Patient dying is an obvious failure state, because it means you cannot extract money from the patient. Have you tried going beyond the "profit equals evil" and into "logic" yet? Keeping the target alive is the obvious goal for both profit minded and non-profit.
The problem comes from not from keeping target alive, but from methodology chosen to do so. In game theory, its better to keep target alive by keeping the disease under control and patient in need of medication, rather than curing the ailment outright. Even if it's more expensive. Which is exactly the point GS makes.
No, but they have an inquisition staring them down, looking for any sign of face crime. Should any of them so much as flinch, they'll be crucified as "racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, [insert new favourite insult of the intersectional fanatics here]".
That movie was average at best. But it had blacks as main cast, and the same inquisition has been desperately trying to crucify Hollywood crowd for "insufficient representation of blacks at awards". Remember "Oscars so white" in spite of the fact that black representation was pretty much equal to percentage of population that blacks are in US?
And when the beast of that ferocity and insanity is ogling you, salivating in hunger for blood, you'll throw it anything to get it to look at someone else. Which is exactly what's happening there.
The main reason for this is the monopoly on the "other side". Meaning that there's some kind of a government agency is responsible for lion's share of all medicine bought on that market, either via direct purchase or various programs that mitigate costs to patients. Essentially the same thing that insurance companies do in US, but on a much larger scale.
And drugs are really cheap for insurance companies in US. It's the patients that don't have that collective bargaining power that are screwed big on pricing, coupled with the fact that insurance companies have a profit motivator as well. Meaning they don't mind it if prices of medicines go up because medicines get marginally better, because that lets them sell a more expensive insurance plan.
Opposite is true for non-profit government agency that is funded from tax money directly. That one is motivated primarily by saving money for taxpayers, as they're not selling plans to their "customers", the citizenry. The other side of the coin there is that newer medicines that actually do help are all but impossible to get without years of lobbying. Here in Finland for example, there was news on our state broadcaster today that government agency finally approved new life saving treatment for leukaemia that was available elsewhere for years. Before that, you either went to private sector and bought the treatment for list price of several hundreds of thousands of Euros, or you died if older, cheaper treatment was insufficient.
In US, people demand much faster adoption of such medicines in their insurance plans for middle class and above, which drives the costs up, but also ensures that newer treatments are available to middle class and above people much faster.
We already have that post patenting. Once a medical patent expires, copy medicine companies typically start producing it for tiny percentage of the original cost.
The "development cost" must therefore be recouped in the short period that medical patents are allowed by the company that does actual research. It's a best system we tried to date, because it compensates the researching party while motivating them, and it still allows for very cheap medical products after patents expire.
Please stop regurgitating the nonsense about Scandinavia. We have almost no research companies here in Finland, it's all copy medicines producers like Orion Pharma. And apothecaries are literally the wealthiest among the populations (factual knowledge, tax authority publishes yearly tax income for all people in the country, and every year, it's the pharmacists with licenses on top for people who are working and not in the investing/CEO level "management"), because that industry is 100% permit based with permits granted by the government, effectively providing a handful of fat cats with a massive monopoly and license to print money.
The only reason it's not utterly insane is because most people don't buy medicines that aren't a part of state's assistance program for buying medicines, which means that they are more or less forced to negotiate with large agency that also holds monopoly over the other end of the market over pricing. So it's a monopoly vs a monopoly, and prices are still very high, and they are effectively getting much of their profits directly from the state.
Problem with this approach is that you will not get many (read: any) new cures. Profit motivation is rather critical for getting the best talent into the game of pharmaceutical development. Essentially you're have a public option that will be cutting edge for a few years, and then go straight down the toilet. Additionally you get into a really awful situation where your manufacturers are unable to really compete on anything but costs, which results in low quality pharmaceuticals and almost zero relevant research know-how (which is in part to blame for low quality "pirated" medicaments).
Because you seem to forget that we already have a billion plus people test group for this particular experiment. It's called India, the country that rejects medical patenting system as it exists on international markets entirely.
Modern pharmaceutical system is full of glaring problem in its current form. Your suggestion has already been tried, and it's actually worse than the current iteration in the West, even with access to Western patents and manufacturers that in theory can just steal the data.
The concept of "people with common interest overwhelmingly tend to come to the same conclusions" is one of the simplest concepts in game theory.
There's a very easy illustration of this:
Put three people in a room sitting so that they can see two other people. Tell them that you have three pieces of white tape and two pieces of black tape that will be taped to their foreheads that they will not be able to see. But they will obviously be able to see the tape on other two people's foreheads. Put white tape on all of their foreheads and tell them to figure out what tape is on their forehead.
Within a few minutes, all of them will come to conclusion that the tape is white, because they can rely on other people having the same information and same motivation.
That's the dumb thing to do. Smart thing to do is to agree with Goldman in them noting that medicine for profit is counterproductive, in that it prefers to keep people ill so it can treat them, rather than cure them.
As the age old joke goes:
Father and son talking, both are doctors.
Son: "Father, you know that woman you were treating for decades? I cured her!" Father: "Oh well, she probably deserved it. Who do you think paid for your education?"
And to add to that, the only reason why Chernobyl was as hard to shut down properly as it was, was because that reactor type used graphite as a moderator. Graphite that burns, but keeps moderating in event of runaway reaction, which maintains the chain reaction.
Modern reactors used heavy water as moderator for a very long time. If reaction runs away, water evaporates, and therefore ceases moderating the reaction, which means reaction no longer has slow neutrons to continue the chain reaction. So in event of Chernobyl like runaway reaction in a heavy water reactor, it would stop itself very quickly due to lack of ability to maintain chain reaction.
Their primary audience for "gaming laptops" in general to my understanding is "young adult males". Basically the 18-30 age bracket. Secondary is probably people of my age, between 30 and 40. Basically gamers who got used to having solid framerates with their gaming, and can afford to pay for it.
You don't need to upgrade it often either. Last generation of GPUs lasted almost three years. My GTX 960 based laptop broke recently, so I went and bought a on sale 1060 one. The upper high end ones that feature GTX xx80 models are very low volume products, generally aimed at people with more money than they know what to do with. Value proposition is just not there, at least not after GTX xx70 models in laptop format. Those have one reason to be viable, and that's allowing you to use the discreet GPU as the primary rendering device even for in built monitor, rather than having to use integrated graphics as a pass through. Even then, value on those is awful.
Most gaming laptop sales are in GTX xx60 and GTX xx50/Ti laptops, which is where value proposition is. Frame rates on those are acceptable at good quality levels in most games, while being priced in three digits for GTX xx50 models and low four digits for GTX xx60 ones. Affordable for college students and married working men with a wife approving purchases.
Considering that RTX 2060 is actually a GTX xx70 card in terms of pricing, value proposition isn't there either. The GTX 1160, or whatever nvidia will end up calling it is where value will likely be. Huang's statements are likely another desperate attempt to keep shareholders in check after horrifyingly bad quarter they had. They have a massive overstock of 1060 chips from crypto that isn't selling, and massive investment in RTX chips that don't appear to be selling nearly as well as they needed them to either. Between the crypto hangover and massively inflated pricing on the new RTX tech that has pretty much zero usefulness in gaming for reasonable lifetime of cards made today, nvidia is in a bind.
Thank you for sharing that you are also utterly ignorant of how modern civilian airliners are designed, and are utterly impenetrable to reality on top of it.
Thank you for sharing with us that you think that modern passenger aircraft can be developed in a couple of years.
In real world on the other hand, this process requires well over decade in development. Meaning that a350 was in development cycle long before any meaningful information on orders on 787 were available.
All? No. But this is site for the tech nerds. There are quite a few tech industry insiders here that can post information not available publicly as ACs.
No publicly available information is not the same thing as no available information.
Remember, he's an industry insider. Russians marketed these engines to US for a while, and that marketing most certainly included spec sheets not available to public.
You are projecting anglosphere on Finnish society. I already addressed your other claims in another post, so I'll just debunk the last one.
>The UBI group lost the 'regular' benefit programs when they got jobs anyway
False. The entire point of the test run was to let them keep the extra UBI income if they get work to see if this would make people more interested in looking for jobs. In Finland, the problem with chronic unemployment is that unemployment benefits are so big, that it's generally not worth it to get a low paid job. And if you're chronically unemployed, your chances of finding a full time well paying job are effectively zero.
Source: I provide part time employment for people as a part of my main hobby (sports related, we pay very good hourly wage in usually between 25-35EUR, this is more than some engineers get in Finland but very intermittent hours), and it's all but impossible to get unemployed and students to work for more than 300EUR cut off limit per month, because beyond that, they start losing subsidies. This is universally known and understood here in Finland, and the entire point of this test run was to see if people who got this UBI would be more willing to accept short term part time work for more than 300EUR.
300EUR is the cut off for benefits. You lose no benefits when you earn up to 300EUR per month. Beyond that, according to at least two of the people I talked to about it, they have to pay an effective tax+loss of subsidies which mean that their effective earnings go down about 75%. Meaning that if we're paying them 32EUR per hour, they have to make lots of filling of bureaucratic forms to explain the income, and then lose subsidies to the point where they will effectively earn 8EUR per hour, and they have engage in bureaucratic nightmare that is TE-toimisto and KELA on top of it.
And the unemployment benefits even for long term unemployed are bigger (over 700EUR per month) than this UBI.
Which is why I get to sit and make a lot of phone calls on some days looking for people who are sitting at home doing nothing, because not doing nothing is not worth it to them even at >30EUR/hour pay rate.
I'm a Finn. I read the original stories, including the goals, including the statements of politicians who were deciding on it like Soininvaara. Who by the way had one of the best breakdowns of the issues with the test, as he's one of the people who's completely in favour of it.
P.S. Control group earned more from jobs. People in the test group got slightly more work done. Not "jobs", but work done in hours. It doesn't actually mean that they got "more jobs". That's probably a mistranslation.
Of course it is. Stalin showed us quite well how intersectional style "no hate speech" rule set works and what it does to people and the nation. Russia before 1917 was one of the most democratic states in Europe, well on course to become a genuinely good place to live, a rapid progress from one of the worst places to live in in middle 1800s. Then far left got in power, instituted very specific rule sets which corrupted the people and the nation to end up with what was the single most horrifying genocidal event and biggest ever enslavement event of productive people.
The only thing that is surprising about people like you is that you do not learn anything form the past. But I suppose that's given. When you have a mindset of an average People's Commissar of Soviet Union, Western liberal model is an anathema that prevents you from acting on your destructive impulses, and something to be subverted by any means possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Patient dying is an obvious failure state, because it means you cannot extract money from the patient. Have you tried going beyond the "profit equals evil" and into "logic" yet? Keeping the target alive is the obvious goal for both profit minded and non-profit.
The problem comes from not from keeping target alive, but from methodology chosen to do so. In game theory, its better to keep target alive by keeping the disease under control and patient in need of medication, rather than curing the ailment outright. Even if it's more expensive. Which is exactly the point GS makes.
No, but they have an inquisition staring them down, looking for any sign of face crime. Should any of them so much as flinch, they'll be crucified as "racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, [insert new favourite insult of the intersectional fanatics here]".
That movie was average at best. But it had blacks as main cast, and the same inquisition has been desperately trying to crucify Hollywood crowd for "insufficient representation of blacks at awards". Remember "Oscars so white" in spite of the fact that black representation was pretty much equal to percentage of population that blacks are in US?
And when the beast of that ferocity and insanity is ogling you, salivating in hunger for blood, you'll throw it anything to get it to look at someone else. Which is exactly what's happening there.
The main reason for this is the monopoly on the "other side". Meaning that there's some kind of a government agency is responsible for lion's share of all medicine bought on that market, either via direct purchase or various programs that mitigate costs to patients. Essentially the same thing that insurance companies do in US, but on a much larger scale.
And drugs are really cheap for insurance companies in US. It's the patients that don't have that collective bargaining power that are screwed big on pricing, coupled with the fact that insurance companies have a profit motivator as well. Meaning they don't mind it if prices of medicines go up because medicines get marginally better, because that lets them sell a more expensive insurance plan.
Opposite is true for non-profit government agency that is funded from tax money directly. That one is motivated primarily by saving money for taxpayers, as they're not selling plans to their "customers", the citizenry. The other side of the coin there is that newer medicines that actually do help are all but impossible to get without years of lobbying. Here in Finland for example, there was news on our state broadcaster today that government agency finally approved new life saving treatment for leukaemia that was available elsewhere for years. Before that, you either went to private sector and bought the treatment for list price of several hundreds of thousands of Euros, or you died if older, cheaper treatment was insufficient.
In US, people demand much faster adoption of such medicines in their insurance plans for middle class and above, which drives the costs up, but also ensures that newer treatments are available to middle class and above people much faster.
We already have that post patenting. Once a medical patent expires, copy medicine companies typically start producing it for tiny percentage of the original cost.
