What? Of course they are. The richer they are, the more evil they are. You can tell how evil they are by how much money they are holding onto even though other people's basic needs are not being met, since modern capitalism is a zero-sum game (or in fact, negative-sum, since we are destroying natural capital faster than it can be replenished) and their success is predicated directly upon the suffering of others.
So does that make you evil? Where do you draw the line? The fact that you are posting on slashdot means that you have luxuries that many other people in the world don't have. Is it right to have an air conditioner when other people don't even have a fan? Should you sell your air conditioner and buy 20 fans for other people in need? What about the people who don't have electricity? The Amish don't use electricity because they believe it is a sign of excessive wealth. Should you not have electricity because it is a luxury that half the world can't afford?
And they will fight tooth and claw to keep those treatments off of insurance and only for the rich.
No they won't. Not unless they think it will affect their own survival. The rich aren't evil. They aren't planning on leaving everyone behind and they don't care whether the poor live forever or not. The rich are just like everyone else on this planet. They are acting in their own best interest to the best of their abilty. For the middle class this means saving for retirement, buying health insurance, having an emergency fund, and maybe stockpiling a little food or learning a backup job skill. For the ultra rich, they have more money to spend so they hide money overseas and spend money on life extension research. Humans have a will to survive whether rich or poor. The rich just have more money to waste on pie on the sky survival schemes. They don't care whether you come along for the ride or not as long as they can maintain or improve their own lot.
I do. I typically make about $5 per memory card, and I sell about 400 per month. It supplements my $50,000 a year salary I get in IT in Silicon Valley.
Where are you getting 400 used memory cards a month?
Is off-campus accommodation free in your state or do you expect people to only go to universities within commuting distance of their parents' house?
The whole point of school loans is for poor families who can't support their kids. If their kids live with them, then they're paying extra for the larger apartments required to accommodate everyone. Even if the parents own the house, they're still giving up living space that could be generating rental income. In other words, they'd be indirectly paying for their kids rent.
Kids starting college are already living at home so that cost is already a sunk cost. Most parents don't immediately downsize when their kids go to college. Most parents are perfectly fine letting their kids stay in the house a few extra years. Also, most people live within driving distance of a 4 year college and even more live within driving distance of a community college. Some kids live with an aunt or uncle that happens to live near a college. There are a lot of other paths as well that don't involve huge amounts of debt. The idea that huge amounts of debt is the best way to pay for college is ludicrous.
If you are over the age of 30 and have a 10 year employment history, noone is going to check your college transcript. You could easily just add a fictitious degree to get past the automatic filters and likely would never get caught. Same with a high school diploma. Noone is going to try to verify it.
Miinimum wage is higher than $7/hour. I made more than that 20 years ago in college. My tuition&board back then was about $8k/year at a public university. I would make about $150/week working parttime. That pretty much covered everything I needed. I took out about 8k worth of loans and took a semester off to work at a coop with HP for about double minimum wage to save up a little more.
Now checking the college I graduated from prices have doubled since then so yearly tuition is now 10k and board another 10k but if you live at home that drops it back down to a very reasonable 10k/year which is very doable on a part time job especially if you can find a full time job during the summer.
Then again, considering how many empty seats I see in theaters in the rare case where I go, filling any of those seats at all should be an increase in profits for the theaters, even if they're only getting a fraction of what the ticket price is.
I'm not sure this is true. It would be if the theatre was charged per showing but unlike in an airline, a theatre doesn't have to pay for an empty seat. I believe the theatre usually pays either a fixed cost per viewer or a percentage per viewer not a fixed cost per showing. If it's a fixed cost per viewer then the theatre can't sell the vacant seats for cheap.
I can easily see how a movie theatre can make a profit doing this. Most people probably don't see 12 movies a year so by locking in the $120-$240 per person their average profit per customer goes up. Also, someone who has free tickets is likely to buy more concessions which should help their profit even more. They also lock a customer in so that customer is not going with their friends to other theatres and giving their competition money.
A third party doesn't benefit from any of this. They don't get to sell overpriced popcorn or soda. They can't average their customers and still come out ahead on a season pass. It's like a third party trying to sell season passes to disney world or six flags. The reason six flags can sell season passes for 2x the ticket price is because they know that the heavy users are going to buy food, pay for parking, bring friends, etc... and even if they don't, the average customer only comes once a year without a season pass so getting 2 days upfront is still a pretty good deal. They also get a few people who buy it and don't use it which a third party can benefit from but just breakage probably is not enough to sustain a business model.
