Why AI Isn't Ready to Be a Real Coder (spectrum.ieee.org)
37 points by WolfOliver 1h ago 23 comments
Claude Sonnet will ship in Xcode (developer.apple.com)
446 points by zora_goron 16h ago 348 comments
Private Equity Snaps Up Disability Services, Challenging Regulators
137 tencentshill 61 8/29/2025, 1:37:53 PM governing.com ↗
If we want private ownership of this infrastructure it has to look more like either a utility, where the state has a direct say in service changes and pricing, or a partnership, where unlimited liability flows through to the owners. I’m a fan of the latter.
Limited liability was an amazing invention. But it’s not appropriate for healthcare. Turn these services into partnerships and you’ll see the give-a-shit factor quintuple overnight. (You’ll also probably see a reduction in leverage.)
When you take care of sick or disabled people, bad outcomes, even death, can come along with that. Nobody in their right mind is going to form a health care partnership with unlimited personal exposure to liability unless that is strictly limited to actual losses in cases of proven negligence.
1 - https://www.millerandzois.com/medical-malpractice/maryland-m...
If you want to make these services more expensive and produce shortages, this is how you would do it. Why would anyone invest or want to work in these fields?
I have an unpopular take on PE taking over these small businesses after working with a few small businesses in the home improvement space. The fact is they are incredibly inefficient. You can't even get these guys to answer a phone. They bill you by mail weeks after and you call them to give them a credit card over the phone after you received your bill. Even getting estimates could take months. The service is not consistent. Depending on who they send, they could be completely clueless. You don't know until you finally stumble across someone competent that tells you how bad the last guy was.
Pricing is all over the places. You can get two quotes that are 50% different. So there is little discovery. These are only the obvious external inefficiencies. I couldn't imagine how bad it is operationally.
The bar is so low, which is prob why it's interesting for a PE firm. There is so much money being left on the table. That's why I generally prefer large chains for things like auto. You know the pricing. They are efficient and won't rip your face off for the most part. So I welcome more professionalism and corporate ownership if this means a better, more consistent level of service for me. I get there are downsides but right now I have enough trouble getting a hold of any of these guys that I just don't care.
That's how individual doctor's practices already work. If someone doesn't want to take liability for patient outcomes, good riddance.
And non-profit health care orgs should have strict regulation, and the state should appoint some of the members of the board.
Any. If you ringfence it to for-profit companies you'll just wind up with non-profits either siphoning profits away or exorbitantly compensating their leadership.
Why would you want to politicise every non-profit like this?
Which is to say... these are anecdotes that warrant further investigation, but then ensure effort is required only for equity fund owned services by looking at the whole picture. If there are industry-wide problems and you focus your effort on private equity fund owned services and companies, you might miss an opportunity to improve the entire industry.
That being said... PE funds have a bad reputation for a reason. I would be surprised to find they're not the worst offenders.
There's also the problem of adverse selection. A subset of private equity is focused on buying distressed assets, so just because 50% of PE owned companies go under, doesn't necessarily mean they're bad.
I don't care if Red Lobster dies, but I do care about the already stressed disability services dying. Basically, the weighting is (or at least should be) different.
The new owners seem content to simply sit back and collect the profits of the company that were previously going to the family that owned the company before.
That is to say, in greater than zero instances, PE has the capacity to be benign.
I think the median PE firm is far worse than the median non-PE firm, but there exist outliers in both groups.
These thinly capitalized private equity groups are in the business of scooping up "distressed assets". Being the only buyer to show up and getting something for less than it's worth.
The bigger story is that all of these business are up for sale and there are no better buyers. Our population is aging, the people who founded and run these private businesses are retiring en masse and cashing out. They don't have kids who want to run these businesses, and the workers of the business don't have the cash to buy it for themselves.
So part of this is a story of inequality - these businesses were accruing lots of capital value faster than even top earners could save to buy them.
