pboutros

>The choice of career path matters. Those in the art and design fields get the most help, an average of $3,600 a year. People who work in farming, construction, retail and personal services get the least.

Am I wrong to assume that it isn't the career choice so much as how wealthy the parents are?

In my experience (flying long-haul, economy flights), it makes cheap reds taste far more potable. Wines I'd never choose on the ground are greedily poured down my gullet in the air.

I might be wrong, but Uptake seems to focus on cleaning and analyzing data from existing sensors on heavy machinery, whereas the firm in the article installs their own sensors (perhaps in addition to that).

This is exactly why firms that build medical devices need to be fully transparent about what they're actually building in the eyes of the law, and what regulatory hurdles it must overcome before being being able to do the things people are likely to assume it can.

A threat and a federal crime?

State and county websites, I think?

Only if organic fertilizer is immune to that.

Well, there are a number of reasons. Cooking your own food tends to be physically healthier - not to mention that there's a certain zen to it. It's also a good skill to have, and it's fun. Finally, it'll make your mother happy :)

Exactly. Do your best to fulfill the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

Morally, yes (IMO), legally, no. Let's get the laws closer to what's right.

Am not religious, but that's nuts!

Also interesting that Noah and co. all lived to be hundreds of years old, in the book.

I don't think the findings are all the flawed -- you see similar %'s in other developed economies. It's not like Lawrence Summers just extrapolated the data and relied only on that!

$ mail burn@baby.burn

Subject: What is the cost of sending an email?

That's a really good question, BBB. The answer depends on a lot of things -- privately hosted? Using OSS only? Benefiting from the scale of a Google? How many emails are you sending on a monthly basis (since that will bring down fixed costs).

.

It shows that we are #savvy.

/s

No, it doesn't receive text input, just voice right now.

Those signatures are illegible.

Not that he ever really disappeared, but it's definitely interesting to see the resurgence of Snowden in the zeitgeist now that Pres. Obama's term is coming to a close. A big part of it is undoubtedly people knowing that pardons uptick in the November - January time period for obvious reasons, but I wonder how much of it is worries that the next administration will not be so amenable.

>If they spend money on trials and subtantiate their hypotheses, they have to stop selling it as a supplement because now they know it is a drug... but as long as they don't run the trials and don't know it's a drug, they can keep going.

Stands in contradiction with this (in the article).

>The company stresses that it is using only compounds supported by hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, that it enforces high manufacturing standards, and that it is conducting a human trial (currently 120 people between the ages of 60 and 80 are participating)

--

Your overall point about how it's a profit seeking venture first and foremost is accurate. Personally, I find it ethically wrong to imply that your product will help people without knowing for sure that it will. There's always the edge case where the less savvy consumer goes for the ineffective supplement instead of consulting with their doctor.

So, what's the point of the product, if it doesn't do anything? Or, if it does something, why don't they find the proof, and substantiate it?

Sure! And that's true. I'll also add that the board packs a far stronger scientific punch than Theranos's originally did.

It reminds me of Theranos because it meets the 'visionary founder(s) + unproven yet promising sounding scientific premise + extensive backing from prominent individuals = really great story to read/write about'. The caveat there is, as I mentioned, the significant scientific backing behind this.

I am very skeptical of dietary supplements (esp. when they aren't something like niacin, or iron, which have permitted claims). I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me like their marketing might run close to afoul of FDA guidance on dietary supplement claims. See here (http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocuments...).

Here are a couple examples of them artfully avoiding making seriously problematic claims:

--- "Basis is designed to optimize NAD+ levels and sirtuin function in our cells to support our most critical metabolic processes like cellular detoxification, DNA repair and energy production." https://www.elysiumhealth.com/basis. Note the careful language use of 'support', which doesn't actually mean that it does it, according to the FDA guidance document cited above.

"It is closely related to resveratrol, a compound found in grapes and red wine, but more bioavailable, or easier, for the body to incorporate. Research has shown that pterostilbene, like NAD+, stimulates enzymes called sirtuins. They relate to critical cellular processes, from aging to circadian clocks to energy production." https://www.elysiumhealth.com/basis Note that they mention the critical cellular processes as related to it, without directly saying that consuming more of pterostilbene actually helps. ---

The claims themselves aren't direct enough to probably merit a warning letter (in my amateur opinion), but it certainly doesn't mean that they do anything. They aren't actually making any claims as to the product's efficacy, but if they were to, you'll also note that all of the research cited(https://www.elysiumhealth.com/basis, at the bottom) probably wouldn't actually substantiate any claims per FDA guidance, because the studies don't actually come close enough to testing the supplement itself.

I say all of this under the caveat that I am not a lawyer, just a regular human being who is skeptical of any miracle pills.

This sounds a lot like Theranos.

No, the problem is that 'wide range of treatment options' != 'wide range of drugs'. Without reading the book, I'm certain that it has to do with the pharmaceutical industry's interest in having doctors prescribe medicine more frequently than might be in their patient's best interest, instead of adequately considering non-pharmacological treatment.

Yep, came here to say this. Burnout is a thing, and it happens when people work 60+ hours a week for 6+ months (estimate). If people didn't actually work their butts off for that long and were just 'wasting' time, what is commonly known as burnout would just be sleep deprivation.

That's actually pretty cool. I bet that Lyft has some sort of guarantees around availability to ensure some sort of base capacity at set times of day.

Yep - or someone who ostensibly would have been the target of the alleged 'vengeance' but doesn't feel victimized as a result of it.

I'm not saying that Title IX is perfect - nothing is, especially not redistributive policies. What I am saying, though, is that the notion that it is motivated by vengeance is a little paranoid and a little silly.

>with no obviously correct answers.

Regardless of the point-by-point response, I think the general idea is that women have historically been disadvantaged in education, so Title IX _de facto_ helps alleviate that problem, although there are obvious negative externalities that result from a blanket application. I do think that a couple of your (x) arguments assume malice where there likely is none, but I've responded point-by-point below.

--

(1) This is the question at the heart of any sort of redistributive action government takes -- it seems like we, as a society, have decided that it (or things analogous to it) are ok, at least some of the time.

(2) I would hope not! That's certainly not how I've thought of it, as a young male.

(3) Presumably when the indicators of discrimination are no longer so blindingly obvious (ranging from unequal pay to glass ceilings). I don't, however, suspect that it's going to be that simple. I think that a lot of the biases fueling the problem are culturally inherent, and can't be resolved just with legislation. Although the idea behind Title IX seems like a step in the right direction.

(4) By participation in a democratic society. Great question though! I'd like to think that it isn't zero sum.

(5) First of all, I don't think that we necessarily have to do one at the expense of the other. I also don't think that there's any sort of fairness mechanism by which we get to make things universally better for everyone all at once. We work with the Congress we've got, and the Administration we've got, and the Supreme Court we've got (x50 for the state level!) to do the best we can. That being said, I think it's ok to prioritize some problems over others, and problems affecting ~50% of the population are generally worthy of increased scrutiny IMO.

>In fact, today Title IX, the federal law that was supposed to ensure equal educational opportunity for both sexes, is known almost exclusively as a tool for advancing women’s interests.

Yes, that's kind of the point. And that's ok.

That's exactly the sort of situation I'm referring to.

#1 - talk about distributed, automated, statistical analysis. What an exciting project to get to work on.

That's a good read. Just goes to show that it's important to remember people's humanity, especially when all the cards are stacked against them. People have said some really ugly stuff about MM.