than a standard gas/electric water heater.
Mine is installed in a closet under the stairs, which is not ideal, but as long as I keep the water heater in eco mode, and keep closet door slightly open, it works good enough for our usecase. Our annual water heating costs went down from ~$500 to ~$100 after switching to the heat pump water heater.
As in the cold end of the heat pump is inside the heated area of the house? That feels very weird. On the other hand with heat pumps, stacking multiple stages strategy isn't necessarily a bad thing! All inefficiencies are not really losses but merely resistive heating contributions (unless their heat escapes to the final cold sink aka outside) and in the end the real question is which configuration is good in terms of capex and maintenance.
In an environment where getting rid of humidity is a concern (mold!), a "cold end inside" heat pump for water might even double as a dehumidifier, with water condensing on the cold end sent to the sewers, contributing a little energy in the process.
> Wondering how this affects Apple employees. Back in the day, working for Apple seemed cool.
Most employees are trying to pay bills and keep ar roof. Especially in today's tech job market, people are trying to avoid getting laid off. Very few people have the luxury of being able to think about apple seeming like a cool place to work or not.
So I would say this doesn't affect most apple employees in anyway.
This is a problem in many developed nations, the general reasoning boils down to
1. Cost of living and child care
2. Work, stress and lack of free time
3. Little to no support from society and community.
The reason this is affecting Korea, Japan and China so much is that there aren't many immigrants to offset the lack of new children being born.
There is a lot of wealth being generated but most of it goes to people who are already wealthy, so most people don't have the "luxury" of enough disposable income, free time, and support to have children.
The problem with this theory is that studies that have looked across countries with different levels of social/economic support find it does very little.
When countries get richer, people start having fewer kids, and giving parents money does not offset this (even if that's what people say they want).
Maybe they’re just not giving them enough money - I’m sure for $5m most people would have a child and for $5000 most people wouldn’t, because that doesn’t cover even close to the amount it would cost. It would have to be in between, maybe 100-250k.
When a couple has a child they have to consider both the cost of the child (food, education, childcare) and also the potential lost earnings that they’re suffering from by taking time off work to look after it.
Indeed. One of the things neglected in the cost discussion is opportunity cost of kids.
As society gets richer, opportunity cost of kids goes up.
1. Wages not made. If you're making $100K/year and you take a year off for the kids, that's 100K.
2. Career progression. Harder to put a number on this, but easily worth 6 figures + in certain careers in opportunity cost.
3. Alternative: daycare (runs $2-4K a month or more in HCOL cities).
I hypothesize that a ~100K incentive for having a kid would definitely move the needle for a lot of people and account for at least some of the opportunity costs for middle-high wage earners (I know because the paternity leave at my company was roughly in that range in terms of economic incentive, and it certainly affected my choices). All of the cash programs to date have been a fraction of that at best.
At $100k per child, it would effectively open up "babymaker" as a career. US median household income is ~$75k, so a family doing nothing but having a baby every 16 months would average out to median household income.
I assume that's not great, but it might be better than working the late shift at Taco Bell for the rest of someone's life.
I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, it could be a solution to low birth rates.
On the other hand, it toes a very fine line on sexism.
It's a pretty bad image for women that we're willing to pay them more to reproduce than most other things. A woman having a baby every 12 months makes 30% more than the median household income. There are economic justifications, but it's a bad look.
While it's nominally a voluntary process, it can be viewed through a lens where we as a society make being poor awful (or fail to make being poor bearable) and the only reliable escape we offer is reproducing, casting doubts on how voluntary participation really is. If a woman is going to get evicted and the only means she can find to get out of that is having a baby, is her participation really voluntary?
I also don't know whether we should financialize having children. That may lead to a very different and less optimal kind of parenting.
The last I've found is disparate impact on genders. I generally get that the benefits are for the child, but $100k is enough that I think it could create dramatically disparate outcomes. We'd practically be offering a down payment on a house, or a way to avoid bankruptcy, or seed funding for a startup, but only to women. Straight men would need to couple with a woman to qualify, gay men wouldn't be able to qualify at all.
That may not apply if this program applies to adoptions too, as it probably should.
Alternatively, maybe they just aren't taking away enough money. Lets bump all tax brackets up 20 percentage points and take 5 off for each of the first two kids and ten off for the third kid had within a marriage and leave that in place while the kids are under 18 and see what happens.
The low birth rate is a macro phenomena in response to massive population boom and limits to growth, a significant one being living space.
Packing even more people into these nations, with the added political tensions of making them foreign immigrants vs domestic growth of native population would exacerbate the original problem with added downside.
Look at the density, cost of living and other factors that flow from "too many people in one place". The natural counter trend must run its course.
Sorry, but you have a very cursory understanding of the issue. Please read the article.
South Korea has a TFR of .7. France is 1.6. Those aren't the same, and the difference isn't immigration, or easily explained by money. There are huge cultural issues in South Korea.
The culture exacerbates the issues, but they're the same issues that's affecting families everywhere. If I'm making minimum wage, or close to it, and I don't have stability in my job, then I'm not having kids. The only less wealthy people left having kids are those that don't use birth control and don't condone abortion. I had decided that the time was right to have a child after I'd been employed for 6 years in a decent paying job and I wasn't concerned about being laid off. Employers now are preferring younger candidates, those fresh out of college, ones who don't have kids that they have to pick up / drop off from school. They want you connected 100% of the time, checking your email/chat on your time off. That leaves people with offspring feeling like they don't belong. Until that changes, there's going to be less births.
IMHO humane pin was dead on arrival, using a pin to interact with an AI sounds great on paper until we realize it’s awkward and slow in real life use