harnes.me
Tech lead @ Gi Effektivt https://gieffektivt.no
107 posts
31 followers
143 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Annoying it's limited to the US, as usual. I really don't see any good reason for treating your non-US users as second-tier citizens, we pay the same as anyone else.
comment in response to
post
Utrolig interessant å få bedre innsikt i handlingsrommet og tidslinje for opprustningen. Er det forskjell på ulike former for materiell? Naivt ville jeg tenkt at oppskalering av eksisterende produksjon (f.eks. artillerigranater) i prinsippet kunne blitt vedtatt veldig raskt?
comment in response to
post
3/ Hvordan forklarer vi det? Boligmarkedet? Høye forventninger? Synligere forskjeller (sosiale medier etc.)?
comment in response to
post
2/ Det er også helt sant såvidt jeg kan bedømme at de rikeste har stukket av med mesteparten av velstandsøkningen siden 80-tallet (i USA spesielt). Samtidig er det noe pussig med at historien er at dagens generasjon har det verre enn foreldregenerasjonen. Tallene viser stagnasjon, ikke regresjon
comment in response to
post
1/ Det er litt forenklet å si at de rike ble beskattet "mye, mye, mye mer" enn de gjør i dag, Piketty, Saez, and Zucman 2018 finner at den effektive beskatningen har gått fra type 45% til 35% i USA f.eks. Samtidig er det helt sant at skattesystemet er mindre progressivt, og det er IMO uheldig
comment in response to
post
Merkelig å klippe ut dette uten videre kontekst. Hun skriver hun ikke føler seg like velkommen i paraden fordi den først og fremst fronter venstresidens politikk, med varierende relevans for kvinnekampen. Man kan være uenig i graden, men det er ganske åpenbart en tendens?
comment in response to
post
der kjøpere flytter fra sentrale til usentrale områder, noe som demper betalingsvilligheten i sentrum og resulterer i moderat prisnedgang. Enig? 3/x
comment in response to
post
hvor tomteforsyningen er mer elastisk og byggekostnader en større relativ andel av prisen, gir komparativt lavere boligpriser og økt attraktivitet. Denne differensieringen bør føre til en substitusjonseffekt, 2/x
comment in response to
post
Her antar du at tomteforsyningen er perfekt inelastisk og lik over alle geografiske områder om jeg forstår deg rett? I sentrale strøk med inelastisk tomteforsyning vil tomteprisene kompensere for lavere byggekostnader isolert sett, men reduserte byggekostnader i usentrale segment, 1/x
comment in response to
post
How much did they scale Sonnet 3.7? The versioning seems to indicate it's in the same class as all the 3.x Sonnet models, but maybe that's not how they do versioning?
comment in response to
post
Selv innenfor handlingsregelen er det rom for 140mrd på toppen av eksisterende støtte. Riktignok ikke sikkert det vil vare, men vanskelig å ta inn over seg hvor absurd rike vi er blitt, delvis på grunn av denne krigen.
comment in response to
post
Hehe, hva er det litt lange svaret?
comment in response to
post
Dette er vel litt upresist, byggekostnader påvirker selvfølgelig i boligprisene, men i pressede områder vil de ha mindre påvirkning enn mange intuitivt tror. Satt på spissen, vi hadde bygget flere boliger om byggekostnader var 0, men det hadde fortsatt vært ganske dyrt å kjøpe i Oslo, enig?
comment in response to
post
Incredibly, the numbers are purchasing power adjusted. Yes, even regular people in the US and Europe really are very rich on a global scale, however uncomfortable that might make us feel.
comment in response to
post
Når dette er sagt er jeg forøvrig ikke fremmed for at det kan være en god idé med moderate kutt i sykelønnen. 60mrd er mye penger. Jeg argumenterer først og fremst imot at det har vært en stor endring.
comment in response to
post
Med dette perspektivet vil det forøvrig også se "dårlig" ut om man klarer å få syke personer i delvis arbeid, siden det er sykepenger per sysselsatte. Det er en bunch med faktorer som ikke synes her, men i det minste kan vi slå fast at det ikke er veldig dramatisk.
comment in response to
post
Når jeg naivt ser på tallene er jeg enig at det ser ut som mye ståhei for ikke så mye. Her er tallene jeg kommer frem til fra SSB for sykelønn per sysselsatte i faste 2015-kroner. En moderat oppgang, omtrent på linje med reallønnsvekst? Ikke veldig overraskende. docs.google.com/spreadsheets...
comment in response to
post
Bad graph. First, there is a disconnect between the title and the data. Profits are not the same as revenue. Second, it's mislabeled as cumulative revenue, rather than combined revenue. Third, it says nothing about why revenues are increasing. Acquisitions, mergers, ACA? Could be many reasons.
comment in response to
post
Oh, my mistake. I just realized you said compared to European cities, my bad! Totally agree there.
comment in response to
post
432 park avenue is kinda futuristic to me too, albeit not as strong of a vibe as the others I mentioned
comment in response to
post
This park is pretty futuristic
comment in response to
post
Is this not very suceptible to cherry-picking? I mean, most of New York surely looked less futuristic at the time than now? Tons of new futuristic buildings that are new, such as the WTC transportation hub
comment in response to
post
The metrobuss system in Trondheim Norway, where I live, works pretty well. Some were initially mad bc: 1. people complain about change 2. the system was more concentrated around some smaller hubs, so some people had to do more changes. But now it's mostly accepted.
no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrobuss
comment in response to
post
Stunning!
comment in response to
post
Beautiful!
comment in response to
post
No, it's about 25%. elbil.no/om-elbil/elb...
