sure, but generally most businesses do wish to pay for fraudulent activity.
It seems we have reached a point in time where many "business people" seem unable to discern a difference between fraud and not-fraud, but whichever businesses those people are responsible for will not be sustainable enterprises in the long term.
yes, "heavily progressive" and advocating that market solutions would address the root causes of the healthcare situation in America. You guys are great
this shit is so depressing, having a "secret sauce" and it being just mystical and unknowable, a magic incantation which you hopefully scribbled down to remember later
I'm afraid an ugly compromise of muddling through with some transparency is the best we can get in practice. At least if your democracy features voting, and especially first-past-the-post voting.
As one alternative, filling your parliament up via sortition might eliminate the downsides of transparency.
The problem is with global brands that continue to advertise anyway. You can make the "discovery" argument for upstarts and niche businesses, but when Coke or Exxon are advertising to me, there is no pretense of giving me information I didn't already have. At some point it's purely about associating one's product with vaguely positive imagery and embedding it just a little bit deeper into everyone's consiousness. No end-consumers benefit from that.
I think this statement satisfies a working definition of irony: about half the audience is in on the joke, and the other half earnestly believes it. I guess that's also true of trolling. Kudos, I suppose.
"A truly great product sells itself" is one of the most persistent myths engineers believe.
I don't understand how people can still believe this when it's so obviously false. It's a nice story, that if you make something great you'll get what you deserve. That sounds fair, but there's no reason to believe the market works this way.
A "truly great product" that no one (or not enough people) know about will go out of business and disappear.
That's completely absurd. How can a product "sell itself" if nobody knows it exists, or knows how great it is? How do they find out those things? Well, in part, by advertising.
I heartily agree that some advertising is manipulative and anti-social... but I can't buy this "all advertising is just manipulation" stuff.
With the ways we’ve seen other systems work, I’d almost expect to be placed automatically on some kind of list that would get you a stonewall response from most doctors you visit for the rest of your life. In fact, there are such databases; here is an article about one in MS: https://www.sunherald.com/news/local/crime/article62959432.h...
I’m sure there will be/are places where these databases are run by private companies with no accountability and no way to issue a complaint.
I've successfully avoided this kind of crap (never fell for the medication frenzy). Somebody close to me was able to find a psychiatrist who would assist them in getting off meds only when a third party intervened.
The problem is not with individual doctors, it is that the structure {legal, economic} surrounding mental health favors getting people on medication, but doesn't create good paths for them to get off (at least in the US).
This is very weird comment. Are you saying that the USA was not a multi-ethnic/multi-religious state in the 1960s?
In a nation state, politics tend to be divided more on ideological and regional lines, because everyone shares an identity.
There has never been a "nation" where everybody shares an identity in the sense discussed above.
The comment makes sense, but the US isn't best example. Although last century the US was somewhat dominated by one identity (which is now waning and leaving room for others to grow) it has always been multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
A better example would be European nations like Hungary, which have reinforced their national identities in the face of the recent migrant crisis.
We've asked you repeatedly to stop doing ideological flamewar on HN. A crazy number of times actually. Would you please really stop now so we don't have to ban you?
If you define "British origin" to include Irish Protestants, which is reasonable.. But the country was barely 50 years old by the time that cultural hegemony started eroding as German, Dutch, Irish-Catholics, etc poured into the country.
There's even an infamous 1899 political cartoon that asks "Why should I let these freaks cast whole votes when they're only half American?"[1]
The fact is, the US has spent a majority of its existence feeling like there's an immigration and/or integration crisis, starting in the mid-1800s with Irish-Catholics and stretching to the modern day with Latin-American immigrants.
It seems we have reached a point in time where many "business people" seem unable to discern a difference between fraud and not-fraud, but whichever businesses those people are responsible for will not be sustainable enterprises in the long term.