zlacker

[return to "Twitter Is DDOSing Itself"]
1. Topfi+Ew[view] [source] 2023-07-01 21:09:47
>>ZacnyL+(OP)
Speaking from very painful, personal experience, few things are more agitating than being forced to execute on something you fully know is a horrible idea, especially when you tried and failed to communicate this fact to the individual pushing you to go against your best judgement.

Even more so when that person later loudly proclaims that they never made such a request, even when provided with written proof.

I can of course not say whether the people currently working at Twitter did warn that the recent measures could have such major side effects, but I would not be surprised in the slightest, considering their leadership's mode of operation.

Even as someone who very much detests what Twitter has become over the last few months and in fact did not like Twitter before the acquisition, partly due to short format making nuance impossible, but mostly for the effect Tweets easy embeddability had on reporting (3 Tweets from random people should not serve as the main basis for an article in my opinion), I must say, I feel very sorry for the people forced to work at that company under that management.

◧◩
2. martin+oN[view] [source] 2023-07-01 23:11:50
>>Topfi+Ew
The people at Twitter who understood the system and could predict the side effects were all fired or left. My guess is Elon said "the site's too slow!" Engineers noticed that the home feed request was slow. They didn't understand how it worked, had no tools to profile it, and were given an unrealistic deadline to fix it. So about the only thing they could do was issue multiple, parallel requests and hope that at least one of them was fast.

I worked in the games industry for a while, and came to understand how they could spend so much money and so much time, and yet release a game where even basic functionality was broken. It's exactly this sort of extreme schedule pressure that, ironically, makes a huge morass where changing one thing breaks 10 other things, so progress grinds to a halt.

◧◩◪
3. walrus+UR[view] [source] 2023-07-01 23:51:22
>>martin+oN
> The people at Twitter who understood the system and could predict the side effects were all fired or left.

This is like a case study in what happens when you fire everyone except the sycophants and yes-men.

I only feel sorry for remaining non-yes-men twitter employees who might still be there because for whatever personal reasons they're in a precarious economic situation where they can't quit (H1B?) or are tied to the company for healthcare coverage (Thanks, America, for being the greatest country in the world) because they can't afford any other health insurance option.

◧◩◪◨
4. menset+bV[view] [source] 2023-07-02 00:18:56
>>walrus+UR
Yeah I wish Obama care had simply been: 'employer provided healthcare is illegal in 2024'
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Travis+v51[view] [source] 2023-07-02 01:57:52
>>menset+bV
I don't see how that would be any better than what we have now. If employer provided healthcare was removed, that would leave us with a bunch of private healthcare companies. These private companies would drive up the cost even more.

If an affordable or free healthcare option was offered on top of making employer provided healthcare illegal, then I completely am behind your idea.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ars+t91[view] [source] 2023-07-02 02:42:30
>>Travis+v51
> that would leave us with a bunch of private healthcare companies.

It's already a bunch of private companies.

> These private companies would drive up the cost even more.

Other way around - by having to actually directly compete for customers, instead of just having to convince a few large corporation prices would go down, not up.

Although we really should not ignore that insurance companies are not the drivers of higher costs, it's health care providers that do that.

It's enjoyable to blame insurance companies, but the reality is their profits are capped by law - they are not the problem. Dr.'s will have to take a pay cut, and there will have to be mass layoffs, there's no other way to reduce costs.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. joomoo+Uf1[view] [source] 2023-07-02 03:54:00
>>ars+t91
perhaps we should sidestep the problem of profitability in healthcare entirely and create a non-profit healthcare system? which even the most free-market loving enthusiast should be in agreement with -- inelastic demand and all
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. ars+Ir1[view] [source] 2023-07-02 06:22:30
>>joomoo+Uf1
They exist. It helps nothing.

The gigantic UPMC is a non profit. Actually a TON of hospitals are non profits - every religious founded hospital is a non profit (Maimonides Medical Center, or every Mercy Hospital (Wikipedia counts 33 of them)).

60% of hospitals are non-profit.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. tchaff+Rv1[view] [source] 2023-07-02 07:10:15
>>ars+Ir1
He said a healthcare system. Not a hospital. They are related, but not the same thing.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. ars+qr3[view] [source] 2023-07-02 22:29:00
>>tchaff+Rv1
Non-profit insurance companies also exist. It still helps nothing.

Are you hoping for non-profit drug and equipment makers as well? How far do you need this "non-profit" thing to go before you acknowledge it doesn't help at all?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. tchaff+Qf4[view] [source] 2023-07-03 06:43:33
>>ars+qr3
The NHS is non-profit. That's a healthcare system, not just a hospital or insurance company. I repeat that he said "system" and you continue to talk about things that are not a healthcare system.

I can acknowledge that it not just helps but that it is far more functional than the US system I've had to suffer through for many years. In addition to years of experience with the US and NHS, I also have many years of experience with Italian national healthcare which is also non-profit and better than the US system.

The US system is better for some diseases but only if you are rich. And an absolute failure if you aren't employed. Even if you can manage to stay employed with a serious illness you better have a healthy family member with a lot of energy who can fight the insurance company that really doesn't want the cost and burden of you and will make that clear in every action.

How far do you need this "for profit" thing to go before you acknowledge its very serious flaws and inadequacies?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. ars+Jh4[view] [source] 2023-07-03 07:02:13
>>tchaff+Qf4
The NHS is a combo of hospitals, doctors, and insurance.

This combo (system as you like to call it, although that leaves out a ton of stuff) also exists in the US as a non-profit. I said this already.

It doesn't help

What will help is doctors taking a paycut and mass layoffs.

The problems in the US are not on the payment side, they are on the service side: it's simply too expensive.

We need twice as many doctors, working half as many hours, for half as much pay.

That's what would fix the US.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲
13. tchaff+dQ7[view] [source] 2023-07-04 07:27:55
>>ars+Jh4
NHS is not a combo of "hospitals, doctors, and insurance". It does not involve insurance at all. It is a comprehensive and integrated healthcare system that runs as a whole.

I'm writing this from the UK where I use the NHS. I've also used the US system extensively and the Italian healthcare system extensively.

You need to get basic facts right if you want to be a part of the debate.

[go to top]