But also, there is a clear and obvious policy fix - provide incentives for business owners to hand down their business instead of cashing out. Make it easier to provide long-term loans and financing for small-party buyers.
The problem is the rules can be broken with minimal consequence. Swap out PE for another profit-seeking structure and you’ll tend towards the same outcome, as the bad outcompetes the good.
Seems like a big part of their bread and butter is anti-competitive or otherwise legally questionable self dealing between their holdings. Things that would quickly face public scrutiny if those companies were publicly held and had the associated reporting requirements.
The optimum might be an employee-owned facility, but even there you'd have incentives to increase profit - everyone would like to get paid more for whatever it is they do. PE has the strongest conflict of interest though, as they are simply investors seeking profit and have nothing else in the game.
This is the red herring. PE is one of many categories of financial investors. (Worse, it has become incredibly nebulously defined.)
I'd also argue that employee-owned coöperatives might be the single structure worse for healthcare than a rapacious, distant capitalist. The latter can fuck around with the books. The former can fuck with the charts.
How is that a "stronger" conflict of interest than the previous case?
In a similar vein, even as a libertarian minded person, I don't like the idea of private prisons at all, I don't feel a company should be incentivized towards keeping people locked up and suspended of their rights. Not that I don't believe in prisons, only that they shouldn't be businesses.
I think with medical facilities, that there should be far less protections from liability, and more severe repercussions from any coverup, non-reporting or mis-reporting of harm/accident/injury. Not to mention more, regular inspections and audits, along with camera/recording requirements.
Not all is destroyed. Some of the value is diverted to PE wallets. Setting 900k of someone else's value on fire in order to set up a updraft to push 100k into your pocket is a sweet, profitable deal for you.
If we had a functioning regulatory environment... Haha. Nevermind. We vote for our leaders based on how loudly they promise to hurt trans kids.
If you take issue with increasing prices, monetary inflation (printing money) is the root cause.
Even the legendary Buffet has bad things to say about PE.
Its basically caused costs to balloon to £10 billion.
However this is not entirely down to private equity as, these support packages are now the only way to get specialist support that used to be provided by other state/charity providers.
This was not a low end place back in 2023. By the end of the last year not only had the cost increased by 30%. Internally there was a number of layoffs and quality shot down. Originally it was supposed to be 1 registered nurse per 4 people. By the end it was 1 "medical professional" per 20 who constantly rotated. Who would not answer if they had formal medical training.
Before at night people could go for walks on the premises, or if they were hungry they could go get hot food prepared by staff. New management locked everyone in at 8pm. If you missed any meal time you were told cope. Food was not allowed in the "suites" anymore. My dad and his friends there would go get together and spend time at night or socialize. Not allowed anymore after 8pm you were locked in your room.
I pulled my father out of there when he told me the above. Now his new retirement home is now also changing ownership.
https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/minnesota-autism-expert-...
In popular discourse it's close to a meaningless term.
A company runs well. But then they sell to a private equity. The quality goes down.
This is the common critique against private equity.
I'm sceptical this pattern is true. But because of the aforementioned ambiguity in terms of what constites private equity, it's an essentially unanswerable question.
If you want to support the hypothesis, you focus on investors who use a lot of leverage (LBOs) and those who focus on distressed assets. There is reason to criticise the former, which often amounts to limited-liability arbitrage. The latter is just sampling bias.
Similarly, if you wanted to reject the hypothesis, you'd include venture capital in private equity, as well family offices that quietly collect businesses in an area they've long operated in, but want to say they're in private equity versus the family restaurant-parts supply business or whatnot.
Going back to something like disability services, I don't see it being run phenomenally better by a VC or family or public company. The problem is fundamental to the profit incentives of the industry. Not the fact that the owners brand themselves as private equity.
People are often comparing to a situation where the company continued doing things that weren't sustainable long-term.
The blame is usually put on the private equity for reducing quality but I wanted to understand the bigger reason behind it.