What I find unsettling is that large swathes of mainstream society seem to consistently tack towards safe, unchallenging pablum. Why watch Parasite when you could watch a Happy Gilmore sequel?
I'm not saying this to be contrarian or give you a hard time. You should watch whatever makes you feel joy.
However, you shouldn't be surprised that for a lot of people, music, movies, television and books (I kid, I kid) that don't surprise, challenge, shock, confuse or inspire us feels vapid, hollow and intellectually insulting.
50Hz is what European power runs at, as opposed to North American 60Hz. This had some correlation to the analog film frame rates being 25 fps in Europe and nearly 30 fps in America, though I’m not entirely sure what the cause was.
Nowadays it’s probably a performance / battery saving “feature” attempt.
TV signals (PAL and NTSC) were 50 and 60 Hz so as to be in sync with the flickering of electric lamps.
When film is converted to 50 Hz TV, the film is sped up 24->25 fps and every frame shown twice.
When converted to 60 Hz TV, there is "2:3 pulldown": every even frame is shown twice, every odd thrice.
(Actually, both PAL and NTSC have interlaced video modes, with only every other line updated each frame, so as to conserve bandwidth.)
BTW, when 60 Hz computer monitors were introduced in Europe and used in office spaces with fluorescent lights with passive ballasts that flickered at 50 Hz, some sensitive users suffered headaches from using the computer screen for too long.
These days, both fluorescent lights and LCD backlights tend to flicker at much higher frequencies that it isn't much of a problem.
Nah, not film rates [1], video: NTSC is 30fps and PAL is 25fps because the cathode ray tube scan rate was built around AC power cycles. When low fps truly Hz. Sorry.
[1] generally 24fps because that is culturally what film looks like and people get very weird whenever anyone tries to fuck with it
I'll allow your joke, but NTSC is 60 fields per second, and PAL is 50. Certainly a large portion of content came from film and in PALworld would be shown as even and odd halves of a frame, or in NTSCland as 3 halves of a frame, then two halves...
But actually interlaced content exists too. Each field is independent, there's no frames to speak of.
Early video game systems based on NTSC/PAL ran at 60 fps or 50 fps, but ran off-spec signals to always hit the same half of the display lines (odd or even). 4th gen systems (genesis/mega drive and snes/sfc) had a few games that used interlaced output; later systems had many, running PAL@60Hz became a common option too.
Not only was it built around AC, the technology at the time only allowed for roughly 1/2 the AC cycles rate. People think there was some great reasoning behind 30fps. It was just what was available, essentially.
Zero mention of wait times in the US compared to other countries. Pretty sure that's the chief complaint in most countries that have free-ish healthcare.
1. At the very least, the data does not seem to be clear that the US has shorter wait times, and the US may even have longer wait times [1] (regardless of whether Americans pay far more and die younger).
2. Even in countries where people are unsatisfied with free-ish wait times (regardless of whether US waits might be longer), that average complainer may still not want a US-like system. I.e. people might complain about waits in their free-ish system but still think a (theoretically) faster US system is worse. I think a lot of people’s thought process is simply “I wish this were faster” which is still quite different from “I wish we had a fast US system.”
You're exactly right but it runs contrary to the narrative being spun.
A quick search reveals the best ER wait times worldwide are in the US, Germany, and Switzerland, with most the rest of western Europe dead last along with Canada and Australia.
The average ER wait time in the US is 24 minutes. In France 2h21m. Italy 2h44m.
Everyone likes to say how great Canadian healthcare is, but talk to actual Canadians and the cracks start to show, you're waiting months for a CT scan, and most need employer-provided health insurance anyway to fill gaps in coverage.
I'm Canadian, and I like our system. If you're in danger, you'll get that CT scan now. It'll take longer if your case doesn't require urgent care. But I've never waited for medical care more than what I would think was unsafe. Coverage isn't perfect, but it's getting better. I would pick this over your system any day of the week.