The "development cost" must therefore be recouped in the short period that medical patents are allowed by the company that does actual research. It's a best system we tried to date, because it compensates the researching party while motivating them, and it still allows for very cheap medical products after patents expire.
Please stop regurgitating the nonsense about Scandinavia. We have almost no research companies here in Finland, it's all copy medicines producers like Orion Pharma. And apothecaries are literally the wealthiest among the populations (factual knowledge, tax authority publishes yearly tax income for all people in the country, and every year, it's the pharmacists with licenses on top for people who are working and not in the investing/CEO level "management"), because that industry is 100% permit based with permits granted by the government, effectively providing a handful of fat cats with a massive monopoly and license to print money.
The only reason it's not utterly insane is because most people don't buy medicines that aren't a part of state's assistance program for buying medicines, which means that they are more or less forced to negotiate with large agency that also holds monopoly over the other end of the market over pricing. So it's a monopoly vs a monopoly, and prices are still very high, and they are effectively getting much of their profits directly from the state.
Problem with this approach is that you will not get many (read: any) new cures. Profit motivation is rather critical for getting the best talent into the game of pharmaceutical development. Essentially you're have a public option that will be cutting edge for a few years, and then go straight down the toilet. Additionally you get into a really awful situation where your manufacturers are unable to really compete on anything but costs, which results in low quality pharmaceuticals and almost zero relevant research know-how (which is in part to blame for low quality "pirated" medicaments).
Because you seem to forget that we already have a billion plus people test group for this particular experiment. It's called India, the country that rejects medical patenting system as it exists on international markets entirely.
Modern pharmaceutical system is full of glaring problem in its current form. Your suggestion has already been tried, and it's actually worse than the current iteration in the West, even with access to Western patents and manufacturers that in theory can just steal the data.
Universities do not have budgets necessary for practical large scale pharmaceutical research.
The concept of "people with common interest overwhelmingly tend to come to the same conclusions" is one of the simplest concepts in game theory.
There's a very easy illustration of this:
Put three people in a room sitting so that they can see two other people. Tell them that you have three pieces of white tape and two pieces of black tape that will be taped to their foreheads that they will not be able to see. But they will obviously be able to see the tape on other two people's foreheads. Put white tape on all of their foreheads and tell them to figure out what tape is on their forehead.
Within a few minutes, all of them will come to conclusion that the tape is white, because they can rely on other people having the same information and same motivation.
But you don't have a cure for either in that company, so that is a pointless thing to say.
That's the dumb thing to do. Smart thing to do is to agree with Goldman in them noting that medicine for profit is counterproductive, in that it prefers to keep people ill so it can treat them, rather than cure them.
As the age old joke goes:
Father and son talking, both are doctors.
Son: "Father, you know that woman you were treating for decades? I cured her!"
Father: "Oh well, she probably deserved it. Who do you think paid for your education?"
And to add to that, the only reason why Chernobyl was as hard to shut down properly as it was, was because that reactor type used graphite as a moderator. Graphite that burns, but keeps moderating in event of runaway reaction, which maintains the chain reaction.
Modern reactors used heavy water as moderator for a very long time. If reaction runs away, water evaporates, and therefore ceases moderating the reaction, which means reaction no longer has slow neutrons to continue the chain reaction. So in event of Chernobyl like runaway reaction in a heavy water reactor, it would stop itself very quickly due to lack of ability to maintain chain reaction.
Yes. An obvious joke at that.
That's a serious burn. Green and glowing!
Their primary audience for "gaming laptops" in general to my understanding is "young adult males". Basically the 18-30 age bracket. Secondary is probably people of my age, between 30 and 40. Basically gamers who got used to having solid framerates with their gaming, and can afford to pay for it.
You don't need to upgrade it often either. Last generation of GPUs lasted almost three years. My GTX 960 based laptop broke recently, so I went and bought a on sale 1060 one. The upper high end ones that feature GTX xx80 models are very low volume products, generally aimed at people with more money than they know what to do with. Value proposition is just not there, at least not after GTX xx70 models in laptop format. Those have one reason to be viable, and that's allowing you to use the discreet GPU as the primary rendering device even for in built monitor, rather than having to use integrated graphics as a pass through. Even then, value on those is awful.
Most gaming laptop sales are in GTX xx60 and GTX xx50/Ti laptops, which is where value proposition is. Frame rates on those are acceptable at good quality levels in most games, while being priced in three digits for GTX xx50 models and low four digits for GTX xx60 ones. Affordable for college students and married working men with a wife approving purchases.
