Your point is taken, but the ability of Tesla to do this whilst other companies do not have the same opportunity strikes many as unfair.
29 karma · joined March 21, 2014
Your point is taken, but the ability of Tesla to do this whilst other companies do not have the same opportunity strikes many as unfair.
Calling Sam Adams a "major brand" is a bit of a stretch.
Too bad for you that there is absolutely nothing in the current medical literature that supports these ridiculous claims.
The opposite, actually. Many of us see through the transparent and obviously ham-fisted attempts of the U.S. propaganda machine to drive us into another war.
1. Posit hypothesis A, with predictions X
2. Gather data to falsify A for twenty years
3. Data contradicts predictions X
4. ???
5. Invent hypothesis B to avoid falsification of A.Be careful reading it though, facts are racist.
Exactly what kind of ridiculous caricature of the US does your local media give you?
I get how these can be used to help imaging, but I'm not clear on how exactly they target cancerous cells in particular. Are they attached to antibodies that seek out specific antigen markers of cancerous cells?
The basis is that these people choose, of their own agency, to shoot up with used needles. This isn't some poor guy getting the cancerous genetic bit flipped by a cosmic ray or an uninsured single mom getting disabled by a drunk driver. These are consequences brought on by the patients themselves. By what moral basis should society be paying for the consequences of willful degeneracy?
This is, of course, for reasons nobody can adequately respond to with reason instead of feelings, unpopular.
But it's certainly 1. fair and 2. a large cost savings, given the sheer number of Hep C patients who brought it on themselves.
Feelings and ideology trumping reality may work for a while, but it can't last forever when faced with competition from groups and nations that harbor no such illusions, such as the Chinese, who are investing in their genetic research labs to investigate the genetic origins of intelligence so as to benefit their own population generations hence. We, on the other hand, are too frightened to even talk about such investigations. Much to the detriment of our own future.
White women live in a consequence-free environment until they don't.
While absolutely true in North America, it's one of those things you're not permitted to say:
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Hence, the downvotes.
As far as missing out on great opportunities by using heuristics, it happens all the time, and not just with race/sex/age stereotypes. It happens with food, it happens with color, it happens with sounds and temperatures and fabrics and pets. We require heuristics based on generalizations and abstractions to even function in the world.
There is no easy solution to this, but the saving grace of a semi-free society is that if your particular heuristic excludes a great opportunity, it's very likely someone else's heuristic does not.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.po...
To wit: men and women vary wildly in their personalities, and it is very likely this is due far more to different (genetic) sexual selection pressures than it is to socialization and acculturation.
But here's the problem with attempting an "in-depth discussion" on this topic: anyone who attempts to bring facts to a feels fight will always lose. Even on supposedly "rational" HN.
So, good luck with that.