I've got this game in my steam library, and I wondered why no one ever talks about it. I never realized it was delisted and made impossible to buy so long ago.
Until I looked it up, I almost thought my memory of it was the Bernstein effect especially since there’s a 2017 game by the same name and much more popular.
The sequel to Prey (2006) was stuck in development hell for really long until they finally scrapped it, so the publisher placed the trademark on a completely different but similarly themed game instead.
The year is 1846, and a doctor has a radical new idea: doctors should wash their hands between performing autopsies and delivering babies!
You're not sure of whether this is a good idea or not, so you ask various physicians, and the consensus is unanimous: the very suggestion is offensive, do you think doctors are unclean?
I strongly suspect the truth is both are "right", but they're both optimized answers to slightly different problems.
Mainstream medicine is hyper optimized for the most common 80% of cases. At a glance it makes sense: optimize for the common case. Theres some flaws in this logic though - the most common 80% also conveniently overlaps heavily with the easiest 80%. If most of the problems in that 80% solve themselves, then what actual value is provided by a medical system hyper focused on solving non-problems? The real value from the medical system isnt telling people "it's probably just a flu, let's just give it a few days and see" it's providing a diagnosis for a difficult to identify condition.
So if your question is "how do we maximize value and profit in aggregate for providing medical care to large groups of people", mainstream medicine is maybe a good answer.
But if your question is "how do we provide the best care to individual patients" then mainstream medicine has significant problems.
Part of providing good care is not burdening the patient with tests or treatments that are very unlikely to yield benefit. Put another way, the mission of healthcare is not "health at any cost."
The mission of healthcare in the eyes of those who provide it, isn't "health at any cost".
For the people on the other side, "health at any cost" is pretty much the goal, usually limited by the "cost" side of things, especially in the parts of the world where they haven't yet figured out the whole "healthcare for the public" thing.
Cost here doesn't just include financial cost, but also time. As an extreme example, you could surely catch diseases earlier by visiting a doctor for an hour or two every day - getting tests for all sorts of things you might have conceivably developed. But that would make your life worse, and so most people wouldn't do that even if it was free.
> the reality is quality of life at 90+ is a lot worse than in your 20s or 30s.
All my grandparents lived well into their 90s (mediterranean lifestyle + modern medicine), and all of them would’ve chosen euthanasia had it been an option (they phrased that in various ways - essentially something along the lines of “if God could bring me home now it’d be good”).
It’s been a sobering thing to experience and it leaves me hoping that if I’m ever in their position, that option will be available to me somehow.
While it's true that preventing cancer means you're likely to die in a few years of heart disease, and preventing heart disease means you're likely to die in a few years of cancer, solving both will add dramatically more than both effects combined to both life and healthspan.
Those really are the big two - as the graphs in the article show, the next biggest things are much smaller and much less likely to get you, which means you live a lot longer and healthier.
Standard engineering. You fix the thing that breaks the system first. Fix that, the next bug appears. Rinse, repeat.
You don’t think we have been doing this already? Car safety improved, general violence, death by food poisoning, etc. Now we have contacts, knee replacement surgery, meniscus surgery, widespread information on fitness for the elderly, etc.
You have many specialized fields slowly improving. The top focus changes as the previous top problems get solutions.
In general the problem is that when humans enter well into senescence, at some point your body just stops working altogether and it's at that point that basically anything that happens to you next will kill you. Or sometimes it will be nothing at all, and your heart will simply stop in your sleep one night.
This is why when somebody dies 'of old age' it's often not like you can just seem them slowly drifting away day by day. Rather they seem to be in perfectly good health, for their age at least, and then 2 weeks later, they're dead.
I'm not sure there's a significant difference in practice, but technically the $50 would be part of the bond's debt principal, not interest.
A bond with a face value of $1000 means the government has $1000 of debt regardless of what is paid for the bond.
The coupon payments represent the "interest" on that debt - the $20 coupon means the government is paying $20 of interest per year.
Paying below face value doesn’t make the difference "interest." It simply means investors are buying the bond at a discount, so the government receives less cash upfront in exchange for repaying the full $1,000 at maturity. Bonds differ from traditional loans in that their market price can fluctuate, but the debt obligation remains fixed at the face value.
In practice, the government's accounting labels the discount as an "interest expense", so it still gets captured as interest in the budget.
That's a reasonable interpretation from the Treasury's perspective. But if you ask the IRS, I've realized all $70 as interest income ($50 as OID, which they consider a form of interest).
