orbenn

Joined 16 years ago

Karma
589
Submissions
22
Member since
Dec 13
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/jonnyelm87; my proof: https://keybase.io/jonnyelm87/sigs/AIJ20jWXMNt3iBFvL2w1akKzZgpyTlhPz1ttC90DLrY ]
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 7 years ago
Happy? :)
Comment · 8 years ago
In that case you're robbing the people who own the corporation (shareholders). They're the victims, not the corporation itself.

A corporation is owned by people. It is not "made of" people like some grotesque colossus.

Comment · 8 years ago
If you get in a car accident, no one counts your car as a victim. This is the same thing.
Comment · 14 years ago
"Unfortunately, we can't just order a batch and inject Bertrand.

We need to get FDA approval, and we'll need Genzyme's cooperation.

Even though his disease is life-threatening, his seizures are worsening and he continues to lose white matter, we'll need to prove that it's safe."

It's shit like this that makes me hate the FDA.

Comment · 14 years ago
A lot of people assume that making all research that included federal grant money free to the public would be unilaterally good. I like the idea in general because I actually like to read scientific papers sometimes, but my primary interest is to maximize the amount of research that happens. Or more precisely to maximize the speed at which we acquire knowledge/technology.

Are there any existing examples of places where this has been put into practice that we can compare to see which state of affairs is better? I'm unsure it would be beneficial because most of the public wouldn't read/understand the actual journal articles anyway, and I expect most of the scientists who do work in the field already have subscriptions. I'm worried there might be harm because government mandates of all kinds very often have negative unintended consequences and I'm curious what those might be for this area.

Comment · 14 years ago
At first I was annoyed that you spelled shemales wrong, but then I tried reading it again.
Comment · 15 years ago
Didn't work for me in Chrome, but it worked in IE. Figures eh?
Comment · 15 years ago
Comment · 15 years ago
Comment · 15 years ago
Real drug lords are part of the 1%. Most 1%'ers only work in one industry or a few related ones.

US policy is less about who would benefit from legalization (everyone) and more about who would suffer. If prohibition were ended there would be massive cuts in the budget and staff of the ATF, DEA, police, the entire boarder security industry, infantry defense contractors, prisons, courts and law firms.

Many politicians went to law school. No one wants to put their friends out of work.

Comment · 15 years ago
The US police/government/courts are less corrupt and have more resources to crack down on the more visible violence.

There is more violence in America than most people realize. It's considered mundane so you don't see it in the news as much.

The US is selling arms to the cartels in Mexico, so their violence is escalated there.

Mexican cartels aren't larger in the US than in Mexico because their supply sources are in Mexico, they lose momentum over distance and face domestic competition as they move across the US.

Comment · 15 years ago
If we assume drug lords are in it for the money and/or power they'd cut their losses ASAP.

For any of them that are really in it for the thrills the time would depend on their reserves, but I doubt it'd last longer than a few months for any of them.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton