I wonder why survival of the fittest has to always hurt the little guy. Buyers seeking out unstable lenders seems like a good way to encourage more stable lenders.
6,964 karma · joined April 1, 2015
Do you have numbers on how it improved life of Chinese farmers compared to 100 years ago, 200?
When the US went through its industrial revolution we went from people owning farms to basically being owned by the factories boss. Child labor was rampant so we’re ridiculous working hours and blacksmiths and others who were put out of a job basically drank themselves to death.
Someone none of that seems to ever happen in other countries and all we hear about is “how great of an opportunity it is for them to get to build iPhones” odd stuff
I have no clue what your DDG is doing but it’s not behaving right.
Saying they're committed to fabricating in the US while they are, for the first time, relying on other companies to make chips for them over seas... right now their domestic fabrication may internally be viewed as a blunder.
Sure it could pan out for them but it's a crap shoot. Maybe those blunders were just all bad leadership which Intel has recovered from, only time will tell.
There’s so much respect for communities with attention to detail and specific cultures: Amish, German, Japanese in particular.
It’s often spun as something specific to that community which “America” or “the UK” has lost. But… it seems more like what it reflects is a long established community of people who are treated well, like there jobs, and had the opportunity to do it for generations.
That turns it from a “unique to X culture” to idealize to just making you wonder what that level of expertise isn’t more commonly seen in the craftsmanship of our daily lives.
Does that mean it's great in drinking water? No... but I think we shouldn't just jump from one type of catastrophizing to the next. There's endless questions we can ask to scare ourselves, but maybe it's a better use of our time to point that concern on things which we already know or damaging our kids, like: lead in drinking water, malnutrition, lack of affordable pre school options, etc etc.
I'm merely calling out that the thing most people freak out about with this compound (feminization) is not worth freaking out about.
The lowest dose of EE2 for trans-women is 2mg a day orally. That means whatever the dosage is in the US it's less than 1/10th* of what trans folk find actually useful. That's based off drinking 4 liters of water a day, lord knows most people don't drink that though.
In summary: US and Europe folks don't need to care about this and if you see a news story hyping this compound up, it's probably just that: hype.
*EDIT: I had a couple mistakes here:
- EE2 is not estrogen and can be considered ~100x more effective
- 1ng / 1mg is 1000th not 100th.
> The top 10 countries ranked in the order of high to low average EE2 concentration in surface water, were Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Laos, Brazil, Argentina, Kuwait, Thailand, Indonesia and Portugal, with the respective mean concentrations of 27.7, 22.1, 21.5, 21.1, 13.6, 9.6, 9.5, 8.8, 7.6 and 6.6 ng/L
Going by Wikipedia, lets see what a does is... "Doses of more than 50 µg EE are considered high-dose, doses of 30 and 35 µg EE are considered low-dose, and doses of 10 to 25 µg EE are considered very low dose"[1] More specifically for transfem use of 2mg orally is considered a low dose[2]
Let's consider that the average person drinks 4 liters of water a day. In Vietnam that's 0.11µg a day, or 1/100th of a normal dose for an estradiol treatment for birth control and 1/20th rate of a "low dose" for MTF transfem usage in the most polluted country.
Do I think this pollutant is fine and not a concern? No. It has other side effects and it's probably not great to have all the compounds we give to livestock running off into our drinking water.
I bring this up because of the right wing fear of the "feminization of men." Vietnam you could get 1/20th a low dose of EE2 a day and whatever you're getting elsewhere less. Where the right wing ideology on this is strongest (US perhaps?) people would be getting a lower dose than even listed in the abstract, so 1/80th or less a day.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethinylestradiol
[2] https://transfemscience.org/articles/e2-equivalent-doses/
----
EDIT: a different comment actually posted a chart showing the level of exposure in the US, which is LESS than 1ng. So less than 1/200th of a low dose. Calm down folks, or at least find something different to be afraid of.
I really don't see how our imagination has shrunk so far that we all participant and perpetuate this fantasy that a world full of violence, much of which is created by the US, is the world we must continue to live in.
I think all of Iceland's internet getting bought by one company is not a reasonable comparison.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_New_Zealand#Pricin...
Glad Uber got you where you wanted to go though, put your email in your bio and maybe they’ll ask you to write a tweet for them.
I think people are understandable my skeptical that a megacorp with a known history of anticompetitive behavior will propose a solution that is effective at stopping its only monopoly.
Is it? Not all hummer drivers are Arnold Swartz. what if the main buyers are just folks who want the largest electric cars? It's possible this mainly cannibalizes Tesla Model X sales more than gas Hummers.
I haven't seen studies for who buys what but until there is we're all just making wild assumptions about consumer demand.
For the record, I'm not saying this is awful or hurts more than it helps. My main point is brands offer more EV options shouldn't defacto be applauded.
People complaining about low ram sound like the bros asking how many cylinders a car has. Doesn't matter for most people.
Just complain about price, yeah, it is expensive!
---
This is coming from someone who does light gaming on an 8gb m1 MacBook Air and has plenty of tabs open. I don't see lag.
Then again, I use safari, maybe Chrome it'd be different.
It's impossible to compete without making a whole different operating system when Microsoft was in it's anticompetitive heyday.
Even through the lease of how our world is meant to work that's seems messed up.
They've grown from 0.5% to 0.85% over three years[1]. I don't see how they're going to increase beyond that.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272664/market-share-held...
Also while an independent entity having a larger presence is better than Apple at least Apple having a large market share makes Google need to consider what happens in safari before they do something particularly shady with web standards
Cancer research can appear very stagnant. Pharma companies and researchers funnel money into existing solutions and combinations of existing solutions which increase life expectancy by a few months, and quality of life by a few degrees. Not much foundational research on cures, and why should there be when every new drug which leads to slightly better outcome will be purchased by patients who will do anything to live a bit longer?
Now, how in the hell would VC be expected to improve that landscape? The ideal solution is a cheap therapy which cures cancer. Maybe a cancer vaccine. Where's the money in a 50 (or even 1k) tailored vaccine to cure a cancer when a slightly new combination of cancer drugs can cost $50,000 a month for the rest of the life of a patient?
I'd argue VC don't think long term for the benefit of anyone except themselves. They'll invest in a moonshot if it disrupts an industry for their benefit (e.g puts all taxi drivers out of work) but not if it eliminates an industry (e.g cancer research). There's way more money in funding a slightly different cancer drug.
People love to act like they’re helping poor people when in truth they’re just hurting the labor market ie everyone but rich people.