Almost the entire biotech industry has been this way for decades once the small molecule patent cliff hit pharma and the R&D costs for therapies skyrocketed. If you look at biotech IPOs, the majority of the startups IPO pre-revenue, long before they’re even legally allowed to sell anything.
Which is totally fine: anyone who is a biotech investor knows this and everyone makes tons of money in this arrangement. Investors (both public and private) take on the science risk and some of the regulatory risk, and the pharmaceutical companies provide a guaranteed (big $$$) exit and take over scaling manufacturing to bring a drug to market. Most people with retirement accounts and pensions and index funds rarely touch this stuff except as a diversification strategy that pools the risky stuff to get the upside on the whole industry.
It's the same in medical devices. Most startups take it from idea through R&D then go public or are acquired right as they go through FDA approval or submit for it.
That makes me wonder if there might be exceptions. The Aztecs had a large system of latrines and they dumped the waste into the lake to create night soil to use for their chinampas gardens. I wonder if that exposed them to more parasites or if the large organized labor force dealing with waste made Tenochtitlan more hygienic.
Spain’s colonies funneled huge amounts of gold and silver into the European economies without a complementary increase in productivity to absorb it, causing massive inflation.
A ship for transatlantic shipping might have first cost 100,000 maravedí to build and equip before the treasure fleet expeditions, but afterwards with so much gold flowing into the economy and lots of competition for a limited ship building industry, the costs would inflate to 1 million maravedí (number roughly from memory). Same with the canons and shot, animals and sailor salaries, and so on.
Meanwhile, shipbuilders with all their newfound money are competing for blacksmiths, the outfitters are competing for livestock and horses, and so on. This puts lots of pressure on the rest of society which might need the iron for farming tools and the livestock to survive the winter, which they can no longer afford since the conquistadors and their merchants can pay a lot more in gold. In the end the maravedí accounts look bigger but represent the same amount of physical goods or labor.
Repeat this process across the whole economy and it throws everything into chaos. Some people here and there get rich, but economy wide it’s a total wash. Any wealth created for the state mostly just went into paying for wars because the inflation worked its way up through salaries.
The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition.
We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)
I was in NZ during COVID. I was adamantly pro-lockdowns. In hindsight, it was a very selfish view. It benefitted my family directly and I was more than happy to follow the rules and scoff at those that didn’t.
I won’t claim to know what the appropriate response level should have been back then. But it is very clear that the whole affair has hurt and damaged people and society irreparably. The only winners are the wealthy who scooped up assets at never-before seen interest rates.
Yeah the lockdowns have really damaged my mental health. And the mask mandates even more so due to ancient trauma (where I nearly suffocated and have very bad associations with breathing that feels obstructed). But that's a very personal reason that I understand couldn't be accommodated for back in those days.
I don't know if it was worth it or necessary but tbh I just try to forget the whole phase ever happened. For me it was a few lost life years and I'm still trying to get back to where I was mentally.
I do feel those things were really overlooked back in the day. But I'm also glad I'm not the one making such decisions which can't be easy.
The only thing I have an outspoken opinion about were the curfews we had here. Meaning the available time for things like shopping was more compressed and thus the shops were a lot busier than normal which was super counterproductive. And it didn't stop partygoers because they simply slept over.
Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem.
> The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner
What would we have been optimizing for here? GDP? Deaths? ICU Capacity? Lifestyle? Or would we weight them? If so would we take 2nd and 3rd order effects into consideration?
> An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader
I lived in a country/state that did this during the pandemic. It wasn't a case of restrictions on, restrictions off. It was more a dialing back or ramping up of restrictions. If you look at other countries that did this you will still find the wave pattern. If I had to guess that is related to immunity after exposure. What would change however is the height of the peaks. With it's political/media landscape I don't know if the approach you suggest could have been applied effectively in the USA. Ultimately what drives cases/deaths is human behavior and the virus itself. Those who thought covid was an issue were taking precautions regardless of the restrictions.
> The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change.
This is a gross simplification of the whole pandemic. If I was to narrativize it I would say that over time as exposure to the virus increased it became less deadly so the vast majority of the people who were already prone to dying via covid had done so already.
> The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition.
This is more a comment on the political/media landscape than the response to covid itself. People have to operate within the system. If they present any sort of nuanced idea then they are persecuted by roughly 50% of the population whose narrative it infringes upon.
> We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)
The WHO was very clear at the beginning of the pandemic about the risks of the virus. For wealthy countries whose hospitals were "lean and mean" a high number of cases would cause immense pressure on these hospitals resulting in otherwise avoidable deaths not just from covid but from other things that would result from a limited ICU capacity. By this I mean life saving operations getting cancelled because there was no capacity in the ICU. It's also worth mentioning the restrictions pared with the financial aid allowed people to stay at home and not engage in any risk taking activities.
To summarize I think it's easy to arm chair quarterback the response to the pandemic. It's like most of politics. We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem. The "masks are ineffective" narrative at the beginning of the pandemic was a classic example of this.
>Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem.
These sorts of statements are far too often as a justification to dodge responsibility used by those who at the time just poured more virgins into the volcano in a obviously vain attempt to change the weather (or whatever metaphor for "clearly not gonna work but ideologically convenient" you want to use).
I just want to add that there is always a latent chaos / anarchy in people ready to jump at any oportunity to convince others to follow them. Doomsayers introducing themselves as messiahs. They are any combination of pseudoscience, religion and conspiracy. All this in addition of the normal political power struggles.
>Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem.
I wrote the following July 2020:
>And with all of this money being injected into the economy, we are absolutely going to get an enormous amount of inflation... eventually. You could see it as already happening with the valuation of the stock market.
And in January 2022:
>It’s time to admit defeat and plan for what that looks like and stop pretending like anything at this point is going to make this virus go away. It’s here, it’s going to kill about one person in a thousand of those left, and if you choose to not get vaccinated that’s your choice and if you’re not young you’re taking a significantly higher risk of death.
Not so much hindsight as "what I've been saying all along".
>We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem.
This is a bunch of nonsense. What was happening was quite transparent. The science was out in the open in papers and government statistics for anyone with scientific training to read. Politicians were caving to polarized public opinions on both sides to take advantage of and encourage their chosen pole.
Those of us talking about moderation and common sense reactions were demonize by one side or usually both depending on the venue. Nobody in leadership had the balls to lead and try to make people understand a middle path based on reason.
People STILL fall into their previously chosen polar opinion and refuse to accept that moderation was the correct and untaken path.
Not so much hindsight as "what I've been saying all along".
It was a dynamic situation and it sounds like the only things that you were optimizing for in your mind was inflation and covid deaths whiles ignoring second order effects and data that likely wasn't available to the public.
You are like a person who kept telling everyone it was 12:00am but it wasn't, then when it finally became 12:00am and everyone agreed you jumped up and said "See guys it's 12:00am why didn't anyone listen to me! I was right all along!".
It's a bit rich to blame all the inflation on the financial response to the pandemic without taking into consideration the effect the pandemic had on logistics or considering what would have happened if the government didn't spend enough. Also it's probably worth mentioning that the Fed operates independently and is tasked with only financial functions.
> The science was out in the open in papers and government statistics for anyone with scientific training to read. Politicians were caving to polarized public opinions on both sides to take advantage of and encourage their chosen pole.
No argument here except to say it's one thing to know the science and it's another thing to act on the science.
> Those of us talking about moderation and common sense reactions were demonize by one side or usually both depending on the venue. Nobody in leadership had the balls to lead and try to make people understand a middle path based on reason.
If there is one thing I know it's that common sense only exists when people share the same values and assumptions. Why for example was it acceptable to you that 1 out of 1000 people died of covid? Why not more? Why not less?
>It's a bit rich to blame all the inflation on the financial response to the pandemic without taking into consideration the effect the pandemic had on logistics or considering what would have happened if the government didn't spend enough. Also it's probably worth mentioning that the Fed operates independently and is tasked with only financial functions.
The treasury spent an extra $2 trillion which the Fed facilitated the creation of and your response is "what about logistics??", hindsight isn't 20/20 for you and sky isn't blue it's a ham sandwich. It is pointless discussing this with people like you, this is why we can't have nice things.
This entirely misses the fact that Spain became a European superpower during that period because war was then done by mercenaries…
> Any wealth created for the state mostly just went into paying for wars because the inflation worked its way up through salaries.
Wealth created for the state just went into paying for wars because that what mattered to the early modern aristocracy and that's what they wanted to pay with their additional money. From the point of view of the Spanish elite of the time, their “wealth” increased dramatically during that period, it's just that this don't fit your or my criteria for wealth.
Sounds an awful lot like the AI data center build out sucking up resources at the expense of the rest of the economy. E.g.: Sam Altman cornering the market for computer memory.
Or, he goes to the polytechnic high school that’s right next to Caltech (half a block from the astronomy building no less) and getting research experience there is much easier than a regular high school.
Looks like he went to Pasadena High School though. When I did a bit of aerospace research at Caltech in high school all I did was cold email professors so any kid around here with some initiative and smarts can get connected.
And indeed, that's exactly what happened [0]: the kid in the OP was in a rigorous research program for high schoolers, which connected their talents to PIs who could nurture and support them. GP shouldn't reactively tear down the success of exceptionally talented kids because of their own unfortunate n=1 life experience.
The criticism is of the spin in these articles. The experience these kids get is great, it should happen more. The articles always spin to get your attention, and the subject matter is fascinating, but it can be presented with less spin.
And frankly any kid deserves praise for doing the unglamorous work that this takes. Very few can be arsed to put up with the extra work that it takes to do anything worthwhile, we are a nation getting lazier every day.
Not all high school educations are created equal - See Carmel High School (Carmel, IN), New Trier High School (Winnetka, IL), or any other High School in a densely high wealth area.
Pasadena school district spends $28K / student for their total $390M expenditures across ~14k students in 2023-2024 school year. I would bet dollars to doughnuts it's $30k+ per high school student since they are more expensive.
This study uses regression-discontinuity around exam cutoffs at Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, and Stuyvesant. It finds increased rigor of coursework but little impact on SAT scores, college enrollment, or college graduation, which are key predictors of lifetime earnings (and typically closely linked to earnings outcomes).
The schools studied in that paper are free, or close to free. Not $50,000 per anum
And I don't think OP was suggesting it's the quality of education that affects outcomes in attendees of expensive private high schools.
> The major problem with these systems is that they just hope that the physics is recovered through enough examples of videos. Yet if one studied physics (beyond your basic college courses) you'd understand the naïveté of that. It took a long time to develop physics due to these specific limitations. These models don't even have the advantage of being able to interact with the environment. They have no mechanisms to form beliefs and certainly no means to test them. It's essentially impossible to develop physics through observation alone
Sounds like these world models are speed running from Platonic ideals to empiricism.
> You can think of the name as being inclusive of the region, not simply descriptive of the variety.
The term of art is terroir [1], which is the "character" of the environment the plants are grown in. It's often that a region will have some special characteristic due to geology that allows a unique flavor profile to grow so these trade names are the equivalent of a terroir brand.
Some designations are more strict than others, though. IIRC in the case of Vidalia onions the soil is low in sulfur so the biochemical pathways in onions that produce astringent compounds are nutrient starved. As far as I know most sweet onion varieties nowadays are grown in similar soil, but they're not legally allowed to call them Vidalias.
The geology-centered conception of terroir in wine that you're giving is actually rather controversial and not generally supported by any science we've done to date.
For wine, "terroir" rather encompasses things like climate, local customs and practices (viticulture and vinification), and sometimes things like local strains of grapes or of yeast.
Normally when laymen say "digitized" they mean one of two things: scanned images in a PDF or fully transcribed (and possible formatted) text extracted from the scan. The Complete New Yorker you're thinking of was mostly the former, with a bit of indexing (table of contents pointing to the PDFs if I remember correctly).
This latest digitization project does the latter, transcribing the text into their existing content management system and as far as I can tell, preserving much of the formatting. This comes with full text search, allows cross linking between articles, and all that good stuff.
I suspect that since they include an LLM summary and started this digitization project in early 2024, this was enabled by LLMs.
Which is totally fine: anyone who is a biotech investor knows this and everyone makes tons of money in this arrangement. Investors (both public and private) take on the science risk and some of the regulatory risk, and the pharmaceutical companies provide a guaranteed (big $$$) exit and take over scaling manufacturing to bring a drug to market. Most people with retirement accounts and pensions and index funds rarely touch this stuff except as a diversification strategy that pools the risky stuff to get the upside on the whole industry.
reply