It also confuses me whenever Americans bring up that point to defend their profit-driven system, because to me it seems like bringing up something that's completely unrelated to money and billing just to make the other systems look worse by any means. How does a publicly-funded system intrinsically cause longer wait times? From what I can see here, it's an issue of doctor supply, caused by some of the most gruelling, limited-capacity and expensive training processes in the country, as well as purposeful underfunding by the provinces, not by how much money I pay on the way out.
Actually, maybe there is one factor in pricing that causes shorter wait times. I know it's not uncommon for people in the US to wait until they're basically dying to get medical care, because they're that averse to financial ruin. That would naturally cause somewhat lower demand, if you're okay with existing in that system with those kinds of externalities.
Yeah but could this be because people are more likely to go to ER in countries with free healthcare?
I've been to the ER in my country because of abnormal stomach pain. Obviously I was triaged and had to wait hours because it was not considered life threatening. But in the end a doctor saw me for free. I think if I were in the USA and didn't have health insurance I would have just stayed home and avoided the risk of an expensive bill.
Wouldn't you expect to see that reflected in outcomes? TFA mentions that the only studied country with more avoidable mortality than the US was Mexico. If you aren't seeing it, maybe its not as big a problem as all the people who cannot afford any access to care at all while the country spends more per-person.
There’s not (typically) a regular measure of how much pain and disability a patient suffers while waiting for a hip replacement. It certainly would only show up in mortality statistics massively attenuated.
Sure there are. Population measures of morbidity, days of lost work, patient satisfaction, etc are all captured and studied.
Do you have indications that those are worse where wait times happen to be higher, or so you just take it for granted that longer waits must mean worse net experience?
Many universal public systems (not all, see: Canada) effectively allow this through private plans and private providers that supplement the government benefits, often notably for speedier diagnostics and treatment.
Oddly, the country with the expensive ineffective healthcare with lower wait times (citation needed) is also the one that doesn’t have guaranteed paid sick leave and other facilities that would make wait times less of a factor.
I just moved from a medium sized US city and any specialist provider I contacted for myself or my parents was 5 months or more. It's not good everywhere.
My family has moved around quite a bit from small to large cities. I have never been able to make a same or next day appointment. Sick or not. Where I'm at now (NOT a major city) it was over 6 months to get the next appointment. For our child we had to call around to 4 pediatric practices before we found one open to new patients. And even then it was still over 4 months before they had an opening. Urgent care is an option but there is still a wait and from my experience they are kind of a joke as to what they provide.
Anecdotally, I spend a lot more time literally in waiting rooms in Germany than I did in the US, but getting a specialist appointment is much faster here (getting a therapist absolutely excluded, but I was able to get a psychiatrist to write prescriptions for ADHD meds within a month).
I mean, in rural America short of a trip to the ER with whatever wait time they have, getting a primary care doctor is barely possible and only affordable if your employer provides medical care, which many many don't.
I've experienced healthcare outside the US (in the UK) and it's on par with US healthcare in terms of wait times. Seeing a GP was same day with walk ins. When not busy, it was just a 5 minute wait.
Seeing a specialist can take time. I knew people that saw a 3 month wait to see a specialist in the UK. In the US, I just experienced a 3 year wait getting a specialist for my kid with autism. I had to go out of state to get the initial diagnosis, but to get local followup care I had to do that 3 year wait. After that, we were able to get a bunch of referrals to other issues.
What constrains wait time is how many doctors and specialists are working in a field. That has almost zero to do with the underlying payment system of a healthcare system.
This is my favorite thought terminating cliche when the discussion of American healthcare comes up. Wanna see a specialist? You're waiting. Can't afford insurance? You are waiting even longer.
Plenty of wait times in the US. Go to any clinic that accepts walk-ins in the afternoon, and you'll see a long line of sick, insured people waiting.
Getting a specialist in a major metro area will easily take 6-9 months. Family doctors? Anything to do with mental health? Good luck.
