evandijk70

No. In the event of a bankruptcy, the inventory should be sold to the highest bidder and used to reimburse the creditors of the company (probably the IRS/investors/suppliers).

Bringing scooters to your house would still be theft.

This post shows a good and economical path towards short term storage, on the order of hours to days. The cost of storage based on a daily charge/discharge cycle is about $100/MWh ($0.10 per kWh), which is fine if power is essentially during day time.

However, seasonal storage is a completely different beast. In the winter there are months without a lot of solar. For my solar panels, total energy generated in December is are about 15% of that in June.

Seasonal storage is a lot more expensive than daily storage, because you can use your battery for only 30 cycles (30 years) rather than 1000-5000, depending on the technology used. That means that storing power generated in June and using it in December costs somewhere around 1$\kWh, simply to expensive. Do you have any ideas on how to solve that problem?

Bevacizumab (brand name avastin) for metastatic colorectal cancer (standard of care in the Netherlands, approved by the FDA and EMA and recommended by the consensus guidelines of ESMO https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/guidelines-by-topic/esmo-cli...) and is a well known example. See the response of parliament to a petition to change it now that the patent has expired. NHS will still not fund it and cites cost as an important factor https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/616742?reveal_respo... . I would note that since funds are limited, any system needs some kind of cost-benefit analysis for drugs to ensure affordability of care. Making this cost-benefit analysis central, transparant, and explicit is probably the best way to do it.

Not GP, but The Netherlands do not move their holidays when they're on a weekend.

If you drive 30k miles a year, yes. I drive 4k miles a year with a car that I bought second-hand 10 years ago for $8,000. EVs are not cheaper for that use case yet.

In the Netherlands insurance is provided by for-profit insurance companies. However, there are very strict rules - they are not allowed to refuse any applicant based on any medical reasons (including preexisting conditions), there is a list of treatments they have to cover, there are rules for the minimum/maximum deductible, etc.

I would not say that this is the 'worst of both worlds'. I actually think it has the best of both worlds, - namely coverage for everyone that needs it (benefit of social healthcare) and competition between insurance companies on price, convencience/reliability of apps, service, etc.

You can repay early in the Netherlands as well. A friend of mine works for a major bank to hedge the risk of their mortgage portfolio. He mentioned once that the biggest risk for Dutch banks is not the risk of default, but risk of early repayment. This always surprised foreign investors when they did due diligence to invest in Dutch mortgages.

There are ways they use to hedge for this risk. I don't know if this is desirable, but that is probably the case in the US as well.

"What incentives do you have to keep putting in any effort? Doesn't this lead to massive amount of corporate theft? In the US you are typically "shown the door" when your employment is terminated to minimize the possibility of disgruntled ex-employees taking corporate IP with them."

The incentives to keep doing a good job are your intrinsic motivation to do a decent job, your professional reputation and receiving good references for your upcoming job applications. Doesn't the american approach of showing employees the door right after being fired to a poor transfer of their responsibilities?

'Next-generation sequencing' was arguably invented in 2000, so it would have been available for Theranos. However, AFAIK they never really tried to sequence DNA, so the availability of 'next-generation sequencing' was irrelevant to the accuracy of their test.

Correct, I'd like to add two big mundane factors; Intercontinental flights and heating and cooling your house - the second one is a big contributor to global CO2 expenditures and is strongly influenced by the size of your house.

I guess it's similar to the numbers you get for heritage; eg. you might genetically be 50% Caucasian and 50% Asian. This does not mean that Asians and Caucasians have completely different DNA

I have no idea, but it may be related to 'mad cow disease', which peaked around that time.

Supporters would probably say that this would come at the expense of investors/shareholders.

Replacing only the short flights ( let's say those under 600 mile/1000km) won't sufficiently reduce pollution though.

The main benefit of hydrogen that it is cheaper to store energy for long periods. When electricity comes mostly from renewables, which is expected to lead to very low, zero or even negative electricity during periods with lots of sun and/or wind, hydrogen could be produced for the cost of capital of electrolyzers + storage, which might tip the scales in favor of hydrogen.

The comparison is between ice extent measurements at the same date, at differing years, so the day-to-day correlation is not the relevant metric here, but the year-to-year correlation, which should be very low.

Privacy concerns are the most important reason. A more cynical reason might that the odds that a papers is deemed 'ok' is far larger if the raw/anonymous data is not provided. Remember, the authors of the suspect studies provided their data voluntarily, and in the end it only hurt their reputation/impact.

Are you sure? That did not happen for mobile phone chargers.

The root cause can be different per type of cancer, see for example the landmark TCGA/PCAWG paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1969-6

Figure 2 shows the different mutations present in cells in a variety of cancers carry. These genes have a variety of functions. The DNA of cancer cells from different tumor types is different, and TP53, the gene featured in OP, is never mutated in some cancer types. In the end the discussion is a little semantic (what defines a different disease), but if the prognosis, treatment, and molecular mechanisms behind different types of cancers are different, I would consider it fair to consider them different diseases.

Is this inherent to the technology, or because so few nuclear reactors are being built? Is there anyone involved in the construction of the latest reactor that contributed to another one? You learn by doing, and there has been very little construction in the last decades.

Based on the abstract of the article https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2304594?query=fe...,

I actually think the other explanations are wrong. They are probably reporting the Hazard Ratio, which is more often used as primary outcome for efficacy of drug than 5 year survival. (See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_ratio)

The hazard ratio, under some assumptions, tries to estimate the relative risk of dying per unit of time. The benefit of this measure is that there is not some artificial cutoff (the difference between a death at 4 years and 364 days and 5 years and 1 day is neglible).

All of the above, but my guess would be that the most expensive part is usually running the phase III clinical trial. You have to pay data managers to perform the randomization, train doctors and nurses to administer it, and the hospital for the added time it takes them to run the trial, pay the statisticians that perform the analysis, an agency that helps prepare the application, etcetera. You have to recruit patients, gather informed consent (though that is sometimes done by doctors and nurses). Also, you have to give the drug for free, since insurance companies do not cover experimental drugs. Sometimes patients also receive a fee for participating in the trial. All in all, the median cost of pivotal trials is 50 million dollars. This is the cost after you already did studies to discover the drug, and determine the dosage. Half of these trials fail, and all the previous investments are lost in that case.

[1] https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/6/e038863

"90+% of drug discovery research money is spent at universities"

Afaik this is simply not true, and even if it was, this would be misleading if you consider that most costs are made during clinical trials, which test the effectiveness of the drug.

For doctors looking to innovate, there are actually a lot of ways to fail fast and safely if you introduce a new drug.

First, establish that a drug binds to the target in laboratory conditions (relatively quick). After that, test the drug in an animal model. After that, proceed to clinical trials, which are phased (phase I, II, III) to first establish whether a dosage exists that is safe (Phase I), what an effective dosage is (Phase II), and only after than testing if it improves upon the current standard of care (Phase III).

Each phase is more costly (both in time and money) than the previous phase and will eliminate a significant portion of drug candidates.

"The success rate of each drug discovery stage in academia was 31.8% for preclinical, 75.1% for phase I, 50.0% for phase II, 58.6% for phase III."

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24406927/

I agree that banning gas for cooking is not important to control climate change. But for new buildings that do not require gas for heating, does it make sense to construct and maintain gas infrastructure just for cooking?

The above is correct. Additionally, they even mention natural gas as a viable alternative in the abstract:

"It is essential to expand use of clean fuels and technologies to reduce household air pollution and protect health. These include solar, electricity, biogas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas, alcohol fuels, as well as biomass stoves that meet the emission targets in the WHO Guidelines."

That would not replace the burned fossil fuels though.

As an owner of solar panels, I agree - prices were negative today in the Netherlands and I made money by delivering electricity to the grid. Solar panels are extremely easy to disconnect, but this is only done at big commercial sites due to net metering

Censorship is bad. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't see why banning Facebook in China makes banning TikTok in the US good. It's like saying:

White people are discriminated against in China, so we should discriminate against Chinese people in the US.

Do you have a reference for this that tries to quantify the CO2/CH4 emissions per kg beef? For chicken, I've seen estimates of 3.3 kg CO2/kg of industrial chicken meat compared to 5.3 kg CO2/kg of organic chicken meat. Of course, from an animal welfare point of view, organic chicken is a lot better.