xtiansimon

I have a hypothesis, from my own interactions with sports medicine/healthcare, that medical tests which are in-line with more expensive and specialized procedures performed within the same medical group/hospital are easier to get and cost less.

> “The President isn’t a “king” he’s a CEO.”

Given the Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United, Loper Bright, and Hobby Lobby I find this notion obscene.

> “The battle stems from a Justice Department memo declaring that the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional and that White House files are now the president’s personal property — not the public’s.”

I just have to say this makes me so angry.

The Presidency is not a “private” endeavor. Drump comes from the private sector and thinks to run the Office of the President as his private business. Unforgivable.

> “I've met people like this my whole life.”

Yeah. Marines

> “SaaS plus consulting is still very much alive.”

I’m sure, but for 1-2M annual revenue small businesses I work with the price points are not affordable. Enter LLM.

In the first instance, I was making a statement about human nature, and not a moral justification.

And in the latter my statement is true by definition. A tautology.

Really, I don’t know what you were hoping to accomplish with those similes, but they’re simply not equivalent logically.

But I understand you disagree.

> “…creating backdoors and security issues in users' code.”

Backdoors in greenfield products? I’m working on some simple websites with Claude and can’t imagine how it would subvert a framework. Can you give an example?

“Global financial markets may not survive what comes next.”

As if I didn’t have enough to worry about. Lol.

Funny to read this as marketing for consultants. At that point the formulas read as illustration and semiotic signs—we show you the algorithm. Hehe.

Design by committee?

Everything is “supply and demand”. Tell that to a SWE who lost their job. You lost your job because a natural law of economics. (And you can’t fight city hall.)

My suggestion of power at the table is not an “explanation” as you say. I don’t care about tidy explanations. I care about agency. I care about models of relationships that you can grasp and strategize your way back to a “place at the table”.

And the first step is to realize why anyone gives you power and responsibility in the first place.

In the first instance it’s not personal, it’s just business (and not economics).

> “The citizens really ask for surveillance laws against specific groups (in this case: politicians).”

?? The root of the idea is not bi-directional. Politicians have a particular type of job: public service. It’s this “job” that requires the transparency.

And not transparency into their public life. Though, as a public figure if your private life becomes embarrassing, or salacious you’re guaranteed to have news hounds on your trail. Not least because your public service rivals will use whatever they can to discredit you in the court of public opinion.

It’s the same for the work product. All of the material of governance should be the “property” of the people governed.

Can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.