Oh, and if you think the situation is better in flyover country... It might be. You might have a world-class pediatric hospital in your zip code[1]. Or, more likely, you will have to drive 80 miles to a roach-motel-grade one. Turns out that poor people in real America don't have a lot of money, and it's not economical to provide them with any healthcare beyond leeching and bloodletting and four pills of Tylenol that will cost them $50.
Good luck getting an abortion, too.
---
[1] You'll still get fraudulent bills sent to you by vendors who claim to have performed non-existent services on you, while the hospital won't even be able to tell you if those vendors even work for the hospital. Ask me how I know. (After days of digging, it turns out that no, they don't.)
---
Look. It's entirely possible to in theory have a privatized system that works. Also, as Homer Simpson famously said, 'In theory, communism works.'
Unfortunately, we live in the real world, not a theoretical one.
I work out but I've never taken it. I feel like not everything has to be minmaxed, sometimes some things are better left to nature. Easy come easy go as they say
That's a big odd - because creatine seems to be the universally beloved thing and that it's a bit natural and has positive effects with zero negative side effect. Not a criticism but aside fro proten, creatine seems to be 'the natural thing'. Pun intended.
1. That's because it's true. Creatine is extremely well studied and the studies pretty much all tell you that Creatine is safe, it's great at what we know it's great for, and it turns out it might be good for things we didn't expect. So when people all say "wow it's so amazing" they're right.
2. Because of (1) being so blatantly true, if you want to push some other supplement, it adds a lot of legitimacy to say "Creatine is the number one supplement, but here's something that takes things to the next level". Since the Creatine claim is well supported and you're already marketing to a group that's taking a supplement (Creatine), it is likely good marketing to piggyback on that.
But this doesn't change the fact that Creatine is shockingly well supported as a supplement.
For me, besides creatine which has been genuinely transformative at age 50, I've gained a lot more from the stuff I've dropped (dairy milk, ~2/3 of my caffeine (mostly by drinking reduced-caff coffee or tea and eliminating soda), sweets of course) than stuff I've added. But of the latter, I'd say fiber and fruits have been the biggest additions, partly in themselves and partly that they make it easier to avoid the bad stuff. I tried experimenting with a few other supplements, but most of them were meh at best.
So, "take things to the next level" with some pears and oatmeal and chia seeds! Now I just need a sponsor.
I don't know much about creatine, how's that supposed to help change one's life ? Is it from your experience ? A quick search learned me it helps for physical activities of the explosive type.
For me its changed my life in terms of energy levels.
I have bad sleep apnea and have totally gotten off of prescription stimulants because of high dose creatine.
Creatine seems to have a strong postive effect on the brain when taken in doses higher than those taken for exercise.
Im not interested at all in creatine for exercise. Just google: "Creatine for sleep deprevation"
And as a vegan you dont get any creatine since you're not eating meat, so your body has to make it itself, which requires a ton of methylation and if you're like me and have bad genes for methylation (google MTHFR gene polymorphism) your body had a hard time with it as it is. So by supplmenting creatine you're reducing burden on your body greatly.
Also a lot of peoples diets have a high amount already. And certain things like energy drinks have a lot if you drink a those.
I think a lot of the minmaxed stuff people do working out is mostly placebo because very few people are actually pushing the limits of natural human physiology and hitting some nutrient bottleneck.
You're probably not getting much Creatine from your diet, definitely not supplement levels. I don't think energy drinks have it, maybe pre-workouts. Creatine doesn't dissolve well afaik so it's rare in energy drinks.
1) It annoys me whenever anybody mentions literally anything (whatever baking soda, potassium, any vitamin) you get a million unhinged comments about how this was a personal panacea.
2) Creatine definitely does stuff, that's scientifically been established by numerous studies for decades. It's been recommended as a supplement for vegetarians for mental reasons and for people trying to build muscle-mass (sort of niche). I'm actually a bit surprised how few people talk about it when it's a standard blood test thing (possibly because it can't be patented).