That's still great, and leagues ahead of other countries!
comment in response to
post
Also, EVs are 90% plus of _new_ car sales, but still a minority in the overall car population. Incentives disproportionately benefit wealthy people that can buy new cars.
comment in response to
post
This is indeed hilarious with Norwegian eyes. EV range actually doesn't decrease that much in the cold if you are willing to give up performance. The incentives are very expensive though, 4 billion USD last year. That's a almost 0,5% of the entire state budget! 4 billion annually!
comment in response to
post
Yes, that sucks when it happens! But it's not unique to the US, in a national system like Norways they make similar choices, prioritising short term cost cutting over long term sustainability. Other problems are more unique to the US, like over-treatment and unequal access / quality.
comment in response to
post
Fair enough. Metaculus, the forecasting platform, currently sit at around 20% before 2026, but the criteria are pretty strict (4/7 must have a 50% or more fall in share price). And not that many predictors on it. www.metaculus.com/questions/21...
comment in response to
post
How certain are you? I share the sentiment, but have a strong deference to the market. Are you willing to buy NVIDIA puts f.ex.?
comment in response to
post
But this is where the reproducibility of pap tests is important. There isn't enough detail in the claims in the threads to know if this is just explained by inter-reviewer disagreement (i.e. having different thresholds). There is a false perception of a test being definitely normal or abnormal.
comment in response to
post
I don't understand where anyone admitted to knowing that something was wrong with the patients cells? I linked this elsewhere, but I think it's more interesting too see this overview, which find kappa values around .5. That's not great, but not terrible. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
comment in response to
post
Agreed, kappa values is what we should be looking at, not raw percentages.
comment in response to
post
To be fair, this seems to be an outlier. This newer study has a nice summar in Table 5, where most studies report kappa values of around 0.5. That's not great, but it's not terrible either. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
comment in response to
post
"The strongest source of disagreement was the threshold
between normal and CIN 1. (Only 30% of cases with a negative diagnosis were agreed on by the 2 reviewers.)"
comment in response to
post
Right, I'm asking about your impression of the degree to which different reasonable people may classify a test as normal or CIN. My understanding is that it's not as binary as some seem to think, see e.g. academic.oup.com/ajcp/article...
comment in response to
post
Thanks for your input, it seems you know a bit about pap tests. My impression is that it's a gradient wrt what constitutes a normal or abnormal result, am I mistaken in this? As far as I understand the US uses the Bethesda system for reporting, but it's unclear to me what the thresholds are.
comment in response to
post
To be clear, insurance does have a short termin incentive to lower costs in competition with other providers, but the long term incentive for the system as a whole is to encourage spending. It think this is an under appreciated point in the discussion and exactly counter to what many believe!
comment in response to
post
I said this is an additional factor, it's not relevant who gets sued, just that there are systemic incentives to over-test and over-treat. It contributes to higher spending and premiums regardless.
comment in response to
post
Thank you, I will have a look at this tomorrow (it's almost 2AM in Norway!). Very appreciated!
comment in response to
post
Thank you for a thoughtful reply! You say that there is also a big problem with under-testing, could you point me to more resources on that? With Scandinavian eyes, it seems the biggest problem is over-testing, aside from the fact that healthcare should be universal and free.
comment in response to
post
Oh, I think the current US system is terrible! Just not for the reasons outlined. I think we got it right in Norway or any other northern European country.
comment in response to
post
I wish I could!
comment in response to
post
This behaviour is sometimes described as "defensive medicine"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensi...
comment in response to
post
I see, it's not so strange with this context. I do primarily post on stuff where I disagree and think I have an interesting and contrary perspective! I try hard to be cordial and factual though. I don't think Hanks perspective here avoids siloing, which is bad, but I understand where hes coming from
comment in response to
post
The US is obsessed with testing, e.g. yearly check-ups, despite little evidence for their benefit. Pap tests are an interesting example, where the US tests 4x as much as the Netherlands, with no clear benefit pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
comment in response to
post
Competition should indeed lower premiums, however that's not what we are seeing! My impression is that this is additionally influenced by a very high cost placed lawsuits in the US, where it's much worse to miss something and not treat it, than over-treatment (in terms if liability)
comment in response to
post
Why do you think that is? I honestly feel like I've been very good-faith in this discussion? I am genuinely confused as to why someone would block me over this thread. I don't want to loose people for no good reason, would you care to share what made you feel like I am inauthentic?
comment in response to
post
I'm not sure if I should be insulted or humored by the fact that you think I might be a bot 😅 I do use Claude to structure and clarify some of my text though, so it's not entirely a bad guess.