Without market makers though, there would be a lot less resting orders in the book and not at such good prices, so people who are in a hurry have to trade against a lot worse prices.
The person who I was replying to was saying that HFT are the market makers. HFT aren't the ones with resting orders. They are jumping in between the buyer and the resting orders.
The best reason I can come up with would be swapping out plates but other that criminals, not sure who needs or wants that ability. Possibly some sort of car dealer or interstate truck. Another possible reason might be to have the ability to turn off your plate while parked but not even sure if that is legal.
Closed toed shoes...probably lead with something a little more exacting. But I do like that a remote place like this has access to Amazon.
It is a slightly odd requirement to have for a contractor. It implies that they are treating them more like an employee and extension of Amazon that just another independent delivery service. Around Christmas time, I've had packages delivered from the back of uhauls and pickup trucks by people in street clothes presumably because ups and usps can't keep up so are hiring whatever temp workers they can find.
We don't need them. But if a buyer is offering $4.56 for a share and a seller is willing to sell for $4.54, then somebody will jump in between. If the buyer/seller were willing to put in more effort they could have matched each other.
But this could all be automated by the exchange and given to the end user. I'm always happily surprised when my order is filled for less than my asking price. If you split the difference then both the buyer and seller benefits instead of a random third party. Arbitrage is useful in some instances for market efficiency but in HFT they aren't providing a service, they are scalping. It increases the trading cost for both the buyer and seller and benefits noone but the scalper.
Just because you use a cloud provider doesn't mean that it's turnkey. You still have to know everything. The difference is it costs less and generally it's easier.
Which is my point exactly. For a small shop without a dedicated IT team that can implement a HA setup, Amazon is a bad choice. Amazon is designed to sit under a HA solution. There are lots of providers that provide more stable single servers and have a phone number you can call for free if something is not working. They aren't HA solutions but most small businesses aren't willing to pay for the expertise needed to have a true HA setup.
The problem is that once they locate the buyer and seller, they need to buy the stock from the seller first, then turn around and sell it to the buyer
How is this a market maker? Why can't the buyer buy directly from the seller? Why do we need a middleman skimming off the transaction. Why can't the stock exchange computer do the matching? Take all the bids in a 30 second period, don't show them to anyone, match them up, and then publish the results. Matching buys to sells is what computers are good at. It is what HFT computers are doing except they are also skimming in the process. It would make much more sense for the stock exchange itself to be the market maker and do it fairly without skimming.
Another option if you don't like the 30 second delay is to substantially increase the trading cost. Make it cost prohibited to do HFT. The average individual investor pays around $5 per a thousand shares compared to something like 2 cents per 1000 shares for HFT. Some liquidity is good but stability is better. HFT and day traders are leaches on the system. Transaction costs should be increased until the majority of trades are from long term and medium term investors.
Heaps of fail in your statement, I fear for your customers. No wonder you think cloud is so bad.
Servers that canâ(TM)t go down are so 80s and 90s ways of thinking. Servers/compute are throw away and should be treated as such. You are not supposed to ever touch a servers config in cloud computing, change the base image spin up another and terminate the old.
But this is ignoring the fact that it Should be load balanced across multiples azs anyways, across multiple regions if mission critical with high cost of downtime.
There are millions of small businesses that run their websites on a single server or a single VM. Very few if any are using base images or multiple AZs. Most are likely using a third party web designer who sets them up on a $5-$20/month instance and hands them the keys. Neither they nor their web designer knows the first thing about base images or availability zones. My point is that for these businesses even though google and amazon are cheap, they are not a good fit for small businesses. Small businesses are much better off using one of the many companies designed for you to have a single box. These companies still obviously need some form of backup and probably shouldn't rely totally on the backup provided by their cloud provider but they do just fine without fault tolerance.
This is not a problem with Google Cloud, this is a problem with all "cloud" platforms. It's really simple, they can be held liable so they put acquit ass-covering in the contract so that they can shut you down on a whim. If this doesn't work for you then you should not any "cloud" platform.
Not true. There are plenty of full service providers like liquidweb and rackspace that won't pull the plug on your server. I've had servers act up and I immediately get a phone call. In severe cases they might even disconnect the network until they can contact you and resolve the problem but they aren't going to destroy your data or even disable your computer without first contacting you. Even in cases of spam they will work with you and try to fix the problem and unless you really are a spammer they won't just boot you off their system the first time there is a problem.
Digitalocean is usually considered a low cost provider. I'm not sure they even have 24/7 phone number you can call. They are also completely self service as far as I know as is google/amazon unless you have a multi thousand dollar contract. Liquidweb and rackspace on the other hand are considered full service and you can always reach a technician if you have a problem.
Our company tried to use Amazon a few years ago and ran into the same issues. Although google and amazon allow you to spin up a single instance, they are really designed for companies that have hundred if not thousands of servers. Amazon assumes that you have dozens of fault tolerant servers and if one goes down you just replace it with another one. This works great for companies like Netflix but Amazon is a disaster for a company that isn't fully fault tolerant and has critical servers that can't go down. Liquidweb, Rackspace, Linode, and even Digitalocean are more reliable when it comes to wanting to keep a single server up and running with minimal downtime. Now if you need to keep thousands of servers up and don't care if any one server goes down then Amazon works fine.
Obviously insulin was a proof of concept, not the real application.
I'm not sure that's the case but it doesn't matter if it's insulin or any other drug/medicine. A drug delivery system generally needs to delivery a very specific dose of the given medicine. I don't see how they can closely regulate the delivery of a drug using a chemical marker that is widely used in varying amounts.
Thanks for bringing this up. This has been a rampant problem in San Francisco. Clumps of skooters were blocking sidewalks, disabled ramps, etc.
The city finally took some action and have been cracking down on the companies operating these skooters.
Why would they let it become a problem? Why are they not treated like any other thing that is illegally parked? If I park my car and block a sidewalk, the city will call a tow truck and I might even have criminal charges. When I was in college 20 years ago, the campus police would cut the locks off of and impound illegally parked bikes. Not only did you have to buy a new lock, I believe you had to pay a fine to get your bike back.
None of this is going to stop people from leaving those scooters anywhere they wish. People are lazy.
Sure it can. Confiscate and/or ticket the scooter. You don't see people illegally parking their cars anywhere they wish because people know they will be fined and/or towed if they do. And even if it's a ride share, the ride share companies would quickly start passing that fine back to the user if they had to start paying it.
Why not simply allow people to haul away abandoned and/or illegally parked scooters and sell them for scrap? Of course the scooter companies should be allowed to come by and pick up their property- as long as they pay the same reasonable towing and storage fees that tow companies charge for cars.
This isn't something new. The quantity and technology might be but scooters and bikes have been around for years. When I was in college almost 20 years ago, there were plenty of scooters and bikes all over campus and the campus police regularly confiscated and/or ticketed bikes for being illegally chained to lampposts, trees, etc... Bicycles and scooters had to be parked at the official bikeracks that were in front of each building. I would be surprised if San Jose didn't already have laws on the books saying that bikes must be parked properly. They just need to start enforcing those laws.
Explorers have always been willing to drop everything to find something new. Or better, travel in some sort of hibernation so the transit time is imperceptible.
There is a huge difference between exploring a new corner of earth with a stable ecosystem similar to your own and exploring the wasteland that is space. The Sahara and Antarctica are both orders of magnitude more hospitable than space and you don't see people lining up to live in the middle of the Sahara. Unless we either find another hospitable planet or learn to terraform planets, you aren't going to have people lining up to explore space. The costs and distances are another huge factor. You can't compare something like the Oregon Trail with its 4-6 month travel time and breathable air and relatively cheap equipment with interstellar travel with multiyear travel, extremely cramped quarters, and huge costs/risks. And if we could build a comfortable generational ship, why not just live on it permanently. Park it in Antarctica, the Sahara, the bottom of the ocean, or the moon.
Does that mean you can only have one coffee per day?
I don't think they've thought this idea all the way through.
My thoughts exactly. Caffeine is in a lot of common products like chocolate, soda, tea, and coffee and people consume different amounts of these each day. Yes, it's relatively safe but if you are using it to regulate the release of insulin you need to strictly control the amount consumed so that you get the amount of insulin you want. This might work for lab animals but people aren't going to want to voluntarily go on a caffeine restricted/regulated diet. You need a safe substance that isn't regularly consumed in varying amounts.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Of course they are. The richer they are, the more evil they are. You can tell how evil they are by how much money they are holding onto even though other people's basic needs are not being met, since modern capitalism is a zero-sum game (or in fact, negative-sum, since we are destroying natural capital faster than it can be replenished) and their success is predicated directly upon the suffering of others.
