Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kfajdsl's comments login

- Engineering jobs in the US tend to come with health insurance benefits

- There are several state programs in the US that make attending an in-state public university very affordable. For example, in GA I attended university for $0 in tuition (only paying for room and board + a couple hundred bucks a semester on bs “fees”). The requirement for that grant is getting a 3.0 or higher high school GPA.

- Not sure how cheap Toulouse is, but at least in the US you’re probably better off making 200k+ in HCOL than 100k in LCOL. At that level of income, you don’t have to spend much of your income on essentials even in an extremely HCOL area like SF ($3000 a month gets you a nice apartment).


I'm pretty sure going from X to Threads had very little to do with the feed algorithm for most people. It had everything to do with one platform being run by Musk and the other one not.


Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a reasonable argument. If a human did a JPEG compression by hand, that wouldn't be fair use, would it?


There are legendary Prodigy tracks reconstructions by Jim Pavloff, see:

1. "Smack my bitch up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI

2. "Voodoo people" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYLp5uX9Yw

Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing!


In Prodigy's defense, the samples were very creatively transformed so that the final result does not resemble the originals. It is more like cutting a small patches from paintings to make a new painting (rather than drawing a similar painting), and it is not what ML model do today.


They definitely don't sound the same, very similar yes but far from the same. Besides was it proven in court or otherwise by some legal entity that these songs aren't considered copyright violations? Just because it has not been legislated doesn't prove it isn't copyright violation.

Anyway I'm definitely not a copyright expert but I just found this argument extremely weak.


That is not how copyright works. Music in the US and many similar legal systems has a compulsory license provision that allows for anyone to produce and distribute covers of music as long as all licensing requirements are met. With the long history of covers in music, how much enforcement there is around the meeting the licensing requirements bit varies pretty wildly. If you are not complying with the licensing terms, however, and the rights holder comes after you, no amount of having copied the song by hand will protect you from copyright claims.

Similarly, I can't draw a batman cartoon with pencil and paper and avoid copyright claims when I try to sell the episodes.

Please do not go around infringing on copyright and thinking it's OK because you recreated whatever it was by hand.


> Those pieces sound exactly the same as the original, but it does not violate copyright because they've been produced by hand. Mind blowing!

Jim Pavloff was never sued by Prodigy or the right owners.

On the other hand:

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-...

> Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs

Which refutes your assertion of no potential copyright violation.


A. These were never taken to court.

B. They don't sound exactly the same as the original.

C. That they were produced by hand or automation is irrelevant.


What are the potential downsides to misuse of health data? Genuinely asking - I'm not sure what someone malicious would do with my health records, especially if it's anonymized.


Insurance companies refusing to pay because of $reason based on deanonymized data. Ad companies or bigPharma bombarding you to get new pills because they want to sell more pills. Black mail because you have embarrassing disease.

There's a lot of money being spent on deanonymizing data, and I would never count on it ever being able to remain anonymous with that much incentive.


There are several examples of anonymized data not being so anonymized after all and able to be traced back to the person. As far as what could someone malicious do with health records, you have a contingent of people in some states hunting down women for having abortions so that might be something you don't want getting out there. Or you might be someone in a very religious area and you don't want people finding out you're getting AIDS treatment.


Between your comment and others in the thread we've so far got:

- Insurers won't insure you

- Abortion activists will hunt you down

- Religious fanatics will shame you

- Credit rating

Not to downplay those (very real) risks in the slightest, but they are all US-centric problems.

Not sure what over-arching point to make, but it's certainly a set of US-centric problems.


I understand the theoretical concerns in these cases, but IMO it does not weigh heavily against the (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of annual deaths due to hindered medical research.

It's hard to overstress enough how impossible it is to do even basic research across institutional health datasets, even you're a giant organization with a compliance team. It's soul-draining and frankly the reason a lot of smart people jump ship and work in finance or crypto or whatever, where you can accomplish something even if it's goofy.


You're not addressing the root concern which is that healthcare is notoriously insecure. Approaching this as "who cares if things get leaked" instead of improving security of records is why getting data is impossible.


That's your root concern, not mine. My root concern is that people are dying for bad reasons.


What's my or your biggest concern is irrelevant. Patient data security is why you can't get the data you say you need. That is just a fact and I would think energy is better served towards improving the handling of patient data if you want easier access to that data for research purposes.


I worked at Datavant for 3 years building a network for deidentified data exchange.


