Hi there, I’ve used this for hospitals local to me but correct me if i’m wrong but those are only the prices for services. What I’m talking about is unit economics for the service. The difference being pricing is opaque (or rather pricing alone is not transparent enough) until you know the cogs and then you can evaluate how profitable the pricing is.
Probably an obvious/dumb thing to say on HN, but I just want every medical service to have this exact type of breakdown. And then we can at least somewhat pierce the veil of health care costs. The thing I can't figure out is why this doesn't already exist, or, if it does, why it's not more widely known amongst laypeople. Everything from ambulance rides to MRI's to surgeries can be baselined and then we can talk about unique situations that can push that baseline price higher, but at least have a baseline. Seems like a good thing for an LLM actually if you could trust it.
As to your specific $200 quote, which others have attempted to refine, it can't be a coincidence that you come up with that number and the Medicare number is $300+, which, if your $200 is even somewhat accurate, seems like a perfectly fair gross margin on what's being delivered. Imagine if the government actually reimburses for cost plus a decent profit margin! Unthinkable the gov could somehow be accurate in their reimbursements.
Not particularly knowledgable about this, but I was under the impression the front of the bus subsidizes the back. So if the front opts for more expensive supersonic flights then the back will have to increase in cost to make it profitable to fly subsonic flights at all.
This is interesting but I'm not sure I get it. I can't tell if you're saying these folks leaving Google are part of that small group (I think you're saying they are, but why would them having those skills lead to them leaving? Because there are already other people at Google doing those roles and so they aren't making use of those unique skills?). I think I'm just not quite getting it, but I'd like to understand.
One other thought from your comment, which has been beaten to death, is the legacy product problem for Google, which is not going to magically go away. For people on the bleeding edge they just don't want to have another meeting where someone brings up, for instance, search. You don't have to worry about legacy products at Anthropic and OpenAI because none exist so it's certainly more greenfield.
Right. There are two (very cursory) ways I think about these marquee DeepMind departures: these folks are (are, not were) amazing talents, but despite their capabilities they could not surmount some internal obstacles at Google that kept them from realizing their full potential. Or these folks were amazing talents for what they did in the past, but today those talents aren't able to get DeepMind to today's bleeding edge. Reality is it's probably a bit of both and there's just no nuance in the discourse so I share your fatigue.
And then I guess there's the third option which is money. These folks already have "enough" funds for generations to come, but there's a lot of financial fomo out there when you see all your peers becoming billionaires and you're a lowly centimillionaire.
Rightfully so (worried I mean). And the SpaceX IPO was on that and a lot of other things, but if Elon’s proven himself effective at one thing (there are more than one course) it’s generating revenue from the government.
I feel like this is part of the “negotiation” between the US Gov (Trump) and Anthropic and other labs for an equity stake. “If we have a seat at the table, and a confederate engineering team embedded, then we can ensure you won’t let nefarious actors use the models.” Either that or a temporary gate on Anthropic to benefit other labs (think maybe SpaceX started trading today).
I don't see anyone replying to you here, and I don't know what your background is in this, but I think and hope you're spot on here. The more I've read replies in this thread the more I think this is mostly regulatory and maybe slightly a hardware issue (hardware issue is that there needs to be some kind of plug on an electrical panel that would remove the risks of having to pull the face off the panel, install a new breaker and connect the inverter).
Know you don't want to dox yourself, but .6 is... rough. Like super rough. Would love to know where this is, but no pressure. Thankfully you're not relying on it completely. And oh what I wouldn't give to know the incidence of deadly maybe very-damaging electrical fires there given your well put "regulation is a suggestion here everyone ignores." Because if the incident rate is no worse than here you can make some assumptions that the regulations here are overly burdensome. I'd be remiss if I didn't say that regulations are oftentimes written in blood; it's true in the case of electrical generation, distribution, installation, but it's also a glib way to stand in the way of solutions that improve peoples' lives.
Yep, totally, and I'd personally be overjoyed if I could pay PG&E (hypothetically; they're not my utility) $24/month to keep the grid afloat, but no more than that because I'm producing all I need locally (at the risk of repeating myself, I know this is possible today. Just hopeful that over time it becomes possible to do that install in a plug and play fashion just like you can do with the balcony solar, but at whole-house scale (or at least some material fraction of the whole house usage)).
What you say is true, but do you not think there's a way to make it so that the risk is taken out of it so you can expand the number of people who are capable of doing the install? I mean, I personally think there is, but I respect you don't feel the same. I just end up with a $10,000 bill, for the labor, to do what seems to me like a very straightforward problem to solve.
This is funny. You might notice that I write insanely-long comments because these types of things pop into my head every time on HN (better get ahead of it because people will pick apart my quick comment if I don't cover as many bases as possible in the original comment!). Your method is better! I have to learn how to be more "focused" and let folks just do their thing and then reply succinctly like you did here.
This is very interesting and helpful info! I guess my fantasy is that a standard electrical panel would eventually have a literal plug on it where you could plug a larger system in, just as you would an outlet in the balcony situation, and then it would I think be, using your word, in "front" of the "fuse" (using quotes because I'm not sure I have the behind/in front of language correct, and when you use fuse here in the states it would be a breaker, I guess, not an actual fuse). This solution would of course have to mitigate things like fire risk, or blowing up the house or grid itself. I'm just hopeful it's coming because I think the install rate would go through the, pardon me, roof.
Hope this ends up being true, and that solving it in advance is not required because that would mean the utilities would not have pushed back. I just feel like they will unfortunately. But baby steps with the balcony seems like we're heading in the right direction. Just wish we'd move faster.
Apologies if my reply here is not understanding you, but this is counter to my experience. Plenty of people still want to handle their own energy production even if they have grid access. I've built off-grid houses. Most of the utility production is already renewable. Many people still choose to live off grid even though that's the case. It would be epic if there was a plug and play, house-scale option because the cost of installation today is... epic (so epic in fact that the overall cost of install has actually gone up even though material costs have come down). Admittedly off-grid installs are a tiny fraction of places on the planet, but it's the trigger that led me to ask about this.
Perhaps you're just responding because I brought up grid tie (fair!), but I'm wondering why not aspire to remove the blocker, which would mean de-risking the installation so that laypeople could do it without having to get an electrician involved (which is what's so amazing about balcony).
Interesting on Utah. Re Oregon, was the fire Marshall acting in good faith in that scenario? Recently reading about fire-truck size in the US I start wondering what the motivation is for some views about things around fire safety (amongst a million other things). Maybe good faith is too cynical. Maybe just hard-to-change attitudes.
Ah, this is why I come here. I had no idea that was the case. I feel like there was a story going around recently about how hard it is to restart some power generator if it gets knocked offline. Maybe it was about Hoover Dam now that I think about it (i.e., how bad it would be if the Colorado gets too low).
That definitely sounds reasonable for balcony, but I was trying to ask if you were able to generate the lion's share of your usage from a DIY or plug and play system would the utilities be against that? I would think so because that would eat into their profits. If enough people were knocking several cents per kWh off their bills, would they just end up charging more for the infrastructure to make up for the loss? I'm sure there's some happy medium where they'd be happy, as you say, but at some number I'm guessing they'd fight back against too much adoption.
> my electricity in NYC is almost $.40/kWh, a limited secondary source is still huge
This alone would be incredible from wider adoption of balcony (incredible for the consumer I mean). If you knock a few cents per kWh off, which I think you can do with daytime/early evening usage (when the panels are still producing some energy so no storage required) that would be fantastic. Baby steps to a full system that you can DIY without anyone objecting.
Question for those in the know... See lots of press about balcony solar in Germany, and California recently introduced a bill to allow it (I'm guessing other states already allow it; not sure if the CA bill has a chance of becoming law). But how far are we from a more plug and play home solar system that becomes a primary energy source as opposed to a limited secondary source? And what are the issues with it actually becoming a reality? Is it primarily regulatory where government, utilities, installers would fight it tooth and nail to protect revenue and/or the grid? Is it a legit safety issue? I have to imagine safety could be easily addressed in terms of the power management between grid and solar (obviously these balcony units are relatively safe, but tiny in comparison). Installation perhaps has more safety issues (e.g., installing panels on a roof), but I just wonder if it's reasonable to think that a more robust plug and play option will become available or is even already available in certain places.
And I feel the need to say this, but this is the type of question I'd immediately turn to an LLM to answer, and I probably will ultimately, but I "still" like getting peoples' on-the-ground experience/expertise.
I'm probably 50/50 with search in particular logged in vs. out and I do think I notice on both, but I'm not entirely sure. Just saying the search and maps algorithm is wading through so much of my history that it can't help but choke trying to deliver the "right" results?
edit: clarity