What's actually confusing in the analogy? Are you actually confused or just pretending? The point is that just because a sign says something under a literal reading, it doesn't mean that it's what was intended, or what's binding. If there's a piece of paper on my car saying "free to a good home", I probably didn't intend that you can take my car (or my house, or whatever). It's not very different to the fact that a 0-day exploit on your bank's web server does not entitle the thief to your money.
Not fully true- orphan drug status exists for rare diseases and gives advantages to companies who develop drugs for rare conditions. This includes longer exclusivity periods amongst other incentives, rendering these categories more feasible economically.
The drug development process takes around 10+ years typically, a lot of long planning of multiple phases of studies needs to be done. This will help in the initial steps and in finding good starting points, and in theory should help the subsequent stages be more successful. I wouldn’t expect new drugs this decade.
Other aspects of biotech and research could well be affected far faster than the consumer drug market, but again you’ll need a few years for those early stage developments to aid real world applications.
Anyone know how to maintain retaining wall pipes? Installed by previous owner of home, have no idea if they’re done properly or if they’re clogged or anything. Just want to keep that water moving! :D
You might be able to ask a plumber to snake a camera into the outlets and do a visual inspection on the inside. That said, it might not tell you if they used real, actual drainage rock + fabric as opposed to just surrounding it in dirt just via visual inspection, although I suppose based on the amount of dirt buildup you might be able to tell.
Surgeons don’t need a text based LLM to make decisions. They have a job to do and a dozen years of training into how to do it. They have 8 years of schooling and 4-6 years internship and residency. The tech fantasy that everyone is using these for everything is a bubble thought. I agree with another comment, this is Doomerism.
Surgeons are using robots that are far beyond fly by wire though, to the point that you could argue they're instructing the robots rather than controlling them.
It’s NPR, and clearly an atheistic listener there. Are you surprised at this complaint? Christianity is largely anti-science and works against many of the purposes NPR espouses like climate, public health, science and tech, major topics all over NPR. It’s not a stretch to accept this complaint as valid to many left wing rationalist NPR listeners.
Do you believe censorship is wrong all cases? What about a biologist providing instructions on how to add lethal mutations to viruses? Or a physicist giving detailed instructions about how to construct dirty nuclear bombs? There is certain knowledge that is unsafe to be widely disseminated, would you be against the censorship of said content?
I mention this because arguably, allowing covid to proliferate means thousands of deaths, long COVID syndrome, and potential for new mutations to arise. These misinformed hucksters are largely out to make their own names and make money, not to educate or because their carefully chosen speech is their "right". Should we allow any financially motivated snake oil salesmen to spew whatever trash he likes into our society, even if it kills one thousand people indirectly?
You just gave two very poor examples. Anyone who have any ability to add lethal mutation are probably biologists anyway. And instructions to construct nuclear bombs are probably on somewhere on the Internet anyway, but I’m not going to worry at all, it is close to impossible to buy the raw materials without some sorts of licenses.
Looked up the definition of censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Some definitions have narrowed it's purposes to just "offensive", this one was slightly broader.
Given this meaning, Spotify's action is on the line of security and safety. JRE is taking heat for misinformation about covid, specifically about vaccines and alternative treatments, as well as his history of having platformed Alex Jones.
I'd say preventing snake oil salesmen from selling their products in your market due to safety concerns is a valid employment of censorship. People could actually die due to believing some of these extreme guests. Obviously, legally there is zero problem here since a private company can do as it wishes, freedom of speech doesn't give the freedom to dictate to companies what they must sell.
In Canada your freedom of speech as a broadcaster or entertainer is limited to non-harmful, intentionally
ignorant, or violence provoking language. So it’s not censorship here to take someone off the radio for spreading slander and lies that could get someone hurt, like Joe has been on his podcast. It’s considered protecting others safety and our charter of rights.
Stopping someone from spreading ignorance and hate is not censorship. That’s not what one imagines when they think of censorship. This is not stopping someone from saying things arbitrarily.
Why? I've cooked on all different sorts of heating sources and haven't noticed a big enough difference to justify health and climate issues. If cooking is the application of heat to food, a skillful chef should be able to use a variety of heat sources, no?
Complete freedom of what you're cooking on/with, complete predictability, it's fine. It's not the 90% problem with the environment. Most apartments I've had were resistive elements or inductive and I disliked it, plus like other I have some aluminum and copper cookware that I inherited and have special meaning to me
The most annoying thing for me about cooking on resistive electric is that changes in temperature are extremely slow. I can't add heat as quickly as gas, and when I want to take it away, the heating element retains heat for a long time.
I have not cooked with induction; it should be better on both points.
See, I would be more open to induction, but due to its physics issues it's a non-starter for me. I use some aluminum, copper, and Pyrex cookware in my kitchen and none of those will work with induction. So for me it's between electric and gas, of which I prefer gas.
I don’t know how much truth is in it - but I have been told there the older brown style are the highest quality glass and have better thermal expansion properties such that they can be used on the stovetop. Meanwhile, more recent incarnations are much more likely to fail (catastrophically).
Everyone agrees resistive electric sucks. Induction is what everyone is suggesting you try. I find it to work a lot better and be far more powerful. Boils a pot of water faster than a kettle can.
Did you grow up with gas stoves? I did as well and really can't imagine using anything else. But I've got friends from the Midwest, where natural gas lines are less common that grew up with electric stoves, and they tell them they can't imagine cooking with anything other than electric -- the open flames on gas stoves actually scare them.
Grew up with electric and much prefer using gas ranges now that I have the choice.
I just prefer gas stoves and I don't think that the article or discussions in this thread are going to dissuade me from that. Also, my baseboard _and_ steam boiler in my house (old and new additions to the house) also use gas; it would be very expensive to shift and I have a feeling that I never will short of needing to do so. Gas is very common here in upstate New York.
> they can't imagine cooking with anything other than electric -- the open flames on gas stoves actually scare them
In my country, electric showers are common. The water is in direct contact with an electrical resistance. I've seen people from other countries calling these things "suicide showers" but nobody here bats an eye.
It's very spread out, in far northern locations, where roads and infrastructure don't exist. These are microscopic bubbles released very slowly over all of Russia and northern Canada. It'd be an economic money pit to attempt to harvest gas that way. Better to put all that money towards making batteries to supplement renewables.
Your analogy is confusing, you’re comparing a free plant on the roadside to 63 million dollars on a crypto exploit?