Nitpicking but he gave you practical examples of stuff that already happened, not theoretical ones.


Those are both theoretical examples of what people might want do with re-identified medical data. They are not demonstrated harms of things that happened in real life.


Develop tools for health insurance companies to abuse patients. Instead of denying coverage to patients based on real life symptoms, they can deny coverage due to model outputs that are “based” on real life data.

Since these models are black boxes, it’s easy to hide biases within them


Or worse, people with conditions similar to you have shown to develop, so we're going to charge you now for what we think you might develop later.

Same negative attached to pre-crime in policing because people that wear the same clothes, drive the same car, listen to the same music, and other sames have committed crimes, we think you will too. someday


You just described the whole concept of insurance.


In the USA, health plans aren't allowed to deny coverage to patients based on genetics or pre-existing conditions. They aren't stupid enough to try to break those laws. Employees can't keep a secret. And most of the claims costs are directly passed on to employers (group buyers) anyway, so the major health insurance companies have little direct incentive to deny coverage; with minimum limits on the medical loss ratio it's rather the opposite.

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/g...

https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co...


Companies can just not hire you for "culture fit" or something else based on leaked data about your health problems in order to keep their premium payouts low or just to avoid hiring certain types of people (fill in your blank here).


especially if it's anonymized

And there's the problem. In theory, this is possible. But in reality, there is no such thing.

You also assume that your data will be correct. If data integrity was so easy and common, people wouldn't be encouraged to repeatedly check their credit reports for mistakes.

One bit flip and you go from "perfectly healthy" to "about to die" and suddenly you can't get life insurance, your credit score tanks and you can't get a job.


The downsides are there, of course, and you have already been provided theoretical risks by other users. Unfortunately the discussion only ever centers around the downsides, with fear mongering aplenty, rather than treating the situation the same as any other situation in life: a risk-benefit trade off.


One word: euthanasia.


"Your OneMedical account by Meta-Amazon LLC has been deactivated due to suspicious activity based on analysis of your genome and online browsing habits. Please proceed to the nearest fresh location for mandatory euthanasia."


I mean, the top comment wasn't talking about runtime characteristics, they were talking about the patterns resulting from using co-routines with messaging vs async/await.


This is the key thing that I feel most people who dislike using LLMs for development miss. You need to be able to quickly tell if the model is just going to keep spinning on something stupid, and just do it yourself in those scenarios. If you're decent at this then there can only really be a net benefit.


For me the primary purpose of TypeScript is to give my editor information about interfaces so I don’t have to do the menial back and forth of accidentally making a typo in a function name, object param, etc.

I find myself using less type hints in Python because the story for REPL driven development is so much better than JavaScript, and that takes most of the pain away.


Giving the editors hints in this case is very expensive.


It is, but it’s worth it in some situations.

It’s so much easier to sit down to an unfamiliar codebase, or to participate in a team of more than three or four serious contributors, when typescript is there to guide you.

I never would have guessed that that would be the benefit that won me over, but it absolutely has, all it took was a two year / six people project to completely sell me on typescript.


I've gotten so used to having an LLM integrated into my editor that when I work on the occasional spreadsheet (or really anything with syntax that I only use occasionally and no integrated AI) it's pretty jarring to have to go to another tab to look up what function to use for a formula (even if that other tab is ChatGPT).


I also switched to plain SQL migrations and queries because I find it much simpler. I hear this a lot, that ORMs are easier/quicker to use, but I've found that writing plain SQL has almost no friction for me. I mean, learning at least basic SQL is part of the first year in most CS degrees.


There are some things that are really annoying in raw SQL and that are much easier with ORMs. Dynamic queries are one of those, if you don't want to concatenate SQL strings yourself you need at least a query builder at that point. The other part is updating/creating entities with many relations, that gets very tedious quickly and is somethings ORMs can handle for you.

It depends a lot on the specific application, for me those things are so common that I prefer to use an ORM even though I could write the SQL myself. ORMs are easier to use, but you still need to learn what they do under the hood and understand them or you will run into issues along the way.


I’m not suggesting anyone implement the raw binary protocol themselves! The postgres connection library you’re using should be able to handle dynamic queries perfectly fine.


You can use Jetbrains IDEs on Linux.


Yeah I'm going to try it out when I purchase a dedicated Linux machine. Usually I ran from a 4GB-6GB VM so it's a bit stretchy.


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

Search: