Multics

I like Google, and what Page has achieved. If they act in ways I don't agree with, I can stop using their service(s). It's not like Google take my resources by force, and then use them to do unspeakable evil.

Page and cohorts have demonstrably shown a knack for developing tech which the world finds useful. And for that I'm grateful.

Yet! I don't need to express my gratitude to him. Instead, he's rewarded with 'disagreeable' money & power.

What does he do with the acquired wherewithal? New projects. And in counterintuitive directions, which others only find insightful after the fact!

Page's et al. investment in Calico -- their pro-longevity/healthspan biotech company -- is one such example. They're investing in one of the world's most significant problems. Maybe the most! Dismissed by others, but seen as doable by someone who has been prescient time and again!

This 'power-hungry' character may just save or extend your life one day! Contra to what others would have done with the same power/money.

Why delete a comment I mostly quoted? Seems like an attempt at gamesmanship.

Well, c'est la vie!

> Maybe: 'One way of misrepresenting what you said..'

Then.

> Allow me to put words in your mouth... I don't want you people talking about other ideas related to this article.

Consistency?

> I (Multics) would like to talk about how regulating industries like medicine prevents Google and others from investing in them and potentially benefiting society.

I think you understand my position. Except, what I said was framed in the context of the parent comment. And it was an assertion, not a request.

What is this? Or, what is 'this'?

The answer being.

1) Quite an abstract question

2) A pronoun

It's relevant. It's the conclusion that's concerning!

Again.

'Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.'

Not bad for startups? So the merit of this is based on the value to startups, not society?

Another way to interpret what you said is: Google and other large companies can't apply large quantities of resources to health.

In situations of asymmetrical information, there can be market solutions. Such as warranties.

The information, or the lack thereof is also reflected in the price.

That wasn't my central claim. You picked up on a fairly irrelevant aside. My claim was: 'My point being, it's not as clear cut when there's 'crony capitalism' and other market distortions.'

I don't believe the Austrian school has any such formal models.

> No. People who like the theory saw real world events that kind of sort of looks like ABCT could explain them, and then made a post facto observation.

Like Mark Spitznagel, who took a billion dollar derivatives position on the 2008 stock market crash!

>Unless Mises et al. made some sort of prediction based upon at the time non-existent financial instruments, ABCT did not predict the 2008 sub-prime financial collapse. Period.

Here's an article from the Mises Institute on the subject. Period. http://mises.org/daily/4072

> "Oh yes, if only the world met all of our Axioms. Then everything would be grand!" said every failed political economic project ever.

Politicians must come up with excuses of some sort.

> And as it turns out, lots of times those people are working in government funded research labs and universities, or applying research funded in those labs and universities.

And those resources may be more effective in an alternate configuration.

> You see, it's just that we've lost our list Axioms and now our only reference point is reality... perhaps you could lend us your map to drill on?

My map (in reference to the Alfred Korzybski quote 'the map is not the territory') consists of any economic school, or any other information I happen across. Empirical is fine with me. But it depends on the circle I'm talking to. If one was to mention vanilla observation to a group interested in medicine, then there'd be a combination of recoil and disgust (in most cases), for example.

But in this case, Praxeology suits me fine!

Value is subjective. A.K.A, the subjective theory of value.

Without subjectivity, there's no marginal utility. And that takes us back to classical economics. I.e pre-marginal revolution.

What did the HealthCare.gov site cost? ~$650M.

At least the messaging app would work!

It's an example. It's the cost of the success that's the issue.

Financial crisis == moral hazard. And, come on! There's an economic theory that predicted the crisis, and explains it. I.e. ABCT (Austrian business cycle theory). My point being, it's not as clear cut when there's 'crony capitalism' and other market distortions.

'Free', as in freedom!

Everyone knows the 'free market' is made up of individuals. Or groups of individuals, such as a firm, which is formed to reduce transaction costs -- as per Coase's description in his Nobel winning (1991) The Nature of the Firm (1937).

