I believe that is actually browser specific behavior. I sometimes use a fake TLD for stuff hosted at home, and both chrome and firefox resort to search if I don't include a trailing '/'. My assumption is the browser does a quick match against known TLDs and if it doesn't match then it resorts to search.

exactly, I'll add a pr soon that tells the os (and browsers) that is'a a valid domain

The thing that gets me about slog is that the output key for the slog JSON handler is msg, but that's not compatible with Googles own GCP Stackdriver logging. Since that key is a constant I now need to use an attribute replacer to change it from msg to message (or whatever it is stackdriver wants). Good work Google.

We had the same annoyance, and wrote https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/chainguard-dev/clog/gcp to bridge the gap.

It's a slog handler that formats everything the way GCP wants, including with trace contexts, etc.

We've had this in production for months, and it's been pretty great.

You can add this at your main.go

    import _ "github.com/chainguard-dev/clog/gcp/init"

(the rest of the library is about attaching a logger to a context.Context, but you don't need to use that to use the GCP logger)

Your link shows seniors making $241k, not sure where you got $332k from.

The point is, even people making $241k will feel a 6.5% decrease in pay astronomically more than someone going from $84m to $79m. At that level there is negligible drop in quality of life, and the concept of "cutting back" pretty much does not exist.

This is still a performative act, the intention is nice, but it's performative nonetheless.

Sorry, I had it set to Canadian loonies and got inflated numbers.

Economists assume utility of money is logarithmically proportional to the amount, so losing a certain % of one's wealth hurts the same at every level.[1] Nadella made $84 million and is worth $1.4 billion according to the internet. For a $20k pay cut to hurt the same as a $5 million one, you'd need to have a net worth of x where (5000000/1400000000)x=20000 -> x=$5,600,000. For a $2772 pay cut---which is 6% of the median US salary---to hurt as much, you'd need $776,000 in wealth.

The median net worth is actually more like $192,700. So Nadella would have to give up (2772/192,700)*1400000000=$20 million to feel the pain of the median American giving up 6% of their income. That's quadrice what he actually did give up, but it still wouldn't result in his TC declining, since his pay rose by $30 million this year.

[1]https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/23952/is-the-u...

Not sure where you got the idea that the study was only of a singular hospital, seeing as the study outline details claims for 600k hospitalizations in 51 private-equity hospitals are compared to 4m comparable hospitalizations in 259 non-private-equity hospitals.

Where? I'm talking directly about the paragraph sighted. FFS I even quoted it. Those stats are for A hospital. It says it right there...A.

Y'all read those stats to be for all. Instead it was one extreme outlier and y'all's biases fell for it.

This is why we can't have nice things. Too much assuming, not enough intentional "listening".

Why are you trying to suggest that the 25% increase in hospital acquired complications are limited to a single outlier? The conclusion of the study states that the outcomes across those 51 private-equity acquired hospitals result in a 25.4% increase in hospital acquired complications.

So if the generalized hospital is an outlier, then why are the stats quoted matching the overall average results from the study?

Based on the context of the linked study, it's quite clear that the above quoted paragraph has the following meaning:

"After a [randomly selected] hospital [of the 51 sampled private equity acquired hospitals] was acquired by private equity, admitted Medicare patients had [on average, based on evalutation of those 51 PE acquired hospitals against 259 non PE aquired hospitals,] a 25% increase in hospital-acquired complications, compared with patients admitted before acquisition..."

The purpose of the article is to summarize the study findings. If they were talking about an outlier, they would mention that and use phrasing like "After THE hospital..." where "the" reiterates that it's a specific singular, and not a generalized sample.

Here's the direct text from the linked study as well that medicalxpress paraphrased/reworded: "After private equity acquisition, Medicare beneficiaries admitted to private equity hospitals experienced a 25.4% increase in hospital-acquired conditions compared with those treated at control hospitals (4.6 [95% CI, 2.0-7.2] additional hospital-acquired conditions per 10 000 hospitalizations, P = .004)."

It seems like you're hung up on medicalxpress's choice of wording for their paraphrasing, which is fine, but 25.4% increase in hospital acquired conditions is NOT an outlier amongst the 51 sampled PE acquired hospitals.

I'm not trying to say anything. I'm simply reading the article and stating the obvious: a cherry picking tactic that sensationalizes an important issue is bull shit.

- It has not place in journalism.

- It has no place on HN.

It's a distraction. We're wasting time debating the merits of a turd, and it is a turd. If we're going to do better than we need to expect better. The study might be sound. The article as present is shite.