It is typical that after the initial treatment they reduce the drugs, sometimes down to only one. But during initial treatment, it is almost never just one drug. Even for the very old.
Technology doesn't kill jobs, it creates them. ALWAYS. But the new jobs require more skill, so there is a lag while people retrain.
200 years ago there was no such thing as a regularly paid professional sports. The closest we came was the roman gladiators that received endorsement contracts and occasionally a retired gladiator (usually a slave that had won his freedom) was paid large sums of money to return to the ring.
Now we pay our athletes huge sums of money. Not counting the agents and all the other related new jobs.
From the day we became farmers instead of merely hunter gathers, Jobs come from the desire for things, not the needs of society.
And human desire is boundless, not limited by a set amount of food, clothing, etc. Give us all a sex robot and we will demand two - for a threesome of course.
Rest assured, trust in human GREED it will never run out, there will always be jobs.
That's my point. The study did not talk about the money at all, it just mentioned the quality and the expectancy. So if the study did not use the accepted standard practice of estimating cost, than having 'no net difference' could be a HUGE benefit if it cost even 10% less.
1) Quality of life improves vs existing treatment. 2) Improved life expectancy improves vs. existing treatment. 3) Saves money improves vs. existing treatment without decreasing life expectancy. Many drugs use the non-existence of competition to charge ridiculous amounts of money. Sometimes new drugs are made just to compete with them.
They answered 2 of the 3 possible reasons. Need to prove the third was not valid.
While it is true that many smart people get smart by doing that, you have made many errors.
1) Not all smart people are rich, and not all rich people are smart. The world is full of MANY MANY rich people that waste money on stupid luxuries. See musicians, sports stars, whatever the hell the Kardashians do, lottery winners, spoiled children of entrepreneurs, for solid evidence.
2) I never mentioned rich people, I mentioned people making 1 million a year. Many of them are poor - exactly because they waste it on stupid luxuries.
A simple thing can not simulate a complex thing. That is inherent in the concept of simluation and complexity.
For this reason, all simulations use complexity as currency - they only use it when they need it.
In a weather pattern simulator, they don't bother to simulate people at high complexity. In a war game, they don't bother to simulate the weather in high complexity.
Our universe has uniform complexity, EVERYTHING is complex, not just one thing. Human actions, thought, fluid dynamics, subatomic reactions, animal behavior, disease, everything. As such we can not be a simulation, because too much simulation ability is being wasted on too many different things.
It's like a house was built out of gold, including the foundation, pipes, everything. You don't do that. You build the parts people see out of gold, and use less expensive stuff for the rest.
Much smarter to simply put a 100% tax on them. You want to buy an internal combustion vehicle? If you want it badly enough PAY for it.
If you aren't willing to pay the money then buy electric.
Also, you don't have to deal with some agency deciding who is truly in need of an internal combustion error. People that use powered parachutes, or four wheel drive vehicles for people that live in the middle of a national forest with no electricity for miles.
Look, the far majority of people are not tech workers. They don't need to know what an IP address is, let alone a MAC - a url is sufficient. For those people, a refresh button is not helpful (except psychologically)
But not everyone is like that. Some people actually know a bit about software and hardware. They want and need controls, and refresh is the main one they want
It's not the cow that is the problem, it's the bacteria.
Cows are big and take a long time to reproduce - 9 months to give birth, then 7 months to become fertile.
Bacteria are small, easier to fiddle with their genetics, and can reproduce in minutes.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that we should be genetically engineering the Archaea DNA, not the cows. Change the Archaea so that it loves the current cow environment but does not produce methane.
Makes more sense than changing the cow and hoping the Archaea does not evolve to like the new cows.
"Besides, it seems to me if you build an electronic brain that works like a human brain, it is going to have all the problems a human brain has (years of teaching, distraction, mental illness, and a propensity for error)."
Is the single truest statement about AI I have read in a long time.
I would also add in addition to list (teaching, distraction...)
logical fallacies, including blind loyalty, confirmation bias, etc. quarrelsome (among themselves) greed
First of all, the issues with weakly typed language poorly designed overloading by developers used to strongly typed construction.
For example, a common error is writing something like this:
add_function (3, "1")
And the result is the string 31 instead of 4, because some idiot overloaded the + function so that while it adds numbers, it also concatenates strings.
This is a overloading problem, not a type problem, but some fools won't realize that. Yes, if the function had a requirement of only accepting numerical strings it would have caught the error, but that is not the problem cause. The problem was that you should never overload a numerical operation to do anything but return an error when it is fed something besides a number. That's asking for hidden bugs later on.
In addition, this study only went looking for errors caused by week typing, rather than also checking for the errors caused by strong typing.
Here is a simple thing - a week typing language can easily add an integer and a float. It comes out with a float. But a strong typed language should return an error as they are different numerical types. In a very strongly typed language, you can't add an integer and a float, you need to convert one from the other.
But this problem has occurred so often, people started overloading "strongly" typed language with auto conversion. In part because we have a loner history dealing with strongly typed languages - originally we didn't have the memory to deal with anything except strong typing. Now we do, but don't have the proper experience.
You make your business public, you keep the disruption secret.
In Netflix case, they kept their incredibly huge profits secret. Everyone knew what they did, but they thought it was barely profitable, Netflix was founded in 1997, 20 years ago. By 2000, Blockbuster offered them a whopping $50 million for it. Sounds like a lot, for a 3 year old company.
Two years later they went public, getting more than $80 million. And they kept founder shares, allowing them to retain control. No one that is considering going public at $80 million+ and keeping control in 2002 would accept a mere $50 million to sell out.
That's how Netflix took down Blockbuster. They kept their huge profits secret till they went public. By that time it was too late for Blockbuster video rental store (Yes, they really did have a store that rented movies.)
Now, everyone tries to brag in order to get money. It's self defeating. If you are truly a disruptive technology, you should be working your ass to keep that secret. Claim you expect to get 20% of the market, not 80%.
While your view is interesting, it has two issues.
1) It assumes there is a reasonable next action or small set of reasonable next actions. Often way too many other actions are reasonable.
2) It has a tendency to paternalistically tell people what their next action should be, with a bias towards what the company wants (hence CNN's evil "keep my video around" technique).
3) It is a lot easier to figure out what people want after they did an action (my technique) instead of trying to predict what they want before they take the action.
You don't understand what I am saying. I was not saying that you should actively hang out with losers. It's not someone saying "Hey, lets go to the loser's table." Instead, it is a someone discovering that they happen to be at the loser's table and did not realize it until it was too late.
Whenever you are the best in the room, it doesn't mean you are superior, it just means you happened to be surrounded by people that were not as good as you. That ALWAYS happens. It is the what it means to win.
I am also not advocating people stop competing as you seem to think. Instead I advocate competing against yourself, not others. That is why I say you should be rewarded for trying hard.
"Minimum wage was not and is not intended to be a wage for four people."
That statement is nonsensical. It's like saying "Horses are not intended to be ridden."
Is there some special law requiring companies to pay you more if you have 2 children? No? Then YES, minimum wage is intended to support four people.
Horses are ridden and similarly, many people support two children with two minimum wage jobs, as per my example.
But all of that is totally irrelevant. The topic is "Do states benefit from tax deals for businesses." And the answer to that is no. These deals always give low paying jobs that are temporary, not permanent.
P.S. You ignored the fact that in my actual example I had two people earning minimum wage to support two children.
Some designs encourage "errors". For example, the practice of making the "Close this window" button small and hard to see on advertisements.
You can of course do the opposite, making it big and red. Part of this involves making major decisions AFTER the product has been tested.
Good design should not be focused on "if the user wants this, they should do that." Instead it should reverse the process, asking "If the user does this, what is it they want?"
A good example is the horrendous, evil "Video that refuses to scroll away." When the user scrolls down to read the article, a well designed video would shut itself OFF not move down to block my view because of your desires. I clearly do not want to hear or see the video, otherwise I would not scroll away.
Slashdot Mirror
It is typical that after the initial treatment they reduce the drugs, sometimes down to only one. But during initial treatment, it is almost never just one drug. Even for the very old.
Technology doesn't kill jobs, it creates them. ALWAYS. But the new jobs require more skill, so there is a lag while people retrain.
200 years ago there was no such thing as a regularly paid professional sports. The closest we came was the roman gladiators that received endorsement contracts and occasionally a retired gladiator (usually a slave that had won his freedom) was paid large sums of money to return to the ring.
Now we pay our athletes huge sums of money. Not counting the agents and all the other related new jobs.
From the day we became farmers instead of merely hunter gathers, Jobs come from the desire for things, not the needs of society.
And human desire is boundless, not limited by a set amount of food, clothing, etc. Give us all a sex robot and we will demand two - for a threesome of course.
