You are confusing oncologist with pathologist. Pathologists study existing samples for existing conditions. I.e. signs of tumours, which if found are analysed to find out if tumour is benign or malignant.
Oncologist is the one that "gazes into the future" to figure out the optimal treatment.
One is the doctor who's job is solely to analyse the sample for existing conditions. Other is the doctor that formulates the diagnosis based on, among other things, pathologist's report and then formulate the treatment plan. In most cases, pathologists never even meet the patient. It's not their job to handle patients. They handle samples.
P.S. Of course it's done all the time. I was answering a very specific question that made absurd claim that it's hard to figure what out specific pathologist's success rate is. Just like you, they appeared to have confused oncologist with pathologist. Asking for a second opinion is routine in medicine. Especially pathologist/radiologist etc specialist who's job is to merely look for specific markers in the least clear samples.
Accuracy of diagnosis. In case of a pathologist, this isn't about curing people. It's about being correct in one's diagnosis of potentially having specific kinds of cancer. You're confusing oncologist, the doctor who actually works on cancer treatment with pathologist, the people who's only job is to analyse the sample in front of him for pathological elements that shouldn't be there in healthy sample.
You take one sample, split it in two, get a doctor you want to test analyse one sample, get other analysed by trusted expert/panel of experts. Do that across notable amount of samples. You now have success rate for this specific pathologist.
That's not going to happen. It's not even remotely cost effective. These people go for places with hydro because hydro is ridiculously cheap once installed.
Solar is expensive. In comparison to hydro right near the dam, extremely expensive.
Literally, every case when it works. You can pick one, worldwide. There are enough examples so that if you threw a dart at the map of the big cities in the world's more developed cities, you're likely to hit one.
Because he isn't challenging a ruling that blocks you from being made liable to be fined for robocalling every time you dialled a wrong number on your smartphone?
Trump derangement syndrome really does make people say the weirdest things.
They haven't actually proven that, because CIA certainly doesn't let its crew participate, nor does GRU.
Chinese were basically that up and coming country that didn't yet control it's top talent, and allowed it to become targets for foreign agencies through competitions like this. Now they passed that development stage and keep their top NatSec talent out of sight, just like everyone else is.
It's a good thing I don't have to care about "America's likes and dislikes". And the fact that you consistently refuse to answer a question central to your claims demonstrates your awareness of the fact that your claims are false.
You once again are suggesting that "rest of the world, every single case where it works regardless of location" is not evidence.
Instead you suggest that libertarian hypotheses that you're spouting are somehow correct, even though in real world reduction in rent controls in relation to overheated real estate market is known to have severely negative consequences.
You actually conflated "rent seeking" in the economics terminology with actual real estate rentals in light of rent controls. Wow. That is top tier ignorance.
If you think it's "slightly better", you are either utterly ignorant of reality just a hundred years ago, much less a few centuries ago. Or you're trolling.
The fact that you don't even understand the difference between judicial and executive pretty much underscores just how little knowledge you actually have.
To suggest that "building more houses that are rented to the worse off people" does not control rent by reducing the demand on housing is patently absurd. The primary reason why rent goes up is because there's more demand than supply. By reducing demand and increasing supply, you affect the very basis of pricing.
As for the rest of it, you can always spin the numbers in the other direction, as the article does. Reality is, rent controls and subsidised housing exist not only outside SF, they even exist outside US. They even exist outside North American continent. And when applied correctly, they work.
One of the best inventions is universal education system, and other methods of removal of systemic obstacles. We no longer live in the society where birthright is everything. That was the time of the aristocracy, and it's long gone.
It's telling how well we have done when "poor" are people who have housing, heating, never go hungry and can afford smartphones.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. My home nation of Finland.
Are you done being pointlessly pedantic?
You are confusing oncologist with pathologist. Pathologists study existing samples for existing conditions. I.e. signs of tumours, which if found are analysed to find out if tumour is benign or malignant.
Oncologist is the one that "gazes into the future" to figure out the optimal treatment.
One is the doctor who's job is solely to analyse the sample for existing conditions. Other is the doctor that formulates the diagnosis based on, among other things, pathologist's report and then formulate the treatment plan. In most cases, pathologists never even meet the patient. It's not their job to handle patients. They handle samples.
