ibarea277

No. This has been disproven by the only good studies we have. Even with zinc and early, it has not been shown to have any effect.

The data we have on hydroxychloroquine is now convincingly negative-there's just a ton of misinformation and it's become a political issue. But when some institutions fail you get widespread mistrust of both institutions and experts, which maybe is part of the compounding problem.

It's a cool idea, but you can't yet apply homomorphic encryption and then ML and get anything useful. You can do more limited data obfuscation.

This just seems like something that will catastrophically fail. If you can build a good enough generator you can just build the ML model internally. And if you can't the statistics of what you provide are going to be off enough that any strong model is going to be wrong in strange ways.

You can create much higher margins for products and services at the Apple price point. For Autos, people are very price sensitive. Even if Tesla slowly takes over the industry, not sure they can justify this valuation.

If you're not zero margin, you can't scale the same way.

Why do you think college is 10x more expensive now? Seems like maybe some of those expenses are not materially impacting education quality, unless you think that the generation that got us to the moon was working with absolutely substandard educations.

I'd almost be more interested in the change in variance across time. If education costs are the main factor, and the top 10-20% (? estimate) have parent's who pay for college, you'd think this might be yet another factor exacerbating inequality.

That is correct. There are not ETFs for these kinds of investment classes, so similar to hedge funds you would need to believe that you are capable of picking the right managers. You also need to be an accredited investor to gain access, and funds like A16Z mostly take institutional money (endowments/sovereign wealth funds etc). Like hedge funds, management fees are very high. But folks want the allure of pre-ipo tech companies...

It's somewhat hard to calculate the correlation because VC is so illiquid, but for sure it provides diversity and has historically been an excellent investment. The variance across VCs is also huge relative to other types of asset managers, so you have the potentially for really obscene returns. If you have enough money that you don't need to be liquid it is a good investment.

VC has historically done slightly better than the stock market, but returns over any time period are inversely correlated with how much money is flowing to VC (ie when everyone wants a piece of the action more bad deals are done, terms are better for companies etc) - so you'd expect the current period to produce okay returns (but probably less than the S&P). People imagine VCs return 100x or something, but if that really happened it would reveal an absurd amount of under-investment or really bad negotiating by founders.

And given that these reasonable but not stellar returns put them in the top quartile (and VC has high variance even relative to hedge funds), you can guess how well things have gone for other folks.

This people do not understand the math of startup comp. If you get equity instead of cash, you could have taken that cash and just put it into as high a risk investment as you want. As such, startups are really offering access to an illiquid investment (but how sure are you it's better than other options), and forced risk-taking with some short-term tax benenfits (most people wouldn't put 10-20% of their income into one stock and you pay tax up front). You could go to google, put 30% of your income into crypto, and have some thing a lot like a startup risk/reward profile w/ a lot more liquidity. It's just that that feels riskier to people. Startup is only a great deal financial for the founders.