Started out /s, but upon consideration I imagine YC really is the closest you could get to the spirit of HN in an in-person meetup.

A lot of people will dismiss phage therapy on economic grounds, suggesting that you'd need to essentially design a new phage therapy for each individual infection you wanted to treat. But, with the advances we're seeing in microfluidics, diagnostics, gene sequencing, computational biology, laboratory automation, and the theory of precision medicine, that host specificity can turn from a disadvantage to an advantage. We know there are a lot of human-dwelling bacteria we wouldn't want to knock but can't save from a broad-spectrum treatment. With a personalized phage therapy, this isn't as much of a concern, and with the above advances, custom therapeutic design can scale economically.

But here's the most important implication of phage-host specificity for biotech business models. When a biotech company gets approved to roll out custom therapies for each individual patient, that opens the door to solving two important roadblocks to biotech innovation. First, firms could get around the problem where they're subject to regulatory scrutiny based on a naive interpretation of the difference between their manufacturing costs and their sale prices. Second, such a paradigm of treatment could permit biotechs to offer gradations of service and charge based on how finely-tuned your therapy is. This would enable them to much more closely fit the demand curve of patients. They could bring the latest technology to the masses cheaply and relatively quickly, while charging a premium for the cutting edge.

But I have to agree, expecting a bookstore and then getting something totally other is too much of a clash. If you want a bookstore, nothing's going to beat a bookstore. If this site offers something different, it should be sold on its merits.

It’s entirely feasible that you could get good results and limited side effects at dose x, and poor results overwhelmed by side effects at dose 25x.

And it was totally what he meant. The ASCII wildcard-existentialism theory is too consistent with the themes Adams explores through the series to have been an accident.

I fully agree with Musk when he said he regards the Hitchhiker’s Guide as a great work of philosophy, whether or not he was joking. It totally worked for me as I was trying to progress beyond nihilism.

The tax haven could even get around an “enforcer” or governing board. For instance, such a country might change what it considers to be “profit” so that you’re paying $2 on $100 of revenue, whereas in the neighboring country you’d be paying $6. Same nominal tax rate, different effective tax rates. There are even more ways to play this: “Sure, we tax you at the required 20%, but you can then direct how those funds are used to reduce costs you’d otherwise have to pay directly.”

And this happens a ton— see the WTO and “effective” but not nominal tariffs.

Whether or not we see such a harmonized tax rate emerge and even if we could find a way to have some governing body try to “enforce” it, you’ll still see countries lowering their effective tax rates to lure firms or bolster growth. I bet there’s a maximum sustainable effective corporate tax rate, but I have no idea what it is (and for all I know it could be zero or negative).

In answer: if we do discard the assumptions of game theory and we imagine nobody would ever think to “cheat,” it could work. But in reality it wouldn’t be just that some countries have huge advantages in some industries— they would have huge advantages in every industry. People and companies looking to maximize their opportunities would flee to the country with the lowest effective (nominal doesn’t matter) tax rate which could also guarantee their safety.

This is actually part of how the US ended up burying the Soviet Union/eastern Bloc with economic productivity— we kept poaching all their best engineers, scientists, mathematicians, and entrepreneurs.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=goePYJ74Ydg

For instance, you could have a country change what it considers to be “profit” so that you’re paying $2 on $100 of revenue, whereas in the neighboring country you’d be paying $6. Same nominal tax rate, different effective tax rates.

There are even more ways to play this: “Sure, we tax you at the required 20%, but you can then direct how those funds are used to reduce costs you’d otherwise have to pay directly.”

And this happens a ton— see the WTO and “effective” but not nominal tariffs.

The word bootstrap comes to mind.

I think it’s easy to claim all the economists at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and UChicago have no clue what they’re doing, and you could design a market better than Vickrey himself by throwing darts at a wall.

But the reality is that while they do disagree about a great deal, this disagreement isn’t different from the disagreement you see on the cutting edge of cancer biology or physics.

And sure, you’ll be able to find “Marxist Economists” for every Nobel Prize winner with a PhD in mathematics, but if you stick with the respectable academics (and especially with those focusing on microeconomics and game theory) they tend to agree about much more than you’d expect.

I’m seeing a company that nails things so consistently and effortlessly that I am convinced that in a decade it’ll be Amazon but for finance. Potential competitors will be terrified of Stripe the same way they are of Amazon. They just execute too well to be comfortable around.

What I'm going for is more the idea that if you consider the best alternative I can think of to the "holistic" approach, you get selecting applicants purely based on entrance exam scores. In such a world you'd be punishing a kid who plays with Arduino out of interest. Any energy devoted towards something other than test prep is energy wasted.

In the American system, as I'm coming to see it, the kid who plays with Arduino is punished less. The test won't take you all the way anyways, and you even get a little "refund" on attention sunk into some types of activity which qualify as extracurricular.

But if you tie a person’s social status to performance on a single test, you suffocate all the useful things people could be doing if they didn’t have to solely dedicate themselves to prep. So maybe we’re doing okay as-is.

The company could say: we’re going to pay you 125 and you could sue us and spend 60k and two years or just settle for that, after he’s already done the work.

The guy could demand the payment directly to his account and then not deliver, and the firm would be in the same situation.

By depositing the funds in escrow, they’re making sure that the money is there and in the hands of people whose only incentive is to give it to the correct party upon fulfillment of the contract.