hcknwscommenter

The disrupter effect seems quite weak. Their comparator is omalizumab, which is not a potent disrupter itself. Some AI will tell you omalizumab is a disrupter, but it really is a blocker because it blocks binding of IgE to its receptor in the first place. That's quite different. IgE disrupters are known in general. The challenge is not finding an IgE disrupter, but finding one that is "human" enough to work as a chronic treatment. [Edit to add:] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8502201/

Not really. Tokyo has an entirely publicly owned subway system. And a separate subway system that was govt owned and then, after buildout, sold some shares to the public via IPO.

Citations please? Seriously, you are making up numbers for the cost of cars and the govt subsidies provided. Did you account for the DMV? Did you account for traffic police? Did you account for the installation and maintenance of traffic light systems? Of course you didn't.

huh? Public transportation is fully paid for by everyone too.

The error is completely ignoring the negative economic externalities of NOT having public transportation and the positive economic and environmental externalities of having public transportation.

Dude. Public transit can carry hundreds of thousands (millions even). How many helicopters you planning on having? How many landing pads? Where are they going to go? You going to spin up a municipal ATC? This is silly.

You are completely ignoring the MASSIVE benefit the transit provides to the city. It allows densification. It allows people to get places without driving (and thus without parking). It frees up roads/traffic for those who do decide to drive.

Funding for basic research is being slashed by the current administration. Our society is underinvesting in basic scientific research. And, AI will not fill the gap.

tech writers disrupted by AI a couple of years ago? Seems very dubious. A couple of years ago, AI was terrible at writing anything.

AI writing is soooo annoying. It's always way too long and way too "serious" for what ultimately is almost always a really dumb point. There is no calibration to the seriousness of the topic or thesis against the actual length of the writing. It's insufferably pompous. Will it get better? Probably.

ever since the discovery of amyloid plaques, it's been an open question. Are they causative or a symptom? Would reducing or eliminating them help treat the disease? There is lots of data that supports amyloid as a disease treatment target, particularly in animal models. Of course the abject failure to actually develop a good anti-amyloid treatment that actually provable and significantly mitigates the disease weighs against the idea that amyloid is a good target. And the high profile frauds that have been discovered haven't helped. But, the biomedical community are not a bunch of morons. All these drug companies wouldn't have spent these billions of dollars on anti-amyloid and anti-tau if they were such obviously terrible ideas.

not really. your comment is a vast oversimplification of a very complicated topic.

I think that's an incorrect way of looking at it. A small unforeseen factor is almost always going to be a negative factor, not an unforeseen benefit. Space is a hostile and unforgiving environment without an easy way to bring things back, fix stuff, and/or re-deploy. A small mistake on the engineering, planning and/or implementation is likely to sink the whole thing worse than the napkin math suggests is almost certain failure anyway. Similarly, there are few ways to "get it right" and many ways to fail.

Will be interesting to see if, in hindsight, there are clues to this in the preexisting literature that we just hadn't quite recognized.

There are so many counterexamples proving that your statement is just not true. I'll give you just one example, the Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller that took funding from the Koch foundation to attempt to "prove" that the satellite temperature data was "miscalibrated" and estimates of actual warming were overblown. Started the project in 2010. First published in 2011 showing that in fact the warming was real and using more advanced calibration techniques actually showed the warming was worse than we thought.

You can't definitively diagnose it without an autopsy of the brain.

We truly do not know the root cause. There are plenty of folks with "degraded" endocrine, cardiovascular, and both systems. Most of them do not develop Alzheimer's.

I know this is a joke, but you did it wrong. There are obviously people (like me) who have had DHMO and are not dead.

100% of the people who have died have been exposed to DHMO.

Not really accurate. These chemicals are quite unreactive. Precursors from manufacturing waste can be very reactive, but most of the problematic contamination regards the forever chemicals themselves, not precursors. This paper is probably the best scientific review of what is going on in the human body. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...

Maybe sci-hub has a copy of the full paper. Not sure.

As briefly as possible, and therefore glossing over many many details, the toxic effects are mainly due to cell membrane perturbation, cell membrane transport disruption, and binding to hydrophobic protein cavities (thus disrupting the usual function of these cavities).

The budget wasn't appropriate regardless of tariffs. And OP's point is that 130B is a tiny number that no where near makes up for the loss in tax revenue from the very very stupid "OBBB".

You may be right, but the honesty has destroyed an insane amount of good will and privilege that the US previously enjoyed (deservedly or not). To throw that all away for literally no benefit is . . . not good.

If the OP had (incorrectly) rounded 130B to 200B, OP's point would have still been perfectly understandable and correct. Your odd quibble about rounding completely misses the point. Whooosh.

Any insights (anecdotes) from those in Russia and willing to opine on whether the economy seems like its collapsing presently?

Most of my comments on hacker news are to point out something incorrect or mischaracterized. All I can come up with here is that this is a brilliant and heartfelt and entertaining documentary. Thanks to OP for posting.

I agree with your overall point. But I find it odd that you consider sales taxes to be the "fairest". Similarly, I find it odd that you put "progressive" taxes in some tension with "fair" taxes. Folks in the highest income range arguably benefit the most from govt services (e.g., infrastructure, defense, R&D, rule of law). They also have a much higher ability to pay well beyond basic survival needs. And, they can reduce sales tax burden by saving versus consuming, a choice that is not available to lower-income.

you literally said "cheap" and the comment said "cheap-er not cheap". I think the comment is correct and you are wrong. China is building the same design again and again and again. And it's still not cheap.

Doesn't really work that way. If you want to sue Abbot, then you have to reveal yourself. At which point, it will be clear that you were in fact using the product and did in fact agree to the ToS. If you never sue Abbot, then sure. But then it doesn't matter.

Flat tax and dregulation. Pretending like they are new ideas.

I have overseen over 20 phase III clinical trials. Many of those clinical trials have failed to show statistical efficacy. In every single one of those trials there are patients who see dramatic and undeniable benefits. In the oncology field, we continue to treat such patients even when the statistics say, no benefit. And, sometimes those patients just stay better. My point is, when the trial shows "no better than placebo", it doesn't mean the treatment doesn't work. It might be that. But more likely it means we don't know how to define the population of folks for whom the treatment does work. Maybe it's a particular genetic background, maybe it's age, gender, serum CPR or Tau level. Maybe it's something else. This stuff is complicated and interesting. And we are still figuring it out.

Very strange article. The author is very upset that an "intimacy tracker" might receive an 18+ rating on the app store. I mean yes, younger folks do it, but the vast majority of potential customers are 18+. Why is this an problem?