Bio not provided
Here is the NFL's official statement: "We admire Michael Sam's honesty and courage. Michael is a football player. Any player with ability and determination can succeed in the NFL. We look forward to welcoming and supporting Michael Sam in 2014." That doesn't sound grotesque to me.
10 months, 1 week ago on Grotesque NFL reaction to an openly gay player proves why Congress must pass non-discrimination law
@Isalaur The City of Detroit's pension obligations are part of its collective debt. By successfully filing for bankruptcy all debts are discharged by law. So in actuality the way by which they are going about this *is* by the letter of the law. Had they arbitrarily decided to not pay the pensions without going through bankruptcy I would agree with you but thats not the case.
1 year ago on Detroit’s financial criminals leave evidence the size of a hockey stadium
As @johnmozena mentions below lumping the new arena development into this discussion is totally out of context. Additionally, the pension problem represents one sixth of Detroit's debt problems as outlined here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/19/detroits-pension-problems-in-one-chart/
Instead providing a partial view of a complex situation I wish you would have focused on how technology could help turn things around. Something along the lines of this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/2013/09/16/tech-and-innovation-must-play-central-role-in-detroit-revival/
The whole reason i come to read articles on this site in the first place is for news on the tech industry.
@xinchung @Pat Toohey @trustcloud @milesspencer jFloat describes itself as a “collaborative consumption self-insurance platform.” What they call a "float" and artificially limit to 100 people is, in the simplest terms, a pool of risk. The only thing (based on this article) that sounds remotely technological about this is that "if the amount of money in the pool dips below zero, an algorithm decided how much each member owes to get the pool back up to an amount where it can functionally insure the group." Even this is par for the course in insurance. To illustrate, lets say that each person in the "float" contributes $20 so you end up with $2,000 available to anyone. If person A uses $1,400, person B $400, and person C $300 thus overdrawing the "float" by $100 then how do you think this algorithm would calculate what is owed? Do you think it's 'fair' that the 97 people that didn't draw money against the float are equally responsible to replenish fund as those who did? I'm going to assume that, like most people, you would say that reimbursement should be skewed proportionately against those that withdrew heaviest.
I know I'm probably coming off as a pessimist but I'm just not seeing anything revolutionary (or even evolutionary) here. To me jFloat is just coming off as a company that is taking an existing model and putting some glossy buzzwords into its description of itself in order to sound inventive.
1 year, 8 months ago on In the face of the sharing economy, new insurance models slowly emerge
@xinchung With respect, self-insurance (or "crowd-insurance" as you called it) is not an exotic idea. According to the 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey 57 percent of all U.S. companies partially or completely self–fund (the technically correct term for self-insurance) their health care plans.
Richard, I'm curious which part of jFloat is "mysterious because it is still stealthy"? I can't imagine you're talking about the practice of self-insurance as it is relatively common. Is it the algorithm that decides the amount that "float" members must reimburse if the pull falls into red ink or something else? Also, did Mr. O'Donnell provide any examples of how he sees these potential upstart insurance companies changing things up? Other than MetroMile & jFloat this article didn't really explore how the industry could be shaken up. It seems, to me, that there is a feeling of 'things need to change and startups are better at change than incumbents' but no real mention of how tech could be leveraged.
@richardnieva I knew you wrote the other article and that's in part why I referenced it. The bulk of today's article argues that the car-sharing industry, rather than the insurers, are the ones that stand to loose if a solution isn't figured out. If the car-sharing industry were gone tomorrow insurers will march on unaffected. For this reason it's in the interest of the car-sharing industry to approach the insurers and initiate the conversation on how they could move forward together instead of against each other.
1 year, 8 months ago on Forget City Hall, the insurance industry is what could really hurt the sharing economy
Richard, this article is practically void of any explanation of risk assessment on the insurers part. As a simple example if a family decided to list a 16 year old with a freshly minted driver's license as the primary driver on a car the monthly rate will be significantly higher than if a parent was listed as primary and the 16yr old as secondary. One reason, amongst others, for this cost differential is the vast difference in experience between these two drivers. More experienced drivers are typically more cautious & risk averse and thus get a preferential rate. That said, these two drivers are known entities that are accounted for when a rate is calculated and agreed upon by both the insurer and the family. Now add car-sharing into the equation and there is (currently) no mechanism to accurately assess the new risk, the car renter(s)/driver(s), and adjust the rate accordingly. If the insurance industry is truly the sole road block to the car-sharing industry's success then I would imagine one of these budding companies will come up with a way to play ball with the insurance industry. I don't know, maybe something like http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/05/metromile-wants-to-reinvent-car-insurance/
@Thomas Krafft @DidIHurtYourFeelings Thomas, the take away from this entire comment thread should be how branding was leveraged in light of a catastrophe. If Adam feels compelled to mention the challenger's reaction to the catastrophe then balanced reporting should address how the incumbent reacted as well. The rest of the banter between the two of you doesn't add value to the conversation.
2 years, 1 month ago on Branding in the time of catastrophe
While I understand your point I'm not sure walking away from Facebook would have changed the ending to this sad story. While social media, and the Internet at large, played a large part in this tragic tale much of cruelty and brutality happened in 'the real world'.
2 years, 2 months ago on Attention too seductive to quit