3) It's dirt cheap and made by tons of difference places. I don't think there's a "big creatine." It's probably like < 25 cents a serving.
I don't know who would be paying, but there are many comments here that are semantically indistinguishable from paid shill comments. I don't have a great explanation for it other than people tend to attribute way too much power to whatever random supplements they're on about (you'll see it in vitamin D or B12 threads too, and especially nootropics (which includes creatine) discussions).
Creatine doesn't need astroturfing.. It's not <frontier AI lab>'s newest model turbo boost max pro extreme rocket 5.9. It's just a supplement that some people take.
Absolutely. I can't tell you how many times I've been in a conversation and halfway through a sentence I need to whip out AI to scratch the mental itch so I can continue with the conversation.
But prior to this I would rabbit hole. I would try desperately to remember some nuance, or I would not be able to move off a point until I got the validation I was looking for.
The worst is when speaking a foreign language and I hit some complex word in my native language that isn't present in my foreign lexicon. My brain just halts. It wants THAT word or phrase, not a 3 minute detour describing a whole concept.
AI has empowered me to move past these unnecessarily difficult speed bumps in my thinking.
I’m interested what you believe the intent of your message to be. You’re talking to a COO that just raised money as if you’re mentoring someone about to approach VCs for the first time. Hugely patronizing attitudes often just get a pass here on HN, but what is your purpose for using one here?
I think you misread my comment, I might've been lazy in constructing it. I don't mean to mentor anyone, rather I'm putting out my read of the situation so there's a common ground over which to discuss.
For me, raising $100m when it's not needed doesn't add up. Nobody lends money with the idea to "keep it, just in case". There are always commitments and expectations and obligations to meet those expectations. So when they said they didn't really need to raise, while also not talking about investor expectations, feels there's more to the situation than is being let on.
It’s also the day before SharePoint 2016 and SharePoint 2019 (both considered office products) fall out of support and have to be replaced by SharePoint subscription edition.
Buying back shares it sold at a lower price, right? The lifecycle of a share starts with the transfer of money to a company in exchange for a share. It ends with a buy back, ideally at a higher price.
But still, at the beginning it is a transfer into the company’s coffers.
I’m not sure what the justification is, but I assume it’s some flavor of “so index fund holders don’t miss out on returns”.
It’s crooked because index inclusion drives massive flows at any price. SpaceX understands this and with so much money on the table probably exerted influence (maybe the big AI players contributed too).
Passive funds don’t care about price (quite the opposite, they reward higher market caps in a feedback loop).
But with an IPO, you’re supposed to let the market have some time to find the right price.
Not to mention the changes related to profitability rules etc.
Agree with this sentiment. However, I think the S&P 500 fudged the rule to 6 months which I believe adequately straddles the line between 1. provides time for price discovery and 2. includes a large piece of the market that would otherwise be included if not for the seasoning cutoff.
Agree with you entirely with respect to other indexes including earlier than 6 months.
The last time meta sold stock on the market was a primary stock offering in December 2013, roughly a year and a half after its initial public offering (IPO).
I find it crazy that so many people misunderstand this basic fact about how the market works.
100% correct, but I'll add that companies do use shares in other ways which also matter.
For example shares can be used for buying labor. Either as options or as grants, bonuses etc. It ultimately winds up in the public shares pool, but the first recipient receives it in place if company cash.
The second major use is in acquisitions. Buying other businesses using stock instead of cash is a useful tool often wielded. Again, not released onto the open market, but winds up there eventually.
Plus you can use them as loan collateral, balance-sheet improves and so on. So their price matters and their value to the business extends far beyond the IPO.
“belong” is a flexible word. You’re right in theory but depending on the situation money in your bank account is worth more to you than an equivalent amount of money in a company’s bank account (of which you are a shareholder).
Give me comedy. Oh how I miss the 90 minute comedy movie.
reply