Considering that RTX 2060 is actually a GTX xx70 card in terms of pricing, value proposition isn't there either. The GTX 1160, or whatever nvidia will end up calling it is where value will likely be. Huang's statements are likely another desperate attempt to keep shareholders in check after horrifyingly bad quarter they had. They have a massive overstock of 1060 chips from crypto that isn't selling, and massive investment in RTX chips that don't appear to be selling nearly as well as they needed them to either. Between the crypto hangover and massively inflated pricing on the new RTX tech that has pretty much zero usefulness in gaming for reasonable lifetime of cards made today, nvidia is in a bind.
Thank you for sharing that you are also utterly ignorant of how modern civilian airliners are designed, and are utterly impenetrable to reality on top of it.
Thank you for sharing with us that you think that modern passenger aircraft can be developed in a couple of years.
In real world on the other hand, this process requires well over decade in development. Meaning that a350 was in development cycle long before any meaningful information on orders on 787 were available.
Airbus made the same bet with A350. It competes for the same segment as 787.
All? No. But this is site for the tech nerds. There are quite a few tech industry insiders here that can post information not available publicly as ACs.
No publicly available information is not the same thing as no available information.
Remember, he's an industry insider. Russians marketed these engines to US for a while, and that marketing most certainly included spec sheets not available to public.
You are projecting anglosphere on Finnish society. I already addressed your other claims in another post, so I'll just debunk the last one.
>The UBI group lost the 'regular' benefit programs when they got jobs anyway
False. The entire point of the test run was to let them keep the extra UBI income if they get work to see if this would make people more interested in looking for jobs. In Finland, the problem with chronic unemployment is that unemployment benefits are so big, that it's generally not worth it to get a low paid job. And if you're chronically unemployed, your chances of finding a full time well paying job are effectively zero.
Source: I provide part time employment for people as a part of my main hobby (sports related, we pay very good hourly wage in usually between 25-35EUR, this is more than some engineers get in Finland but very intermittent hours), and it's all but impossible to get unemployed and students to work for more than 300EUR cut off limit per month, because beyond that, they start losing subsidies. This is universally known and understood here in Finland, and the entire point of this test run was to see if people who got this UBI would be more willing to accept short term part time work for more than 300EUR.
300EUR is the cut off for benefits. You lose no benefits when you earn up to 300EUR per month. Beyond that, according to at least two of the people I talked to about it, they have to pay an effective tax+loss of subsidies which mean that their effective earnings go down about 75%. Meaning that if we're paying them 32EUR per hour, they have to make lots of filling of bureaucratic forms to explain the income, and then lose subsidies to the point where they will effectively earn 8EUR per hour, and they have engage in bureaucratic nightmare that is TE-toimisto and KELA on top of it.
And the unemployment benefits even for long term unemployed are bigger (over 700EUR per month) than this UBI.
Which is why I get to sit and make a lot of phone calls on some days looking for people who are sitting at home doing nothing, because not doing nothing is not worth it to them even at >30EUR/hour pay rate.
I'm a Finn. I read the original stories, including the goals, including the statements of politicians who were deciding on it like Soininvaara. Who by the way had one of the best breakdowns of the issues with the test, as he's one of the people who's completely in favour of it.
http://www.soininvaara.fi/2019...
P.S. Control group earned more from jobs. People in the test group got slightly more work done. Not "jobs", but work done in hours. It doesn't actually mean that they got "more jobs". That's probably a mistranslation.
Good argumentation.
Of course it is. Stalin showed us quite well how intersectional style "no hate speech" rule set works and what it does to people and the nation. Russia before 1917 was one of the most democratic states in Europe, well on course to become a genuinely good place to live, a rapid progress from one of the worst places to live in in middle 1800s. Then far left got in power, instituted very specific rule sets which corrupted the people and the nation to end up with what was the single most horrifying genocidal event and biggest ever enslavement event of productive people.
The only thing that is surprising about people like you is that you do not learn anything form the past. But I suppose that's given. When you have a mindset of an average People's Commissar of Soviet Union, Western liberal model is an anathema that prevents you from acting on your destructive impulses, and something to be subverted by any means possible.
"Don't be evil" was cancelled a long time ago.
Hate speech is completely legal. You bought far left propaganda.