Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
Finally! Now do the Blues (please, please DOJ and FTC). And the major inpatient and provider oligopolies.

Market concentration across many layers is a huge reason we spend 17% of US GDP on healthcare.

Comment · 2 years ago
I would love to debate the conclusions with the McKinsey team. I think their analysis was highly flawed. Do Americans consume more healthcare? Yes. Is that the primary reason for our escalating cost share? No. Market concentration at multiple layers (Payer, Provider, Tech/Data layers, etc.) is a huge issue in U.S. healthcare. In most markets we basically have 1-3 companies that have market control of the providers and inpatient facilities, and 1-2 companies that have majority market share on the carrier side. Add in the mess that is distribution (broker-controlled, and concentrated as a well), and you have a witches' brew of mis-aligned incentives, excessive costs, inefficient bureaucracies, and plain-old anti trust behaviors.
Comment · 2 years ago
Many DARPA projects over the years have approached similar X-65 design goals of increased flight control, modularity/redundancy. One of my favorites was Pulse Ejector Thrust Augmentation (PETA). Wired's sensational take on it is at https://www.wired.com/2011/07/boeings-millennium-falcon-floa...

One of the big benefits of X-65/PETA/et al is generating increased lift at takeoff and landing without the wings. One can think of it as a hybrid or multi-lift design. The wings for flight are smaller since it is augmented with other controlled lift/thrust, and this allows the aircraft to be lighter and smaller since it doesn't need huge wings for the low-speed takeoff and landing.

Comment · 2 years ago
Yep. Gemalto was hot stuff for a while.
Comment · 2 years ago
Remember RSA and OPM? The RSA hack had huge implications for the Department of Defense, and was probably a state-sponsored hack (likely China). Around the same time the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was hacked. So the state-sponsored hackers got to all the private details of anyone with classified access and clearances (which can be used for blackmail or for answering those strange "Who was your 3rd grade teacher?" auth questions to get past an identity test), and simultaneously could hack the rotating MFA codes from RSA.

Auth companies will always be a high value target for state-sponsored espionage.

Comment · 2 years ago
Remember RSA and OPM? The RSA hack had huge implications for the Department of Defense, and was probably a state-sponsored hack (likely China). Around the same time the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was hacked. So the state-sponsored hackers got to all the private details of anyone with classified access and clearances (which can be used for blackmail or for answering those strange "Who was your 3rd grade teacher?" auth questions to get past an identity test), and simultaneously could hack the rotating MFA codes from RSA.

Auth companies will always be a high value target for state-sponsored espionage.

Comment · 3 years ago
Nokia is one of the top cellular/mobile backend hardware providers. 5G is turning out to be a lot more expensive than projected, the rollout has slowed, so equipment makers like Nokia are feeling the pain.
Comment · 3 years ago
Cool project! I worked on a hybrid airship project.

H vs He. H for the win. H gives 10% more lift than He, and you can manufacture more H. Long-term this efficiency will allow you to haul more sensor payload, or to make a more useful aircraft. H has been used as a lifting gas on other projects in the U.S., and besides, your aircraft is unmanned.

Wind concerns. Addressable, but there will be some days you'll simply be grounded due to high winds. So are helicopters, though. Long-term you may want to look at hybrid lift designs for your aircraft (add some wings for aerodynamic lift, and make it net heavier than air).

Business concerns. The HN community has given some great feedback. The sales cycle will be long, so plan accordingly.

Comment · 3 years ago
Look at the balance sheet 10K and 10Q filings. Additional Paid-In Capital is basically all the accumulated equity investment. Add in the current long-term debt. That gives you an approximate number for the investment capital to date (though it doesn't include any long-term debt that was repaid).
Comment · 3 years ago
Despite operating for 14 years (1) and $51,488,000,000 of effective capital investment (2) Uber STILL loses money. The quarterly operating profit they reported is not GAAP net income.