(And yes, coupons pay 2x yearly, but they are quoted on an annual basis; I would receive two $10 payments.)
Yes, secondary sellers can claim capital losses. But they typically go for a discount even at the primary Treasury auction, so there's still more than $20 of total profit after netting across holders.
I think you have a strong argument here, but there's a problem of deeper and widespread rot at play.
The reason Uber can get away with pretending it's just a "connector" is because the entire tech ecosystem has been allowed to normalize that kind of control without accountability.
Look at Apple and Google: they take a 30% cut on every sale and ban any competing payment systems. That's the same pattern - absolute gatekeeping disguised as "market facilitation."
Our regulators have become so complacent that this behavior is now seen as the default way digital markets work. The problem isn’t just Uber's misclassification; it's that the entire platform economy is built on pretending these companies are neutral middlemen when they're really gatekeepers.
Byuu was fantastic - I remember when they came onto the scene and made a big push for better emulator compatibility across the board. Byuu made positive changes in the world, and I still think about them from time to time.
A lot of very talented individuals in the community but I always keep in mind the old saying: "the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long".
People often get hyper-focused on a single cause, but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs. All of this is visible, yet we are marching toward an economic crisis of our own making. I believe the best term for this is "gray rhino".
* Tariffs and Trade Uncertainty – Elevated tariffs and rapidly shifting trade policies are raising costs for manufacturers and discouraging hiring and investment (Investopedia; Atlanta Fed survey; CBO analyses).
* Automation and AI Displacement – Automation and AI, especially in low-skill occupations, are reducing new job creation and wages for some workers (academic studies in arXiv and PMC).
* Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage).
* Small Business Strain from Economic Pressure – Tariff-related uncertainty is leading small businesses to slow hiring or lay off employees (Joint Economic Committee report, 2025).
* Offshoring and Outsourcing Trends – Technological advances are enabling offshoring and automation, substituting domestic labor with remote or machine-based alternatives (academic research in World Development, 2024).
People often get hyper-focused on a single cause, but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs. All of this is visible, yet we are marching toward an economic crisis of our own making. I believe the best term for this is "gray rhino".
* Tariffs and Trade Uncertainty – Elevated tariffs and rapidly shifting trade policies are raising costs for manufacturers and discouraging hiring and investment (Investopedia; Atlanta Fed survey; CBO analyses).
* Automation and AI Displacement – Automation and AI, especially in low-skill occupations, are reducing new job creation and wages for some workers (academic studies in arXiv and PMC).
* Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage).
* Small Business Strain from Economic Pressure – Tariff-related uncertainty is leading small businesses to slow hiring or lay off employees (Joint Economic Committee report, 2025).
* Offshoring and Outsourcing Trends – Technological advances are enabling offshoring and automation, substituting domestic labor with remote or machine-based alternatives (academic research in World Development, 2024).
Is this AI generated? Besides the em-dashes, I don't think anyone cites "Investopedia" as a source (not the specific entity, but in that format), or makes citations in (source, year) format.
Because I don’t have to waste my valuable time and mental energy to check the knitting before I wear them.
Hey I review and use LLM code slop as much as the next programmer, and I use it for lots of topics too, but I am not spending a second on reviewing LLM slop output on HN comments. Honestly it’s somewhat insulting that you expect me to.
> but there is a whole range of forces driving a sharp decline in jobs
Technically, there is no decline in jobs. There were more jobs as of March 2025 than a year before. Less than reported earlier, but the overall number of jobs is still growing.
> there is no decline in jobs. There were more jobs as of March 2025 than a year before. Less than reported earlier, but the overall number of jobs is still growing
I don't think tariffs affected the numbers for the entire year that drastically since Trump had only been in office for 2 months out of the entire years period that this was looking at.
> I don't think tariffs affected the numbers for the entire year
Major policy or hiring gets slowed down during the election year, especially surrounding the voting month. Maybe that pace never picked up due to tariffs and other policy uncertainty?
> * Restrictive Immigration Policies – Tightened immigration and visa processes are straining labor supply, particularly in sectors that rely on immigrant workers (Axios, 2025 labor coverage).
I like how this is always framed as strained supply instead of upward pressure on wages, as if increasing wages is simply impossible and only supply matters. Then people look at graphs like this[1] and wonder: "What the heck is going on?"
RTX 5090 is about as good as it gets for home use. Its inference speeds are extremely fast.
The limiting factor is going to be the VRAM on the 5090, but nvidia intentionally makes trying to break the 32GB barrier extremely painful - they want companies to buy their $20,000 GPUs to run inference for larger models.
