The problem, of course, is that Disney is evolving into the most liberal, subversive, and prosperous studio on the block.
Is it really? I wonder if you had anything specific in mind?
Maybe I'm just not as familiar with their movies, but my impression seems to be quite the opposite, especially with Disney/Marvel - war is awesome (fuck yea!), women are for decoration and/or manpain, gay people don't exist - isn't that about as non-liberal a viewpoint as it gets?
Aren't they just now starting to get out of the "token black guy" phase?
Cable (as in TV, not internet) cutters have to pay $30 for unlimited data. If you also pay for spoon-fed propaganda, er, I mean, TV, then you don't have to pay any *extra* to avoid the cap.
They provide two levels of service, to get the better service you either pay more money or also purchase a separate service from them.
What part of this is the outrage? This is just how buying things works.
When some companies had caps on "unlimited" plan, that was obvious bullshit. (I hit the cap with Comcast a couple of times, they told me that bandwidth wasn't the aspect of the service that was unlimited)
A modern CRC32 implementation, on a modern CPU can reach a throughput of 10GB/s (https://blog.fastmail.com/2015/12/03/the-search-for-a-faster-crc32/), I really doubt that's much of a bottleneck.
Interestingly, all the confident proclamations about AI we hear these days are made by tech field "thought leaders", "futurists", and other such rabble.
I have not heard any from actual AI researchers in quite some time.
Julia is a useful niche language with a sizable community, not some bullshit vanity project. Unfortunately it has not chance of dislodging R, and I'll never understand the decision to make it dynamic, but it fills a role that nothing else does, at the moment.
Also, I have no idea what you think the word "hipster" means, or why you're so angry about it.
"this is our development cost for the drug, these are our costs for developing failed drugs, +30% profit margin."
That's not how for-profit companies work. Literally not a single company in the world operates that way.
Who is it, that you think will invest $2.5B into something that will take a decade and will almost certainly fail, on the promise of a 30% profit?
How VERY KIND it is for that company to lower the price to affordability for foreigners while screwing over their own countrymen by charging rates here that challenge even the deepest US pockets.
Yes, how truly awful for the US to contribute something positive to the rest of the world, for once.
In late 2020's instead of RIGHT NOW. D'you realize how much human misery that delay means?
Do you realize that that misery exists independently of Gilead, and they're the only ones to have done anything about it? They pulled together an insane amount of money and effort (and luck) and made a huge impact on that misery now and will likely help eradicate it in a few years. A single cured person is a positive change.
You, on the other hand, have opinions about what they should be "allowed" to charge, because you can imagine some ideal society where all of this is magically taken care of by state money.
In short: I know plenty of scientists who would be willing to work for nothing more than the betterment of society, but I don't know any investors who would contribute billions of dollars for the same goal.
not how much they should sell it for to recoup their costs and make a reasonable profit, but by how much they thought they could/should get
That's literally the definition of capitalism. You know, that thing our entire way of life is based on.
Personally, I think all drugs ought to be developed with public research dollars.
Awesome! Please enclose your plan to increase NIH funding five-fold. Oh, and I guess also your plan to legally prevent private companies from investing in medical research... because apparently that's how our socialist planned economy works.
There's less incentive to work on PROFITABLE drugs and work on IMPORTANT drugs.(Think cures for cancer instead of Viagra.)
Can you name one other $1B+/year drug that you deem to be "unimportant"? Do you honestly think that a cure for any moderately common cancer wouldn't be stupendously profitable?
There's less incentive to falsify the result of drug trials so that you can get FDA approval and be able to sell the drugs
How many drugs can you name that were brought to market based on falsified results?
And, when a really cool drug is developed, such as the cure for HepC, EVERYONE gets it immediately, and Hepatitis C is eradicated or nearly eradicated.
As it stands, this will happen in the late 2020s when sofosbuvir goes off patent. Currently, it is licensed for generic manufacture in 90 developing countries, covering a patient population of 100 million.
That's 100 million people that would be shit out of luck in your magical world of wishful thinking and unicorn farts.
Slashdot Mirror
blacks, colored people or whatever the politically correct term today is
It's none of those. Try again.
The monkey was paralyzed, and died 9 days later - that is a pretty low bar for "successful".
The problem, of course, is that Disney is evolving into the most liberal, subversive, and prosperous studio on the block.
Is it really? I wonder if you had anything specific in mind?
Maybe I'm just not as familiar with their movies, but my impression seems to be quite the opposite, especially with Disney/Marvel - war is awesome (fuck yea!), women are for decoration and/or manpain, gay people don't exist - isn't that about as non-liberal a viewpoint as it gets?
Aren't they just now starting to get out of the "token black guy" phase?
That was my point - what Comcast was doing was bullshit, but how is it relevant to this article?
I'd like to get the unlimited internet minus the $30 TV service, thank you.
I'd like fully bidirectional 200Mbps for $25/month.
What are we playing?
Cable (as in TV, not internet) cutters have to pay $30 for unlimited data. If you also pay for spoon-fed propaganda, er, I mean, TV, then you don't have to pay any *extra* to avoid the cap.
And?
They provide two levels of service, to get the better service you either pay more money or also purchase a separate service from them.
What part of this is the outrage? This is just how buying things works.
When some companies had caps on "unlimited" plan, that was obvious bullshit. (I hit the cap with Comcast a couple of times, they told me that bandwidth wasn't the aspect of the service that was unlimited)
What's all the whining about here, though?
A modern CRC32 implementation, on a modern CPU can reach a throughput of 10GB/s (https://blog.fastmail.com/2015/12/03/the-search-for-a-faster-crc32/), I really doubt that's much of a bottleneck.
I'll probably skip that one...
I have not heard any from actual AI researchers in quite some time.
Soo... "non-evidence evidence"?
What is actually wrong with you?
Julia is a useful niche language with a sizable community, not some bullshit vanity project. Unfortunately it has not chance of dislodging R, and I'll never understand the decision to make it dynamic, but it fills a role that nothing else does, at the moment.
Also, I have no idea what you think the word "hipster" means, or why you're so angry about it.
Considering that an F-16 is "capable of carrying nuclear weapons", that's not all that impressive in a bomber.
2. If you are using names make sure you know which one is greater. Ubuntu method of going up alphabetically is a good example.
I use Medoc Grads Crus in increasing order of subjective quality - pretty much as obvious as it gets.
Are... are you OK? Anything we can do to help?
Google is getting some heat from search engines like DuckDuckGo
Oh yeah, they're really feeling the heat there. Can't even tell you how many times in a given week I hear "Let me just DuckDuckGo that!".
For reference, DDG's search volume is somewhere around 0.2% that of Google's.
"this is our development cost for the drug, these are our costs for developing failed drugs, +30% profit margin."
That's not how for-profit companies work. Literally not a single company in the world operates that way.
Who is it, that you think will invest $2.5B into something that will take a decade and will almost certainly fail, on the promise of a 30% profit?
How VERY KIND it is for that company to lower the price to affordability for foreigners while screwing over their own countrymen by charging rates here that challenge even the deepest US pockets.
Yes, how truly awful for the US to contribute something positive to the rest of the world, for once.
In late 2020's instead of RIGHT NOW. D'you realize how much human misery that delay means?
Do you realize that that misery exists independently of Gilead, and they're the only ones to have done anything about it? They pulled together an insane amount of money and effort (and luck) and made a huge impact on that misery now and will likely help eradicate it in a few years. A single cured person is a positive change.
You, on the other hand, have opinions about what they should be "allowed" to charge, because you can imagine some ideal society where all of this is magically taken care of by state money.
In short: I know plenty of scientists who would be willing to work for nothing more than the betterment of society, but I don't know any investors who would contribute billions of dollars for the same goal.
not how much they should sell it for to recoup their costs and make a reasonable profit, but by how much they thought they could/should get
That's literally the definition of capitalism. You know, that thing our entire way of life is based on.
Personally, I think all drugs ought to be developed with public research dollars.
Awesome! Please enclose your plan to increase NIH funding five-fold. Oh, and I guess also your plan to legally prevent private companies from investing in medical research... because apparently that's how our socialist planned economy works.
There's less incentive to work on PROFITABLE drugs and work on IMPORTANT drugs.(Think cures for cancer instead of Viagra.)
Can you name one other $1B+/year drug that you deem to be "unimportant"? Do you honestly think that a cure for any moderately common cancer wouldn't be stupendously profitable?
There's less incentive to falsify the result of drug trials so that you can get FDA approval and be able to sell the drugs
How many drugs can you name that were brought to market based on falsified results?
And, when a really cool drug is developed, such as the cure for HepC, EVERYONE gets it immediately, and Hepatitis C is eradicated or nearly eradicated.
As it stands, this will happen in the late 2020s when sofosbuvir goes off patent. Currently, it is licensed for generic manufacture in 90 developing countries, covering a patient population of 100 million.
That's 100 million people that would be shit out of luck in your magical world of wishful thinking and unicorn farts.
I don't know what makes me sadder: that he used that word or that it apparently is a word.
I feel sadder for the poor fellow who apparently spontaneously disassociated into a cloud of particles.
But, but... this absurdly impractical technical solution would save whole minutes of mild annoyance!
So every single vulnerability from now on is getting an idiotic media name?
We can't have CVE-1234, no no, must be RageBoner or PantShitter or no one will take it seriously!
The last one would obviously be: venumr.js
Come on, dude...
If you fail a launch abort test, does that mean you had a successful launch?
It's sad to seeing people switch from Rust to Nim
To be fair, it's not "people", it's just that one guy.