(1) Founded in 2009 (2) $40,550,000,000 of paid-in capital and $10,938,000,000 of long-term debt, from 12/31/2022 balance sheet

Comment · 3 years ago
Thanks! We worked really hard on the design to be functionally useful while visually striking. We are fans of Bauhaus design.

Weight > The total weight is probably similar at 10 pounds even. The company you mentioned likes to quote partial system weight and doesn't include the weight of their canopies and inserts. We've already made the lightest car seat in the world (2017, carbon fiber) at 5 pounds all in, and one of the lessons we learned was that adding weight can be a good performance trade if done well.

Comment · 3 years ago
Glad to hear you found the thread interesting.

Kioma does provide an Isofix detachable base, but in the U.S. it is called Latch. Same thing, different name. All U.S. infant child restraint systems (CRS) must either have Latch attachments permanently to the CRS or must provide a separate detachable Latch base.

So we do provide a Latch base. We don't do a base load-leg though, because there are some cool things done with rotation to dissipate energy :) This is one case where the EU regs specified an implementation rather than a result. Otherwise the EU (r129) regs are very well written.

Comment · 3 years ago
The US standard is FMVSS 213. In Europe, seat manufacturers currently must comply with standards UN R44/04 or UN R129 (i-Size).
Comment · 3 years ago
A good dialogue is always fun. Thanks for bringing some science to the thread.

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head regarding misuse. Misuse is a problem across installation types: belt-only, and with Latch/Isofix. Some people get so confused they install with both methods.

Lowering misuse is a top design goal. Stated differently: we want to make things so simple that people have to work hard to make a mistake.

You are absolutely correct that belt misuse is a problem (per the cited GDV study). Latch misuse is still a problem too, though.

The studies make clear that misuse is common across installation types, to various degrees. The studies don't do a great job of exploring why the misuse occurred (The 2005 NHTSA study below did ask some good follow up questions). For example, Why did someone not use the belt path correctly? Was it because the slot was too narrow? Was it not visually obvious? Why did someone install both the Latch/Isofix anchors onto the same mount point? Why did someone leave too much slack in the Latch/Isofix anchor or the seat belt? Etcetera. The reasons why people misuse a seat are very valuable to improved public education and improved product design.

NHTSA's 2005 large field study found 39% of CRS (aka baby car seats) were incorrectly installed with Latch. Many of those had multiple errors (e.g. twisted belt plus latch connector turned upside down). Table 11 has the details in https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/latch_report_12-...

10 years later, NHTSA's 2015 study with NCRUSS data found misuse was still persistent: "Overall misuse is considered as having at least one defined misuse present in the car seat or booster seat – the seat may have one or multiple misuses, where one misuse has the same contribution as multiple misuses. The overall misuse is estimated to be 46 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval ranging from 39 percent to 52 percent. By car seat or booster seat type, estimated misuse rates were 61 percent for forward-facing car seats, 49 percent for rearfacing infant car seats, 44 percent for rear-facing convertible car seats, 24 percent for backless booster seats, and 16 percent for highback booster seats." Source: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

So for all those parents out there, read your seat's user manual. The user manual will make it clear how to properly and effectively use the seat belt or the Latch/Isofix anchorages.

Comment · 3 years ago
Ah, ok, and thanks for clarifying. The Kioma base is low profile (vertical height), and only 1/2 inch out from the passenger seat upright face (your "fore-aft" distance). It does not extend out past the seating face of the passenger seat, or otherwise hang off the passenger seat. Low and slim generally results in a shorter moment arm from the anchorage point (where the latch/isofix mount points are), so reduces the collision forces for the seat/baby.

The Kioma seat is about a standard length, and the width is narrower than competing seats while fitting the same size baby.

Fun fact: the International Standards Organization (ISO) helpfully defined several envelope sizes (r1, r2, etc) to help with baby car seat standardization, and the EU crash regs (see UN r129) even have a test bar that represents the back of a driver's seat.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton