They used to say that about email addresses. But hold my beer and I'll be back in like a month with some buggy half-assed crap that kinda does the job and only occasionally crashes the system!
Is it that simple? From a lay perspective (and granted I’m a little foggy because I actually have covid right now), I’d expect the answer is yes but with huge unintended consequences.
Ok yes, theoretically you can make something targeting the polyA tail. But everything else you body make will also get targeted because this is basically a marker of all RNA for translation.
Now making a drug that targets only viruses and not your body RNA? Possible but it is so hard not much progress has been made.
Keep in mind that any negative effects, even those unlikely to be caused by the medication, need to be reported as adverse effects. It allows for making a clean comparison between the placebo, and also makes it possible to retroactively relate effects that have been overlooked previously. For example, you want 'patient was hit by a car' as possible side effect, because the medication could make people drowsy.
Covid and at least one comorbidity. 14% of the control group died; it’s no surprise that 40% had some sort of bad reaction, since presumably they were in pretty bad shape overall.
Please read the excellent popular science book "Cure: A Journey into the Science of Mind Over Body" by author/journalist Jo Marchant. It gives an excellent overview of all things placebo related.
ps. the answer to your question seems to be "quite a lot".
Came here to say that it's not necessarily in our head - you can knowingly get a placebo and still react to it. As far as I know it's a combination of head, genetics and other unknown factors. In my opinion an underappreciated and understudied field.
That depends. In the case of vaccines, the placebo is often all the ingredients of a vaccines minus the biological component, or in other cases, an already approved vaccine is used as the placebo.
So, it's probably a poorly controlled study, or garbage results, or both.
I mean I think that's ok at this point. Kids are at greater risk of a lot of other things before Covid. We're going to have to figure out how to get our kids to become nose breathers again and fix their enlarged adenoids.
This argument avoids the issue of battery depreciation as well as the fact that if you took the battery out of the car it's value goes to the scrap value.
For the cost of a new battery, you essentially get a car that performs just as good as the day it rolled off the assembly line. And since most tend to come with collision avoidance ability, more EV's might outlive their first battery without any accidents.
That's a specious argument. Most gasoline powered cars today will be performing as good as new at 100k miles with minimal attention beyond regular oil changes and a new set of spark plugs -- certainly, you don't need a complete motor replacement that early in. Likewise, any car with 100k miles, EV or not, will have a pretty worn interior, need a new suspension, be showing wear on its paint, have very out of date electronics and safety features, and be out of fashion style-wise (and yes, that matters when it comes to price. Just ask the designers of the Pontiac Aztek).
Quality ICE cars are pretty trivial to run a long time. I drive a 2003 Honda SUV, which just hit 230,000 miles. I've probably put an average of $500 annual repairs for the last 6-7 years. Mostly drivetrain stuff that wears out like CV joints, sway bars, etc.
If you buy a electric car, you're not doing it to save money. The optimal ROI remains a 12-24 month old car with a certificatation program that you keep for 8-10 years. I'd rather do that and have $30k in the bank than futz with electric cars and unknown service lives.
I think your statement was clear. However, I find it hard to believe Arrington would put some of his best sources at risk if his claims were completely unfounded.
I tried to use 'thinking analytically' to describe the calculation-evaluation cycle that is present in so many strategy games, especially chess-style games. I guess it wasn't a very good descriptor. Anyway, it's too late to edit it.
The typical chess mental game involves chains of calculations to visualize future positions, then evaluating those positions based on the potential of good or bad chains of moves. "Strategic" plays are based on the possibility of generating or preventing future tactical plays.
Bridge is more a game of inferences; out of the 26 or 39 cards you can't see (depending on the phase of play), the most important part of the game is guessing how those cards are distributed and planning for the contingencies that might arise (or the ones you need to arise). There are very few situations that involve long chains of calculations and possible positions; most of it is planning correctly, estimating probabilities (unless you're one of those talented people who can do the exact math in their heads), and good guesswork. Or at least that's how I play it...
It's very refreshing to play a game that works out those areas of the mind, which are so important, but for which there are few direct workouts. The best play is usually clear post-mortem, and hands change every 7 or 8 minutes, so you get a lot of quick, direct feedback.
The second most important part of bridge is communicating with your partner based on the limited language of putting cards down on a table, and the reason it's not the first most important part is because communicating correctly depends on inferring correctly, planning, and understanding partner's plans.
These articles have sensational headlines that don't point to the real issue. The possible fraud committed relates to GS recommending securities that they were betting against.
Some of the names are made up (combinations of letters or short dictionary words). The expired names are from http://namejet.com/Pages/Downloads.aspx and I'm planning to keep adding more names in the future.
