'sama is just maximising his upside in a completely rational way here. He knows he's the big fish, so he attempts to dissuade the little fish before they can even grow. I don't see a problem in him doing that, almost all VCs / CEOs would do the same.

Given we are on HN, it seems more likely that the claim originated on substack. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29938732 this may be one of the progenitor threads.

Yes, I have a side project making ~$40k/year doing this in a niche market.

I am fortunate in that I have some volunteers helping me with support so all up I spend about 5-10 hours per week doing support and development work.

In terms of business model, I have been quite generous and provide a perpetual support model for free and paid customers and do not charge for upgrades (currently). As my time has become more limited, I am looking at changing this.

Benefits of this model is that my product is the gold standard in the area and relatively sticky.

I just updated "GrandPrix Race Manager" for $25 from the vendor. It's an annual cost for my local derby thing. No idea how many copies they sell, but it's on version 24, so they must be doing OK-ish. Stand-alone Python application.

Which stack did you end up using?

It's actually an old Java stack using SWT.

It mostly doesn't matter, I can only recall one customer ever asking me about the underlying technology.

Agreed, customers don’t really care. I was just curious.

Reminiscent of the changes to the Microsoft Graph API, which personally I wasn't a fan of. Hope stripe can maintain its developer first mentality.

Interesting scrolling through this person's twitter which is uniformly pro insurer. Can't imagine that's a particularly popular position right now, which begs the question; why?

My wife (MD) tells me that vaccine refers to anything that induces an immune response against a pathogen or disease. In this case the vaccine causes anti-EGFR antibody production

It parses fine to me, but then I'm a native English speaker (and I don't claim to know whether its content is actually true). Strictly speaking, there should be a comma after "case", which may have helped you but is unusual unless you're writing something really formal.

Here's the sentence restructured:

... vaccine refers to anything that induces an immune response against a pathogen or disease. Here is how that definition applies in this case: the vaccine causes the immune system to produce anti-EGFR antibodies.

Seems like some of the comments need to learn that a big hypertrophic heart is much worse for you than a normal sized heart. Folks: GLP-1s have demonstrated benefit from heart failure, and this heart muscle change is probably mechanistic in that.

This is not true, and you should look at private practice in Canada, Australia, and to a lesser extent U.K.

It's 100% true where I'm from in Europe. The government opens up only a fixed number of residencies positions every year regardless of how many more students graduate (cartel behavior from the national Doctors' association).

My cousin graduated med-school last year and is still unemployed because no hospital had a place for her. Private practices don't fix that issue since they're not designed to be part of the medical teaching cycle. So a lot of young doctors have to emigrate to other EU countries where they can find spots to practice.

This is orthogonal to your GP point which was about salary. There are a lot of issues with the teaching pipeline AFAIUI so it is difficult to comment on n=1 examples.

The problem is not limited supply but rather the ability to train sufficient supply in a reasonable timeframe which necessitates attending pay cuts (because they can't do as much work) and creation of funded structured training programs with good teachers and case mix. Source: my wife is a doctor

Increasing the time and cost of the training is how the supply is limited.

Can you expand on this? I don't think this is the whole story. Perhaps a concrete example would help.

In something as large as a nation's regulated medical industry, I agree that no one thing will be the whole story.

However a concrete example is the "pulling up the ladder behind you" effect of regulatory capture.

There are more people who want to become doctors than our country allows to become doctors.

Our current state of affairs regarding compulsory medical residency programs is a result of years of increasing the barriers to entry (for good or bad reasons, doesn't really matter). Now it's up to Congress to pass Medicare reform laws to update their funding for the residency programs, but that has just not happened (one of the major I-told-you-sos when dealing with government intervention).

It's probably not the case that we want to completely deregulate, however a major consequence of almost any regulatory intervention that operates on the basis of increasing credentialism is that we will end up with some % less than ideal supply.

Some of them do e.g. Australia

Care to exemplify?