My understanding is that ABS in cars has surprisingly little effect on fatalities. It is a huge lifesaver when deployed to motorcycles, and a benefit to reducing non-fatal crashes, but not much for fatals in cars.
(I agree it's a well-solved problem and the reduction in non-fatal crashes makes it worthwhile from a convenience standpoint alone.)
Well for one, what if universities like Harvard publish clear and transparent criteria for their students? For example it could say that the minimum required SAT score is 1580, and students with a lower score will simply not bother to apply, instead of sending in their application in the hope that other parts of their application will stand out enough.
For two, university admissions officers have internal adjustment algorithms to adjust the GPA from different high schools. They could publish that together with a minimum adjusted GPA.
The 50k application problem only exists because under the holistic process, everyone thinks they have a chance.
> children dying from diseases whose vaccinations cost 1$
If there’s a government anywhere that isn’t providing this for its citizens, perhaps looking into why that government is such a failure would yield greater and more durable change than a point patch of just a few vaccines.
> If the top 1% would spend 1% of their wealth
Why should we expect/demand more generosity from only 1% of the population? Maybe everyone should spend 1% of their wealth on these efforts? It’s easy to be magnanimous with someone else’s wallet.
> Why should we expect/demand more generosity from only 1% of the population? Maybe everyone should spend 1% of their wealth on these efforts? It’s easy to be magnanimous with someone else’s wallet.
I was mainly referring to the "super rich" (Musk, Bezos, etc.) since this topic was about how SpaceX treats people and because "multi-planetary civilization" is primarily a thing I connect with their companies.
I do donate ~10% of my income. Not sure how much the average FAANG-CEO does donate.
> If there’s a government anywhere that isn’t providing this for its citizens, perhaps looking into why that government is such a failure would yield greater and more durable change than a point patch of just a few vaccines.
Failed States and Corruption do exist. They have various complicated reasons which to address would certainly not be "a low-hanging fruit".
Of course, solving these would be a good thing, but not within the scope of "donate food, donate medicine, pay teachers"
Suppose there’s a failed state or widespread corruption somewhere and a child there who needs $1 worth of vaccine or $1 worth of food.
What’s the chance that or fraction of your dollar, my dollar, or a billionaire’s dollar will end up actually reaching and helping that child? We’ve all seen food aid donations fail to reach those in need for precisely the same corruption that caused it to be needed in the first place.
> Why should we expect/demand more generosity from only 1% of the population?
“More” generosity? As if any is given. And it’s not about “generosity”, it’s about contributing to the society they are taking from. Billionaires exploit everyone else to the point of causing disease and death then hoard all the money produced from that for themselves.
Are they being subsidized the same way my employer subsidizes my lifestyle?
If I sell steel, grain, boots, or launch services to the government and that gives me profits that I invest into some aspect of my business, I’m not sure that “subsidized by” is the clearest term.
Pretty much all of the commercial rocket companies are in America. There is competition between them. In the amount of money that SpaceX gets from the government is quite small compared to its overall operating expenses. They launched 90% of all mass to orbit, most of which is commercial.
The “SpaceX lives on government subsidies” thing is a myth.
I’m not in your target user, but I love the “day pass, no recurring billing” concept and specifically applied the second half of that. (Without that, it’s shady.)
I can imagine many tools that I’d use under such a model, and while I suspect A/B testing would show it to be a loser, I’d be fine with that instead of a free trial for most things.
For a tool like yours that brings immediate value but maybe less on-going usage, it’s more prone to be good for both sides.
Exactly. I noticed that usage for the paid offerings tended to be sporadic for individuals. Research confirmed that Private Investigators and Law Enforcement operate on a case-by-case basis, so a monthly subscription model didn't align with their workflow. However, they still require capabilities beyond what the free tier (cylect.io) offers. For larger clients (like Security Operation Centers and MSSPs) that's where I see monthly working well.
It can be simultaneously true that 5% of educators are great, 20% very good, 60% are good, 13% are adequate, and 2% should have fired 5 years or more ago.
If you’re in the first three groups, it can be hard to understand the disrespect and vitriol which is overwhelmingly directed at experiences parents have with that last group.
Prestigious boarding schools - the schools that I’ve been writing about - need not bother with teachers outside that top 25%.
Non-selective government schools, like all public services, have inevitably become largely concerned with social work; teachers in those schools, regardless of their ability, have to respond to parents immediately.
> teachers in those schools, regardless of their ability, have to respond to parents immediately.
Or else what? Their union will hold them to account? Their colleagues? Their administration?
I have two kids in such public schools and I can’t think of anything I’d ask of a teacher that would require a same-day response let alone an immediate one.
If I need an immediate response, it’s not likely a topic I should be taking to a teacher in the first place. Their job is to teach, not to monitor for inbound comms from parents.
By 'immediate', I meant same day. But you sound like a reasonable parent; you're writing in the hypothetical. It's the small minority of parents who are constantly in contact with teachers (because most legitimate concerns should be triaged by the school receptionist) and consequently cause the problems - it's no different to any other customer-facing role.
> need not bother with teachers outside that top 25%.
To simply "not bother" with lower-quality teachers sounds like you find it easy, as an institution, to determine teachers' quality. That seems far from a solved problem, for teachers and indeed most employees in general. You can pick a particular metric, of course, but then people will try to game it, and in teaching, there seems to be a lot of room for gaming metrics...
I’m talking about institutions and their internal processes, not some tedious nonsense about how money is intrinsically evil.
Rich people have all sorts of problems. Part of the package in an elite education is that the school has a better capacity to sort those out by itself. Constant communication with parents undermines that.
It’s a question of values and understanding what you’re buying into. These schools don’t suit all parenting styles.
IMO, government owned basic dormitories with high density should exist. Think of something one or two steps above emergency shelters. Call them pods if you like.
Rent and utilities could be positioned at a level that permitted people to survive and have a foundation from which to lift themselves back up and perhaps eventually to a private housing situation with some luxury.
(I agree it's a well-solved problem and the reduction in non-fatal crashes makes it worthwhile from a convenience standpoint alone.)
reply