Dr. Asperger may or may not have been sorting autistic children into high- and low-functioning groups so that the higher group (with “Asperger’s”) could go on to become good Nazis and the lower group could be euthanized.
YMMV, I guess - we were surprised when our first grader said math was her favorite part of school this year, and she recently asked if she can get i-Ready on her iPad.
It's insane to me that this even needs to be written – showing you care is just not that hard! And it absolutely doesn't have to come at the expense of business goals.
I've had some amount of success running a startup, and honestly the only thing that reliably paid off was hiring great (i.e., smart, thoughtful, kind) people and treating them like family.
I think it helps to remember that those posts are basically sales pitches, and that if they don’t resonate for you, then you are probably not their target audience.
But another thing is that most tech people really undervalue good marketing and end up doing either the bare minimum (e.g., LLM puke) or narrowly targeting themselves as an audience. Either way, they often fail to get their message out to their market.
Sure, but even assuming OpenAI gets to a tamer 20% net margin, 25x earnings wouldn’t be surprising so they’re raising on a projected $60B/yr revenue which might not be where they end up, but doesn’t seem like an unreasonable bet to make.
Just picking a semi-related stock, NVDA trades at ~30x gross revenue, so a $300B "only" translates into ~$10B in revenue. And OpenAI can ask for a better multiplier because I'm sure they're forecasting a ton of growth and a ton of cost savings.
I mean if we’re doing analogies here, I’d say it’s more like you said “the sky’s always blue in the US”, and I said “actually it’s kind of cloudy here right now, and in fact it’s often as cloudy as other places.” To which you just keep responding that I’m wrong because there’s a tornado outside your house.
Oh for sure it’s skewed, and it doesn’t surprise me that there are people that will get 20+ CTs. Wild that that’s the average though - the skew must be massive.
Well apparently there are ~40m MRIs per year in the US, implying around 9-10 lifetime MRIs, which seems... pretty high? It's also wild that, at 85-90m CTs per year, apparently the average person is getting more than 20 lifetime CT scans.
I’m in my early 40s and have had 1. Everyone I know well has had 1 or (more typically) none, including my parents and in-laws, so I figured ~2 lifetime MRIs would be in the right ballpark
Agreed. MRI machines are not the bottleneck - we have 3 in my area, serving maybe 100k people. Assuming most people are like me and spend about an hour in an MRI machine every 40 years, we should be at something like 25% utilization, which seems comfortable.
Right. I still don’t think your original contention that for-profit systems are, in general, orders of magnitude better than socialized ones is accurate, but I do concede that your particular situation seems pretty bad.
EDIT: Just checked NHS too, most recent month had ~3% of MRIs waitlisted more than 13 weeks, so pretty similar in that European country as well.
EDIT: Spot checking in a Canadian town with similar demographics as my own shows wait times roughly comparable to mine, and nothing anywhere near 6-12 months - worst case is about 14 weeks.