So does that make you evil? Where do you draw the line? The fact that you are posting on slashdot means that you have luxuries that many other people in the world don't have. Is it right to have an air conditioner when other people don't even have a fan? Should you sell your air conditioner and buy 20 fans for other people in need? What about the people who don't have electricity? The Amish don't use electricity because they believe it is a sign of excessive wealth. Should you not have electricity because it is a luxury that half the world can't afford?
And they will fight tooth and claw to keep those treatments off of insurance and only for the rich.
No they won't. Not unless they think it will affect their own survival. The rich aren't evil. They aren't planning on leaving everyone behind and they don't care whether the poor live forever or not. The rich are just like everyone else on this planet. They are acting in their own best interest to the best of their abilty. For the middle class this means saving for retirement, buying health insurance, having an emergency fund, and maybe stockpiling a little food or learning a backup job skill. For the ultra rich, they have more money to spend so they hide money overseas and spend money on life extension research. Humans have a will to survive whether rich or poor. The rich just have more money to waste on pie on the sky survival schemes. They don't care whether you come along for the ride or not as long as they can maintain or improve their own lot.
I do. I typically make about $5 per memory card, and I sell about 400 per month. It supplements my $50,000 a year salary I get in IT in Silicon Valley.
Where are you getting 400 used memory cards a month?
Is off-campus accommodation free in your state or do you expect people to only go to universities within commuting distance of their parents' house?
The whole point of school loans is for poor families who can't support their kids. If their kids live with them, then they're paying extra for the larger apartments required to accommodate everyone. Even if the parents own the house, they're still giving up living space that could be generating rental income. In other words, they'd be indirectly paying for their kids rent.
Kids starting college are already living at home so that cost is already a sunk cost. Most parents don't immediately downsize when their kids go to college.
Most parents are perfectly fine letting their kids stay in the house a few extra years. Also, most people live within driving distance of a 4 year college and
even more live within driving distance of a community college. Some kids live with an aunt or uncle that happens to live near a college. There are a lot of
other paths as well that don't involve huge amounts of debt. The idea that huge amounts of debt is the best way to pay for college is ludicrous.
If you are over the age of 30 and have a 10 year employment history, noone is going to check your college transcript. You could easily just add a fictitious degree to get past the automatic filters and likely would never get caught. Same with a high school diploma. Noone is going to try to verify it.
Miinimum wage is higher than $7/hour. I made more than that 20 years ago in college. My tuition&board back then was about $8k/year at a public university. I would make about $150/week working parttime. That pretty much covered everything I needed. I took out about 8k worth of loans and took a semester off to work at a coop with HP for about double minimum wage to save up a little more.
Now checking the college I graduated from prices have doubled since then so yearly tuition is now 10k and board another 10k but if you live at home that drops it back down to a very reasonable 10k/year which is very doable on a part time job especially if you can find a full time job during the summer.
Then again, considering how many empty seats I see in theaters in the rare case where I go, filling any of those seats at all should be an increase in profits for the theaters, even if they're only getting a fraction of what the ticket price is.
I'm not sure this is true. It would be if the theatre was charged per showing but unlike in an airline, a theatre doesn't have to pay for an empty seat. I believe the theatre usually pays either a fixed cost per viewer or a percentage per viewer not a fixed cost per showing. If it's a fixed cost per viewer then the theatre can't sell the vacant seats for cheap.
I can easily see how a movie theatre can make a profit doing this. Most people probably don't see 12 movies a year so by locking in the $120-$240 per person their average profit per customer goes up. Also, someone who has free tickets is likely to buy more concessions which should help their profit even more. They also lock a customer in so that customer is not going with their friends to other theatres and giving their competition money.
A third party doesn't benefit from any of this. They don't get to sell overpriced popcorn or soda. They can't average their customers and still come out ahead on a season pass. It's like a third party trying to sell season passes to disney world or six flags. The reason six flags can sell season passes for 2x the ticket price is because they know that the heavy users are going to buy food, pay for parking, bring friends, etc... and even if they don't, the average customer only comes once a year without a season pass so getting 2 days upfront is still a pretty good deal. They also get a few people who buy it and don't use it which a third party can benefit from but just breakage probably is not enough to sustain a business model.