Money is a medium of exchange. We use it to trade. And by definition: when people trade freely, they are both better off (otherwise they wouldn't trade!).

Money also has the functions of 1) store of wealth 2) unit of account. But that's by the by.

Problems are always going to occur, but because humans are motivated to solve the problems, solutions are found. And a profound way to facilitate such solutions is a market-based economy.

In a recent article from The Guardian titled, 'Scientists threaten to boycott €1.2bn Human Brain Project', there's the following:

'The world's largest project to unravel the mysteries of the human brain has been thrown into crisis with more than 100 leading researchers threatening to boycott the effort amid accusations of mismanagement and fears that it is doomed to failure.'

And.

'But it proved controversial from the start. Many researchers refused to join on the grounds that it was far too premature to attempt a simulation of the entire human brain in a computer. Now some claim the project is taking the wrong approach, wastes money and risks a backlash against neuroscience if it fails to deliver.'

€1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle.

Many wealthy individuals got that way via judicious resource allocation. The same can't be said of the monumental leaders of our fine countries. They got that way via looking good in public. To expect them to excel at speech giving and resource allocation is quite the ask!

The first two are speculation, not first person accounts!

If you take the third at face value, then the poster is edging toward being a genius, but at the cost of being a little more neurotic. Hardly "alarming".

Correct. He's scaremongering.

"Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I would take tDCS over smoking or drinking, any day of the week.

Or even extreme sports.

It's socially acceptable to do some activities which are known to be deadly, but god forbid trying the unknown! That's a total faux pas. What BS. Where's the cost/benefit analysis. Yes: drinking, smoking, and sports can yield utility (fun), but people increasing their IQ or any other vector of intelligence could have a profound impact on society.

I'm in agreement with the rest of your post.

Edit: changed italics from HTML to Markdown

He's not sure of anything, by the looks of it!

But please see this post by Science-Based Medicine: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

You can't do tDCS with a frame, only TMS. You're confusing the technologies!

In trials they do shams by turning on the device for only a short period of time. That way there's still a tingle (from the pads) at the start of procedure.

Tons of drugs & physical therapies have unknown MOAs!

It's "tDCS". You've mixed up the letters in the acronym, and incorrectly capitalized the first letter.

It's thought that it works via the depolarization of the resting membrane potential.

You keep on editing your comment. I'm not sure what you want me to cite! You didn't originally mention the FDA. And either did xacaxulu!

If you check PubMed, you'll see some.

Vaping, edibles, and tea. At least that's what pop culture says.

More acceptance would presumably result in more clinical trials of cannabis.

I'm aware of some small scale studies which have shown promise for diseases such as IBD (Crohn's/ulcerative colitis). How it stands presently some sections of society (global) suffer unnecessarily.

I'm lead to believe that some substances in cannabis are neuroprotective; This contrasts to something like alcohol, which causes neurological damage.

And from what I've read, it can also inhibit angiogenesis within tumours. Thus, may be legitimately useful against cancer.

It's hard for me to make assertions with sources, as this is merely what I've read over the years. It simply hasn't been worth the time to investigate further, given its legal status. But from what I can gather, outlawing of a drug with low toxicity and potential medical benefit is an absolute travesty for humanity! It's tantamount to low-grade torture by the state on people who have an illness that can be, to some degree, ameliorated. There also seems to be a pandering to special interests (alcohol, tobacco, and the prison industry). And a disregard for people's freedom.

Some may not like the idea of Cannabis being legal, but if it becomes a substitute for alcohol and tobacco, it could turn out to be a health boon (given its low toxicity). Not to mention the saving of lives via a reduction in organised crime.

It's a shame this didn't happen earlier, and in more places!

The Rise of .io Domain Names for APIs: http://blog.programmableweb.com/2013/08/28/the-rise-of-io-do...

.io domains are very popular in a ton of different areas, though!