Ban goods or expect advertising for them, full stop.

Seems like a perfect useless academic exercise to watch the World Cup and say you’re working.

Bonus points for judgment on the health of the goods just for giggles.

Management often makes terribly unprofitable decisions and often work to protect their slices of the pie rather than the org.

Tech companies are saved by their margins, their aura, and low interest rates.

Better examples might be grocery stores or other low margin businesses that require some fairly ruthless prioritization (at least that is what I’m to understand)

To your care / profitability argument: that is good news! However, I do believe that concern for profitability will always outweigh a care quality argument so there is a misalignment of incentives in that case. I would look to insurers to demonstrate this, generally, but can imagine a PE-owned hospital system might attempt similar measures.

Ideal outcome is a great manager that also cares and ends up paying doctors more and providing excellent care while driving down costs using better processes and negotiating with suppliers. But, uh… not sure how often the benevolent PE firm actually shows up historically.

Value extraction is a short term play. It’s usable by most companies in a pinch, but normally only happens before their death or slow decay into zombie-dom. At least, that’s what my anecdata tells me.

The problem with healthcare “economics” is that providing high quality care is likely not as profitable as middling care, or sub-standard care.

You say that economics is meant to deliver cheap quality goods, but in reality here economics for PE is value extraction and has nothing to do with consumer good at all - unless of course there’s more profit there. Most of the time, there isn’t.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49754898

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Also what harness? If you’re using a general harness of course it’s going to try and give you commentary.

I say this not because I’m an LLM shill but because false equivalence is all over the place in the space and maybe it’s a fine heuristic for you but probably not a real outcome when it comes to the capability of LLMs.

As an American, I continue to be sad and tired that our current president is somehow allowed to unilaterally destroy a very successful and thriving trade partner via arbitrary tariffs that have already been ruled illegal and while it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference I’m sorry about it.

That to me is the greater threat than annihilation due to autonomous weapons, etc.

Maybe a better conversation to have as we keep moving through this AI Engineering era and a bunch of new companies are created. If you are considering founding a company, would you start it as a union shop? If not, why?

Why do companies bother with this horse excrement? Does a sentence like this make anyone feel better?

Most times, I wish they'd just send the honest truth. "Hey, we screwed up. We over-hired and ran out of funds so we had to let you go to make payroll" or "Our M&A strategists overpaid for an over-leveraged company and now we have to figure out how to pay down the debt. Your position was cut as a result."

Obviously corporations owe nothing to nobody (apparently) but I'd love it if the patronizing language stopped.

This is clearly illegal as all comms need to be posted in different accessible places as well as the federal register - but that never stopped anybody in this administration from a bit of grifting to drive users to their own platform.

I’m bummed about this service being taken down. I will now just not be able to see updates from folks in the AI field that choose to post there and I’ll rely on aggregators instead.

Did you see what it did to people in your neighborhood?

That’s the path.

The problem with that hope and approach is regulatory capture. Big money is now the only thing that apparently matters in shaping policy, and changing that will require a lot of very sweeping vote and policy changes that may not ever have the momentum to succeed.