Rest assured, trust in human GREED it will never run out, there will always be jobs.
That's my point. The study did not talk about the money at all, it just mentioned the quality and the expectancy. So if the study did not use the accepted standard practice of estimating cost, than having 'no net difference' could be a HUGE benefit if it cost even 10% less.
No cancer patient gets just one drug. A typical regime is surgery, radiation, plus a cocktail of multiple drugs.
Three reasons to use drugs:
1) Quality of life improves vs existing treatment.
2) Improved life expectancy improves vs. existing treatment.
3) Saves money improves vs. existing treatment without decreasing life expectancy. Many drugs use the non-existence of competition to charge ridiculous amounts of money. Sometimes new drugs are made just to compete with them.
They answered 2 of the 3 possible reasons. Need to prove the third was not valid.
While it is true that many smart people get smart by doing that, you have made many errors.
1) Not all smart people are rich, and not all rich people are smart. The world is full of MANY MANY rich people that waste money on stupid luxuries. See musicians, sports stars, whatever the hell the Kardashians do, lottery winners, spoiled children of entrepreneurs, for solid evidence.
2) I never mentioned rich people, I mentioned people making 1 million a year. Many of them are poor - exactly because they waste it on stupid luxuries.
That is, nothing costs x units, instead, it costs y% of your salary.
If you make $10,000 a year than even $100 for a smart phone is a ridiculous expense. 1% of your salary is too much.
If you make $100k a year, than $200 for a smart phone makes sense. It's about 0.5% of your salary.
There are clearly enough people making $1,000,000, then $1,000 is just 0.1% of your salary and it makes sense to spend that much on a smart phone.
Conway's game of life is NOT simple. The software running it is simple, but it requires an incredibly complex hardware to run.
What is actually going on is a piece of very complex hardware called a CPU, is using a very simple software to simulate another complex CPU.
Not true. They deduced it from pure logic.
What it comes down to is this:
A simple thing can not simulate a complex thing. That is inherent in the concept of simluation and complexity.
For this reason, all simulations use complexity as currency - they only use it when they need it.
In a weather pattern simulator, they don't bother to simulate people at high complexity. In a war game, they don't bother to simulate the weather in high complexity.
Our universe has uniform complexity, EVERYTHING is complex, not just one thing. Human actions, thought, fluid dynamics, subatomic reactions, animal behavior, disease, everything. As such we can not be a simulation, because too much simulation ability is being wasted on too many different things.
It's like a house was built out of gold, including the foundation, pipes, everything. You don't do that. You build the parts people see out of gold, and use less expensive stuff for the rest.
and they know it. They are defending their position as the master of the sky, deadliest flying living creature.
They are smart and cunning and strong. They use their ability to fly high to develop a ton of momentum and tear apart their prey.
Pretty hard to defend against them, they won't back down.
Oh, a man can dream, a man can dream.
Banning is asking for trouble from the right.
Much smarter to simply put a 100% tax on them. You want to buy an internal combustion vehicle? If you want it badly enough PAY for it.
If you aren't willing to pay the money then buy electric.
Also, you don't have to deal with some agency deciding who is truly in need of an internal combustion error. People that use powered parachutes, or four wheel drive vehicles for people that live in the middle of a national forest with no electricity for miles.
Camera in your bedroom?
Please, some one hack these and publish it on the internet.
Anyone stupid enough to buy this crap deserves to have the entire world laugh at them.
Look, the far majority of people are not tech workers. They don't need to know what an IP address is, let alone a MAC - a url is sufficient. For those people, a refresh button is not helpful (except psychologically)
But not everyone is like that. Some people actually know a bit about software and hardware. They want and need controls, and refresh is the main one they want
It's not the cow that is the problem, it's the bacteria.
Cows are big and take a long time to reproduce - 9 months to give birth, then 7 months to become fertile.
Bacteria are small, easier to fiddle with their genetics, and can reproduce in minutes.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that we should be genetically engineering the Archaea DNA, not the cows. Change the Archaea so that it loves the current cow environment but does not produce methane.
Makes more sense than changing the cow and hoping the Archaea does not evolve to like the new cows.
This one:
"Besides, it seems to me if you build an electronic brain that works like a human brain, it is going to have all the problems a human brain has (years of teaching, distraction, mental illness, and a propensity for error)."
Is the single truest statement about AI I have read in a long time.