P.S. Of course it's done all the time. I was answering a very specific question that made absurd claim that it's hard to figure what out specific pathologist's success rate is. Just like you, they appeared to have confused oncologist with pathologist. Asking for a second opinion is routine in medicine. Especially pathologist/radiologist etc specialist who's job is to merely look for specific markers in the least clear samples.
Negative. Expensive even after installed. You still need to maintain, and you still need to deal with intermittent supply as it's unfit for base load.
Hydro once installed is incredibly cheap. Very low maintenance, and so stable that it can even be used as spinning reserve in addition to base load.
And in this case, they make no sense whatsoever, duh.
Accuracy of diagnosis. In case of a pathologist, this isn't about curing people. It's about being correct in one's diagnosis of potentially having specific kinds of cancer. You're confusing oncologist, the doctor who actually works on cancer treatment with pathologist, the people who's only job is to analyse the sample in front of him for pathological elements that shouldn't be there in healthy sample.
You take one sample, split it in two, get a doctor you want to test analyse one sample, get other analysed by trusted expert/panel of experts. Do that across notable amount of samples. You now have success rate for this specific pathologist.
That's not going to happen. It's not even remotely cost effective. These people go for places with hydro because hydro is ridiculously cheap once installed.
Solar is expensive. In comparison to hydro right near the dam, extremely expensive.
Literally, every case when it works. You can pick one, worldwide. There are enough examples so that if you threw a dart at the map of the big cities in the world's more developed cities, you're likely to hit one.
Because he isn't challenging a ruling that blocks you from being made liable to be fined for robocalling every time you dialled a wrong number on your smartphone?
Trump derangement syndrome really does make people say the weirdest things.
They haven't actually proven that, because CIA certainly doesn't let its crew participate, nor does GRU.
Chinese were basically that up and coming country that didn't yet control it's top talent, and allowed it to become targets for foreign agencies through competitions like this. Now they passed that development stage and keep their top NatSec talent out of sight, just like everyone else is.
That one has been very weird, considering that some advertisers were reporting that they were unable to advertise even through they wanted to.
It always feels good to hit the nerve of an asshole like you.
It's a good thing I don't have to care about "America's likes and dislikes". And the fact that you consistently refuse to answer a question central to your claims demonstrates your awareness of the fact that your claims are false.
You once again are suggesting that "rest of the world, every single case where it works regardless of location" is not evidence.
Instead you suggest that libertarian hypotheses that you're spouting are somehow correct, even though in real world reduction in rent controls in relation to overheated real estate market is known to have severely negative consequences.
You still didn't answer the question.
You actually conflated "rent seeking" in the economics terminology with actual real estate rentals in light of rent controls. Wow. That is top tier ignorance.
If you think it's "slightly better", you are either utterly ignorant of reality just a hundred years ago, much less a few centuries ago. Or you're trolling.
You didn't answer the question.
The fact that you don't even understand the difference between judicial and executive pretty much underscores just how little knowledge you actually have.
I want to read news from my favourite news sites. I just click open bookmarks, mouseover my favourite site and scan the headlines.
Welcome to firefox RSS bookmarks integration.
Pretty much this. One of the few remaining reasons to use firefox. The integration of RSS into bookmarks is excellent.
To suggest that "building more houses that are rented to the worse off people" does not control rent by reducing the demand on housing is patently absurd. The primary reason why rent goes up is because there's more demand than supply. By reducing demand and increasing supply, you affect the very basis of pricing.
As for the rest of it, you can always spin the numbers in the other direction, as the article does. Reality is, rent controls and subsidised housing exist not only outside SF, they even exist outside US. They even exist outside North American continent. And when applied correctly, they work.
One of the best inventions is universal education system, and other methods of removal of systemic obstacles. We no longer live in the society where birthright is everything. That was the time of the aristocracy, and it's long gone.
It's telling how well we have done when "poor" are people who have housing, heating, never go hungry and can afford smartphones.
You must be utterly unaware of the system and basic principles on which it is built to not believe it.
Which system would you suggest that actually worked in human history that would be a better one?
Which brings us to "insufficient rent controls" problem, as rent control systems are usually coupled with building of subsidized housing.