Without market makers though, there would be a lot less resting orders in the book and not at such good prices, so people who are in a hurry have to trade against a lot worse prices.
The person who I was replying to was saying that HFT are the market makers. HFT aren't the ones with resting orders. They are jumping in between the buyer and the resting orders.
The best reason I can come up with would be swapping out plates but other that criminals, not sure who needs or wants that ability. Possibly some sort of car dealer or interstate truck.
Another possible reason might be to have the ability to turn off your plate while parked but not even sure if that is legal.
Closed toed shoes...probably lead with something a little more exacting. But I do like that a remote place like this has access to Amazon.
It is a slightly odd requirement to have for a contractor. It implies that they are treating them more like an employee and extension of Amazon that just another independent delivery service. Around Christmas time, I've had packages delivered from the back of uhauls and pickup trucks by people in street clothes presumably because ups and usps can't keep up so are hiring whatever temp workers they can find.
We don't need them. But if a buyer is offering $4.56 for a share and a seller is willing to sell for $4.54, then somebody will jump in between. If the buyer/seller were willing to put in more effort they could have matched each other.
But this could all be automated by the exchange and given to the end user. I'm always happily surprised when my order is filled for less than my asking price. If you split the difference then both the buyer and seller benefits instead of a random third party. Arbitrage is useful in some instances for market efficiency but in HFT they aren't providing a service, they are scalping. It increases the trading cost for both the buyer and seller and benefits noone but the scalper.
Sorry, you must be really bad at AWS.
Amazon's hardware isn't HA, your solution is.
Just because you use a cloud provider doesn't mean that it's turnkey. You still have to know everything. The difference is it costs less and generally it's easier.
Which is my point exactly. For a small shop without a dedicated IT team that can implement a HA setup, Amazon is a bad choice. Amazon is designed to sit under a HA solution. There are lots of providers that provide more stable single servers and have a phone number you can call for free if something is not working. They aren't HA solutions but most small businesses aren't willing to pay for the expertise needed to have a true HA setup.
The problem is that once they locate the buyer and seller, they need to buy the stock from the seller first, then turn around and sell it to the buyer
How is this a market maker? Why can't the buyer buy directly from the seller? Why do we need a middleman skimming off the transaction.
Why can't the stock exchange computer do the matching? Take all the bids in a 30 second period, don't show them to anyone, match them up, and then publish the results. Matching buys to sells is what computers are good at. It is what HFT computers are doing except they are also skimming in the process. It would make much more sense for the stock exchange itself to be the market maker and do it fairly without skimming.
Another option if you don't like the 30 second delay is to substantially increase the trading cost.
Make it cost prohibited to do HFT. The average individual investor pays around $5 per a thousand shares
compared to something like 2 cents per 1000 shares for HFT. Some liquidity is good but stability is better.
HFT and day traders are leaches on the system. Transaction costs should be increased until the majority
of trades are from long term and medium term investors.
It seems like it would be easier all around if let's encrypt used longer expiration dates.
Let's Encrypt disagrees. They actually plan on making it shorter once people get used to automation: https://letsencrypt.org/2015/1...
Heaps of fail in your statement, I fear for your customers. No wonder you think cloud is so bad.
Servers that canâ(TM)t go down are so 80s and 90s ways of thinking. Servers/compute are throw away and should be treated as such. You are not supposed to ever touch a servers config in cloud computing, change the base image spin up another and terminate the old.
But this is ignoring the fact that it Should be load balanced across multiples azs anyways, across multiple regions if mission critical with high cost of downtime.
There are millions of small businesses that run their websites on a single server or a single VM. Very few if any are using base images or multiple AZs. Most are likely using a third party web designer who sets them up on a $5-$20/month instance and hands them the keys. Neither they nor their web designer knows the first thing about base images or availability zones. My point is that for these businesses even though google and amazon are cheap, they are not a good fit for small businesses. Small businesses are much better off using one of the many companies designed for you to have a single box. These companies still obviously need some form of backup and probably shouldn't rely totally on the backup provided by their cloud provider but they do just fine without fault tolerance.
This is not a problem with Google Cloud, this is a problem with all "cloud" platforms. It's really simple, they can be held liable so they put acquit ass-covering in the contract so that they can shut you down on a whim. If this doesn't work for you then you should not any "cloud" platform.
Not true. There are plenty of full service providers like liquidweb and rackspace that won't pull the plug on your server. I've had servers act up and I immediately get a phone call. In severe cases they might even disconnect the network until they can contact you and resolve the problem but they aren't going to destroy your data or even disable your computer without first contacting you. Even in cases of spam they will work with you and try to fix the problem and unless you really are a spammer they won't just boot you off their system the first time there is a problem.
What do you mean "even Digitalocean"?
Digitalocean is usually considered a low cost provider. I'm not sure they even have 24/7 phone number you can call. They are also completely self service as far as I know as is google/amazon unless you have a multi thousand dollar contract. Liquidweb and rackspace on the other hand are considered full service and you can always reach a technician if you have a problem.
Our company tried to use Amazon a few years ago and ran into the same issues. Although google and amazon allow you to
spin up a single instance, they are really designed for companies that have hundred if not thousands of servers. Amazon
assumes that you have dozens of fault tolerant servers and if one goes down you just replace it with another one. This works
great for companies like Netflix but Amazon is a disaster for a company that isn't fully fault tolerant and has critical servers
that can't go down. Liquidweb, Rackspace, Linode, and even Digitalocean are more reliable when it comes to wanting to
keep a single server up and running with minimal downtime. Now if you need to keep thousands of servers up and don't care
if any one server goes down then Amazon works fine.
Obviously insulin was a proof of concept, not the real application.
I'm not sure that's the case but it doesn't matter if it's insulin or any other drug/medicine. A drug delivery system generally needs to delivery a very specific dose of the given medicine. I don't see how they can closely regulate the delivery of a drug using a chemical marker that is widely used in varying amounts.
Thanks for bringing this up. This has been a rampant problem in San Francisco. Clumps of skooters were blocking sidewalks, disabled ramps, etc.
The city finally took some action and have been cracking down on the companies operating these skooters.
Why would they let it become a problem? Why are they not treated like any other thing that is illegally parked? If I park my car and block a sidewalk, the city will call a tow truck and I might even have criminal charges. When I was in college 20 years ago, the campus police would cut the locks off of and impound illegally parked bikes. Not only did you have to buy a new lock, I believe you had to pay a fine to get your bike back.
None of this is going to stop people from leaving those scooters anywhere they wish.
People are lazy.
Sure it can. Confiscate and/or ticket the scooter. You don't see people illegally parking their cars anywhere they wish because people know they will be fined and/or towed if they do. And even if it's a ride share, the ride share companies would quickly start passing that fine back to the user if they had to start paying it.
Why not simply allow people to haul away abandoned and/or illegally parked scooters and sell them for scrap? Of course the scooter companies should be allowed to come by and pick up their property- as long as they pay the same reasonable towing and storage fees that tow companies charge for cars.
This isn't something new. The quantity and technology might be but scooters and bikes have been around for years. When I was in college almost 20 years ago, there were plenty of scooters and bikes all over campus and the campus police regularly confiscated and/or ticketed bikes for being illegally chained to lampposts, trees, etc... Bicycles and scooters had to be parked at the official bikeracks that were in front of each building. I would be surprised if San Jose didn't already have laws on the books saying that bikes must be parked properly. They just need to start enforcing those laws.
Explorers have always been willing to drop everything to find something new.
Or better, travel in some sort of hibernation so the transit time is imperceptible.
There is a huge difference between exploring a new corner of earth with a stable ecosystem similar to your own and exploring the wasteland that is space. The Sahara and Antarctica are both orders of magnitude more hospitable than space and you don't see people lining up to live in the middle of the Sahara. Unless we either find another hospitable planet or learn to terraform planets, you aren't going to have people lining up to explore space. The costs and distances are another huge factor. You can't compare something like the Oregon Trail with its 4-6 month travel time and breathable air and relatively cheap equipment with interstellar travel with multiyear travel, extremely cramped quarters, and huge costs/risks. And if we could build a comfortable generational ship, why not just live on it permanently. Park it in Antarctica, the Sahara, the bottom of the ocean, or the moon.
Does that mean you can only have one coffee per day?
I don't think they've thought this idea all the way through.
My thoughts exactly. Caffeine is in a lot of common products like chocolate, soda, tea, and coffee and people consume different amounts of these each day. Yes, it's relatively safe but if you are using it to regulate the release of insulin you need to strictly control the amount consumed so that you get the amount of insulin you want. This might work for lab animals but people aren't going to want to voluntarily go on a caffeine restricted/regulated diet. You need a safe substance that isn't regularly consumed in varying amounts.