I would also add in addition to list (teaching, distraction...)
logical fallacies, including blind loyalty, confirmation bias, etc.
quarrelsome (among themselves)
greed
and my personal favorite:
lazyness
First of all, the issues with weakly typed language poorly designed overloading by developers used to strongly typed construction.
For example, a common error is writing something like this:
add_function (3, "1")
And the result is the string 31 instead of 4, because some idiot overloaded the + function so that while it adds numbers, it also concatenates strings.
This is a overloading problem, not a type problem, but some fools won't realize that. Yes, if the function had a requirement of only accepting numerical strings it would have caught the error, but that is not the problem cause. The problem was that you should never overload a numerical operation to do anything but return an error when it is fed something besides a number. That's asking for hidden bugs later on.
In addition, this study only went looking for errors caused by week typing, rather than also checking for the errors caused by strong typing.
Here is a simple thing - a week typing language can easily add an integer and a float. It comes out with a float. But a strong typed language should return an error as they are different numerical types. In a very strongly typed language, you can't add an integer and a float, you need to convert one from the other.
But this problem has occurred so often, people started overloading "strongly" typed language with auto conversion. In part because we have a loner history dealing with strongly typed languages - originally we didn't have the memory to deal with anything except strong typing. Now we do, but don't have the proper experience.
You make your business public, you keep the disruption secret.
In Netflix case, they kept their incredibly huge profits secret. Everyone knew what they did, but they thought it was barely profitable, Netflix was founded in 1997, 20 years ago. By 2000, Blockbuster offered them a whopping $50 million for it. Sounds like a lot, for a 3 year old company.
Two years later they went public, getting more than $80 million. And they kept founder shares, allowing them to retain control. No one that is considering going public at $80 million+ and keeping control in 2002 would accept a mere $50 million to sell out.
Curses, foiled again! - by my own bad spelling.
That's how Netflix took down Blockbuster. They kept their huge profits secret till they went public. By that time it was too late for Blockbuster video rental store (Yes, they really did have a store that rented movies.)
Now, everyone tries to brag in order to get money. It's self defeating. If you are truly a disruptive technology, you should be working your ass to keep that secret. Claim you expect to get 20% of the market, not 80%.
I take blood pressure pills to give my kidney an easier time. When I fly, I wait till I get off the plane before I take the pill.
Because if I take it before I get off the plane, I feint. Airplane almost diverted one time.
While your view is interesting, it has two issues.
1) It assumes there is a reasonable next action or small set of reasonable next actions. Often way too many other actions are reasonable.
2) It has a tendency to paternalistically tell people what their next action should be, with a bias towards what the company wants (hence CNN's evil "keep my video around" technique).
3) It is a lot easier to figure out what people want after they did an action (my technique) instead of trying to predict what they want before they take the action.
You don't understand what I am saying. I was not saying that you should actively hang out with losers. It's not someone saying "Hey, lets go to the loser's table." Instead, it is a someone discovering that they happen to be at the loser's table and did not realize it until it was too late.
Whenever you are the best in the room, it doesn't mean you are superior, it just means you happened to be surrounded by people that were not as good as you. That ALWAYS happens. It is the what it means to win.
I am also not advocating people stop competing as you seem to think. Instead I advocate competing against yourself, not others. That is why I say you should be rewarded for trying hard.
"Minimum wage was not and is not intended to be a wage for four people."
That statement is nonsensical. It's like saying "Horses are not intended to be ridden."
Is there some special law requiring companies to pay you more if you have 2 children? No? Then YES, minimum wage is intended to support four people.
Horses are ridden and similarly, many people support two children with two minimum wage jobs, as per my example.
But all of that is totally irrelevant. The topic is "Do states benefit from tax deals for businesses." And the answer to that is no. These deals always give low paying jobs that are temporary, not permanent.
P.S. You ignored the fact that in my actual example I had two people earning minimum wage to support two children.
Some designs encourage "errors". For example, the practice of making the "Close this window" button small and hard to see on advertisements.
You can of course do the opposite, making it big and red. Part of this involves making major decisions AFTER the product has been tested.
Good design should not be focused on "if the user wants this, they should do that." Instead it should reverse the process, asking "If the user does this, what is it they want?"
A good example is the horrendous, evil "Video that refuses to scroll away." When the user scrolls down to read the article, a well designed video would shut itself OFF not move down to block my view because of your desires. I clearly do not want to hear or see the video, otherwise I would not scroll away.