While I can see how this could be "obviously" for drugs if you're specifically looking out for this sort of stuff, it's disguised well enough (eg. no overt references to drugs) that an automated algorithm would have a hard time detecting this without massive collateral damage.
Some articles on the topic observe that ads like you show above magically disappear once you are across the US border. They likely know exactly what is going on.
>Maybe drugs, or these drugs, aren't the most efficient solutions. Shouldn't we direct resources toward more efficient ones?
Turns out all the low hanging fruit have already been picked, so the only "more efficient ones" left are stuff like gene therapy, which are absurdly expensive, but still theoretically cheaper than a lifetime of care. Unsurprisingly the high sticker price draws much backlash from the public and politicians.
> all the low hanging fruit have already been picked
What is that based on?
Also, I'm not talking about 'low hanging fruit' necessarily; only solutons that become cost effective for vendors if drug prices aren't so extreme.
There's reason to think there is low-hanging fruit: Research is incentivized for the most profitable solutions for the vendors, not the most cost-effective solutions for patients.
>Also, I'm not talking about 'low hanging fruit' necessarily; only solutons that become cost effective for vendors if drug prices aren't so extreme.
>There's reason to think there is low-hanging fruit: Research is incentivized for the most profitable solutions for the vendors, not the most cost-effective solutions for patients.
High drug prices also mean you can charge more for one-off cures. See, the gene therapy example above.
Is there any reason to expect there would be "toxins", given that it's just water? I can imagine how there might be accumulated toxins it's a pack of chicken breasts left in a hot car for 8 hours, but if it's water it should be fine? After all, boiling water is a tried and true way of making water safe to drink.
Yes, there are substances that slip through, but it works well enough for most cases that it's probably fine. Otherwise you get into weird edge cases like "what if there are prions in the water?!?" or whatever.
>So just a loss for governments, or in other words, socializing the losses.
How's that different than any other sort of R&D incentive? Would you rather that companies return as much money as possible to shareholders, future growth be damned? What about other sorts of tax incentives, which by definition also "just a loss for governments"? Are tax breaks for people with kids also "socializing the losses", given that most households don't have kids?
Any comment that makes a potshot remark about the first sentence in an article, without reading the rest of the paragraph (let alone the article) can be safely thrown straight into the trash.
The article lists its reasons for why they think the economy will accelerate. You might disagree with its conclusions, but it's not dependent on taking the administration's "propaganda" at face value.
>His optimism has foundation. The effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBB), a tax-cutting law enacted in July, will soon start to be felt. Americans will receive refunds that reflect retroactive tax cuts on income from 2025. They will also find that levies on monthly earnings have fallen. According to Piper Sandler, an investment bank, these “two years of tax cuts in one” are worth about $191bn.
I read the whole article, and the fact that you assumed otherwise means the rest of your comment can also be safely the thrown straight into the trash.
You're still somewhat taking what the administration says at face value. What will be the effect of the BBB? Well, a tax cut, but also no cuts in spending, so an increase in deficits. What's the net effect of that? Is it positive or negative?
My money is net positive... at first. So yeah, maybe 2026 will be good.
>Is it fraud if he paid $0 for non-existent roadsters?
Is it fraud if you worked for a startup that promised you options, and then refused to honor/issue those said options? After all, because those options never existed, you also "paid $0 for non-existent [options]"?
Is the fact that you don't actually own a game you bought on steam, or a movie you bought on itunes (eg. if either of them went under, or you got banned) also "just semantics" and "implementation detail"?
Honestly, I think the gamma normalization step don't really count as "processing", any more than the gzip decompression step doesn't count as "processing" for the purposes of "this is what an unprocessed html file looks like" demo. At the end of the day, it's the same information, but encoded differently. Similar arguments can be made for de-bayer filter step. If you ignore these two steps, the "processing" that happens looks far less dramatic.
I fully agree regarding gamma, but completely disagree when it comes to debayering. Unless you turn 2x2 Bayer blocks into a single RGB pixel (losing some data in the process), the point of debayering is to interpolate missing data - it's upscaling of a kind after all - and you can use a multitude of various approaches to do that resulting in differing outputs.
Since when did people support CEOs as some sort of jobs or redistribution program? It's at least somewhat plausible to mandate bullshit jobs like gas station attendants or whatever to keep teenagers employed, but nobody is clamoring for CEOs to exist to screw over shareholders.
I didn't mean it as a moral statement, but as a practical observation that a person with effective control over a company has a lot of leverage when it comes to negotiating resource splits. Also, you want them to be aligned.
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/thestar.com/con...
While I can see how this could be "obviously" for drugs if you're specifically looking out for this sort of stuff, it's disguised well enough (eg. no overt references to drugs) that an automated algorithm would have a hard time detecting this without massive collateral damage.
reply