That's how I read the summary, thought what's health and what's disease could be arguable (like high endurance athletes may have healthier systems that are more prone to failure).
their ability to do push-ups was a better predictor of cardiovascular disease than their stamina on a treadmill test.
It's not comparing leg lifts to push-ups though, it's comparing sustained running which for me has always been a lot harder than push-ups (though I've never been in great shape and only do sets of 25 push-ups).
My limitation in running is overall though, not my legs giving out. and it certainly feels like it gets my heart beating a lot more.
If two labs are doing the same thing to make the same chemical for the same purpose and both get to the same place within a short period of time (yes, what that means is left as an exercise for the courts, and is ambiguous) I would say yes, that is obvious to someone "skilled in the art".
That's the point, people skilled in the art, not laypeople, are who it needs to be obvious to, and if the people skilled in the art are all doing the same thing to solve a problem independently it seems to me the solution was indeed obvious to them.
I don't know anything about this case, so I will talk in generics.
I think that we (in the US) have a problem in that independent simultaneous invention isn't an affirmative defense for obviousness. Often times 2 people invent independently pretty much the exact same thing, and one gets a patent and the other doesn't (famously the telephone, though there's evidence that espionage was involved there). I would argue if two people building on past tech invent something pretty much simultaneously, it falls into the category of obvious.
If this person really did develop a novel process for handling returned mail, it arguably doesn't even need to be an invention to be patented (I believe), since it could be a business method. It does seem (technology aside) to be a novel business method without any other knowledge of other people doing the exact same thing around the exact same time.
I'm a little confused though, because I thought CASS certified addresses after NCOA are pretty much immune to returned mail, I'd think large companies would be up on that.
Tesla represent 0.3% of the car market last year. And that's *just* last year. Overall, in terms of all the cars in the world, you can add a couple of zeroes after the dot.
Is your premise that cars last year represent less than 1/100th of cars built?
That seems incredibly unlikely, and if we say cars on the road, even less likely. How is it possible? Cars are only about 120 years old, and manufacturing has been doing up every year. I'm really confused where you're coming from.
Those major breakthroughs are where the green new deal comes in. It effectively gives money to people doing fine (the type of people that can do that research are already doing well).
I think (instinctually) a 20% reduction may be achievable. A few percent (absolute) improvement in solar could have big paybacks (since it's already break even you say, any absolute percent improvement is 2x in payback, and then a multiplier for absolute to relative improvement).
I'm skeptical at the current prices that it is really break even though. Is energy really so much cheaper in China that solar can have a payback but actually cause more CO2?
Also, a quick fix with payback would be to only buy from places that use natural gas for a primary fossil fuel (like the US).
You tax carbon and redistribute it revenue neutral equally across the population.
Anyone using more than the average loses out, anyone using less wins.
Since the very rich use resources orders of magnitude more than the median the majority of people win from a carbon tax.
Rather than crushing the middle class, you are giving them the option to save money by using less carbon, and then get that money and more back to do something else.
So if gas becomes $10/gallon ($7extra/gallon) the median person can choose to not drive, and with the $8/gallon they get (since they're getting the taxes back at average use not median use) can be used to pay for the gas, or they can choose to carpool, and save extra and get the same amount.
The people that would most likely feel a negative from a plan like this would be the upper middle class, as they don't have unlimited money, but use more than the average amount of resources.
Net negative will require zero greenhouse use energy production, low greenhouse produced making of that equipment, and some type of capture to offset it.
It's not a hard concept we don't get, it's basically common sense.
I don't think a ten year plan to hit net zero is practical, honestly, 40-60% doesn't seem likely without some type of effort to capture them. There was an interesting idea of bubbling CO2 from a power plant through algea pits to make bio fuel for example, but that was ages ago and it's not happening, so I doubt it meets expectations.
Any common sense reading of net zero greenhouse gasses includes manufacturing though, why would you assume it doesn't?
I agree, it'd be nice if there was a way to click on a cell and see what other cells values it controlled.
But even just a tabular list of data is more useful than a PDF of the results (though, that could be argued to not be an Excel file even if Excel is how you're opening it).
A PDF of a spreadsheet is good for a presentation, but often a spreadsheet is designed to be more interactive.
I can't for example replicate a pivot table in a PDF, and even without the ability to edit sanely, a pivot table is useful.
I started with Hue bulbs, that felt really expensive at first but as time went on felt very much worth it (controlling color temperature and having my bedroom lights slowly turn on to wake me up was nice, I then added switches and lit the rest of the house), I got 2 home minis and a screen a week ago, and it's great.
I feel stupid talking to it, but it's really nice having an integrated control all over my house to listen to podcasts as I wander, check the temperature, control the temperature, and the lights. Though things like the lights are a little bit of a nuisance.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how I read the summary, thought what's health and what's disease could be arguable (like high endurance athletes may have healthier systems that are more prone to failure).
their ability to do push-ups was a better predictor of cardiovascular disease than their stamina on a treadmill test.
It's not comparing leg lifts to push-ups though, it's comparing sustained running which for me has always been a lot harder than push-ups (though I've never been in great shape and only do sets of 25 push-ups).
My limitation in running is overall though, not my legs giving out. and it certainly feels like it gets my heart beating a lot more.
I think the fact that it's a better measure of cardiovascular health than a treadmill is pretty relevant, and not actually intuitive.
So this is for when people move, but don't update their address AND the new resident sends the mail back?
How much of that really happens? I guess a lot if this guy created an industry out of it?
If two labs are doing the same thing to make the same chemical for the same purpose and both get to the same place within a short period of time (yes, what that means is left as an exercise for the courts, and is ambiguous) I would say yes, that is obvious to someone "skilled in the art".
That's the point, people skilled in the art, not laypeople, are who it needs to be obvious to, and if the people skilled in the art are all doing the same thing to solve a problem independently it seems to me the solution was indeed obvious to them.
I don't know anything about this case, so I will talk in generics.
I think that we (in the US) have a problem in that independent simultaneous invention isn't an affirmative defense for obviousness. Often times 2 people invent independently pretty much the exact same thing, and one gets a patent and the other doesn't (famously the telephone, though there's evidence that espionage was involved there). I would argue if two people building on past tech invent something pretty much simultaneously, it falls into the category of obvious.
If this person really did develop a novel process for handling returned mail, it arguably doesn't even need to be an invention to be patented (I believe), since it could be a business method. It does seem (technology aside) to be a novel business method without any other knowledge of other people doing the exact same thing around the exact same time.
I'm a little confused though, because I thought CASS certified addresses after NCOA are pretty much immune to returned mail, I'd think large companies would be up on that.
It seems likely this the business model is sustainable though
They got back teens of billions on the Help treatment. Now they need to use some of that to invent the next one
Tesla represent 0.3% of the car market last year. And that's *just* last year. Overall, in terms of all the cars in the world, you can add a couple of zeroes after the dot.
Is your premise that cars last year represent less than 1/100th of cars built?
That seems incredibly unlikely, and if we say cars on the road, even less likely. How is it possible? Cars are only about 120 years old, and manufacturing has been doing up every year. I'm really confused where you're coming from.
Those major breakthroughs are where the green new deal comes in. It effectively gives money to people doing fine (the type of people that can do that research are already doing well).
I think (instinctually) a 20% reduction may be achievable. A few percent (absolute) improvement in solar could have big paybacks (since it's already break even you say, any absolute percent improvement is 2x in payback, and then a multiplier for absolute to relative improvement).
I'm skeptical at the current prices that it is really break even though. Is energy really so much cheaper in China that solar can have a payback but actually cause more CO2?
Also, a quick fix with payback would be to only buy from places that use natural gas for a primary fossil fuel (like the US).
You tax carbon and redistribute it revenue neutral equally across the population.
Anyone using more than the average loses out, anyone using less wins.
Since the very rich use resources orders of magnitude more than the median the majority of people win from a carbon tax.
Rather than crushing the middle class, you are giving them the option to save money by using less carbon, and then get that money and more back to do something else.
So if gas becomes $10/gallon ($7extra/gallon) the median person can choose to not drive, and with the $8/gallon they get (since they're getting the taxes back at average use not median use) can be used to pay for the gas, or they can choose to carpool, and save extra and get the same amount.
The people that would most likely feel a negative from a plan like this would be the upper middle class, as they don't have unlimited money, but use more than the average amount of resources.
Nuclear isn't market driven at all though.
Fair price nuclear is a non starter.
Net negative will require zero greenhouse use energy production, low greenhouse produced making of that equipment, and some type of capture to offset it.
It's not a hard concept we don't get, it's basically common sense.
I don't think a ten year plan to hit net zero is practical, honestly, 40-60% doesn't seem likely without some type of effort to capture them. There was an interesting idea of bubbling CO2 from a power plant through algea pits to make bio fuel for example, but that was ages ago and it's not happening, so I doubt it meets expectations.
Any common sense reading of net zero greenhouse gasses includes manufacturing though, why would you assume it doesn't?
I agree, it'd be nice if there was a way to click on a cell and see what other cells values it controlled.
But even just a tabular list of data is more useful than a PDF of the results (though, that could be argued to not be an Excel file even if Excel is how you're opening it).
A PDF of a spreadsheet is good for a presentation, but often a spreadsheet is designed to be more interactive.
I can't for example replicate a pivot table in a PDF, and even without the ability to edit sanely, a pivot table is useful.
Even if I'm not collaborating, an Excel file is far more useful than a PDF.
It's very useful to be able to manipulate the numbers often (as in sort, ad some percentages, etc).
Ideally a CSV would work, but Excel has some very stupid opening policies and can permanently change the file on open.
I new someone that pretty much exclusively used an iPad with a keyboard for editing.
They weren't doing massive amounts, but daily updates to a website and interacting with potential clients.
She preferred the computer for the website, but not enough to use it exclusively since the iPad was so convenient.
Agreed.
I upgraded to get band 12, and then a again for 70 (or whatever the new one is).
Major improvement with TMobile in some areas.
Thanks for correcting my ignorance.
I assume stable means same government for a long time.
For example Saudi Arabia's birthrate is about median and only 50% higher than the US.
I suspect there's not a great education system for women there (but honestly, I don't really know).
From your own post it seems stable government is key.
You mention areas with civil unrest having high rates for example. You also mention functioning schools.
It's almost certainly better than straight up cord cutting and not even having a chance for the ad views.
I suspect the status quo of the 90s was what's best for them though.
Losing out on the 10 billion/year from cable companies won't be good for them.
I assume part of the 10 billion in fees makes it to content creators.
I'm not saying all, or most, but certainly some does.
Mushrooms and DMT too.
But yeah, I've never lost track of the direction time flows with pot.
I guess they got better and I look dumb.
I see a 2.2k and a 3.5k now.
When I was first looking, I swear they were like 1200, and it seemed pointless. The true zoom camera was a disappointment too.
The bod batteries were pretty non-compelling.
They already had decent battery life and the mod only was a tiny bit extra.
I went the other way.
I started with Hue bulbs, that felt really expensive at first but as time went on felt very much worth it (controlling color temperature and having my bedroom lights slowly turn on to wake me up was nice, I then added switches and lit the rest of the house), I got 2 home minis and a screen a week ago, and it's great.
I feel stupid talking to it, but it's really nice having an integrated control all over my house to listen to podcasts as I wander, check the temperature, control the temperature, and the lights. Though things like the lights are a little bit of a nuisance.