HN2new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | maxerickson's commentslogin

Makes me wonder: Is the cancer "industry" searching for causes or just after-the-fact treatment?

Why brag that you are uninformed?

Some of the more successful interventions for cancer are preventative (for example removing polyps during colonoscopies) and genetic counseling is common.


In the case of transmissible diseases like smallpox, controlled exposure ends up being protective. It was widely practiced prior to development of modern vaccines.

Andy has to be innocent for his escape (and bringing down of the warden) to be a redemption. It's a redemption of his life against the injustice he was subjected to, not a redemption of his soul for some evil that he committed.

If he was a double murderer, plotting to and successfully escaping isn't a redemption, it's just a murderer getting away with it.


I rewatched the movie now, and I think you're right. There were a lot of details I'd forgotten.

The way I remember thinking about it was that he was jailed for revenge murder, then spent his life in jail doing his best to atone by being helpful (building a library, teaching, helping with taxes, etc.). When the prison system refuses to set him free despite him proving through his actions in prison that he's not a threat to society anymore (I hallucinated this part -- this happened to Red, not Andy), he escapes, and his freedom is his redemption.

I'm not a native English speaker, and I think I may have conflated redemption and atonement. Looking at some definitions, it looks like you can receive redemption without atonement -- it doesn't necessarily have to come from within.


Cool Hand Luke, which I prefer, has its protagonist sentenced to a work camp for an absurd crime.

A more recent prison movie which made me feel similarly to Cool Hand Luke and Shawshank Redemption while watching it is "I Love You Phillip Morris" (starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor).


In the quote in the article there, the one judge responds to something specific by calling it "irrational".

There is no evidence that the EV1 was a practical vehicle, at least not if you take the strange step of expecting GM to make money manufacturing it.

Software productivity doubling would be a huge boon for the economy, not a drag.

Of course it's very disruptive for people that lose their jobs, but many of them will get similar new jobs, and the overall impact is higher output.


If all companies fire 50% of their engineers, how will anybody find similar new jobs? In an ideal world software productivity doubling WOULD be a huge boon for the economy IF companies used the increased productivity of their engineers as a way to manage tech debt, R&D and other issues that were put in the backlog because historically there were no resources for this. In reality all companies look at increased productivity as a source for layoffs which does not translate in higher output but the same output done by less people. Which is a net negative because now you have 50% of all engineers without a job and no discernible increase in quality of deliverables.

The FAANG companies hoarded engineering talent for years. It was really difficult to hire in any market where they were located. What I think will happen/is happening is the combination of AI assisted development and reduction in FAANG engineering headcount will enable business transformation pretty much everywhere.

The impact of that transformation remains to be seen.


If software engineer productivity basically doubled as is being claimed in this thread, I think you'd see companies scrambling to lay off everyone else in an effort to hire even more software engineers. They'd be by far the most valuable and productive employees at every tech company and you'd be foolish not to have as many as you can. I'm being a bit facetious but throughout history when a resource or profession takes a dramatic leap in efficiency, the demand for that thing rather than decreasing as is predicted here, only increases since it has become far more valuable & effective.

You can't straight add/subtract effects that happen on very different time scales.

(1) Laying off people increases margins immediately.

(2) Creating new initiatives pays off in years, if initiatives are taken on carefully, not just thrown at walls.

That means even if (2) is happening, the signal won't show up for years, but (1) will happen immediately, regardless.


If all companies fire 50% of their engineers,

This is not a reasonable premise.


> If all companies fire 50% of their engineers, how will anybody find similar new jobs?

Why would CEOs care?

Or put it another way, if you were a CEO, would you care?

Politicians at least would pretend to care.


> Of course it's very disruptive for people that lose their jobs,

Why would the Jevons Paradox not apply here?


It does.

There will be loads more people who will want software customized to themselves and their needs!

The catch, of course, is that there are, all of a sudden, a whole lot more people who will now be able to create that software.

How will it all land? No idea. But it just feels like a bad idea to go long on software development when weighed against the opportunity cost of going long on domain expertise.

For instance, from 1980 to 1990, the number of secretaries doing all the typing and filing in the workforce severely constricted. That said, the number of actual typists in the workforce skyrocketed!

No one lost the need for typing and filing services. Tools, (PC, word processors, databases), simply became more available. Which decreased the need for people who were formerly doing the typing and filing as a service. Now people could reliably do the typing and filing on their own.

Jevon's paradox in action! Exponentially more typing and filing is happening today than was happening in 1976 or 1980. At the same time, there are infinitesimally smaller numbers of actual secretaries out in the workforce today than were in the workforce pre-1980. And the ones that are still in the workforce are doing much different work than they did pre-1980.


That's like $75 a year of term life insurance for a young healthy person.

Not to be too pedantic, but this is not a term life insurance policy. It's a guaranteed benefit, so you should compare it to a "whole" life insurance policy (US terms). I see $500k benefit for $500+/mo, so I guess $100k benefit is $100/mo. Not amazing but not a joke either.

I agree that whole is a better comparison to the actual value.

I was responding to the freedom to spend the other poster had in their second paragraph, where I think it's reasonable to look at the insurance that would be better to actually buy.


Amazing the hoops that people will jump through to not enact strong employer penalties.

You would think that if you genuinely wanted to curb illegal immigration, then this would be the way to do it. People come here for money. Take away the money and they will no longer come.

Hell, you would probably have bipartisan support for nationwide crackdowns on employers who are employing anyone here illegally. They are undercutting American employees and dodging taxes. Who wouldn't be for that kind of law enforcement?

Instead we get unaccountable masked men with guns murdering citizens and terrorizing an entire populace. Imagine if an "ICE raid" meant a team of accountants showed up at a business and gave them a hefty fine for employing anyone here illegally. It seems like that would be much more effective, which makes me genuinely wonder if the demonstration of strength through cruelty that we currently have hasn't been the goal all along.


Doing this would immediately cause construction to become costlier as well as serious inflation on some other things (food, hotels ...). Americans were already constantly crying about Biden inflation, they can't handle this.

the "uniparty" benefits from illegal immigration so I guess that's why it's a nonstarter.

Many Americans benefit from illegal immigration, it would kill the middle class in many places if illegal immigrants just went away all of a sudden. States like Texas can hardly survive without it, basically all politicians know this.

Small car towns are more or less the same. I drive 10 minutes to work, the stores are all on the way. It's easy to stop anytime.

The more local one is medium sized and I've been shopping there for years, so I don't really have to find anything.

I should go to the butcher that's a few blocks away more often though.


The conception that books are precious is an artifact of history.

Of course rare historical volumes are precious, but stuff you can buy new right now or that exists in the tens of thousands of copies? No.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: