Their industry is only shady because lots of fairly harmless drugs require a prescription. Viagra, the GLPs, and minoxidi+finasteride come to mind.
For a long time in this country, a flesh-eating bacteria infection required an amputation. In Russia and Eastern Europe, it was easily treatable with bacteriophages and people normally kept their limbs. There's still no process for approving a bacteriophage treatment in this country for general use.
Our system is ossified to protect big pharma and doctors. Liberalization is needed; hims and their like need to be regulated, but with a lighter touch than the current requirements.
What about drugs that were initially prescribed, but have to be taken for a long time?
A long time ago I had a Lexapro prescription. This is a very, very common drug and is on the list of the WHO's essentials for bootstrapping a healthcare system.
Then I quit my job and spent a few months unemployed. I was no longer seeing the psych who prescribed them and I was not covered by health insurance.
The last few refills my prescription had? Walgreens bumped the price to $200 a bottle, and unless I paid another doctor there was no way to keep taking the medication I'd been on for two years.
Mind you, this drug is old and generics are CHEAP. I've also got all the knowledge I need to take it safely because I have been.
Instead of doing that, I made the decision to quit rather than deal with the doctor mafia. We let people buy industrial chemicals on the Internet and trust they're not gonna kill themselves with it, but somehow my situation was an unacceptable risk?
Apple's M-series chips are fantastic, but I do agree with you that it's mostly a combination of newer process and lots of cache.
Even when they were new, they competed with AMD's high end desktop chips. Many years later, they're still excellent in the laptop power range - but not in the desktop power range, where chips with a lot of cache match it in single core performance and obliterate it in multicore.
> Apple's M-series chips are fantastic, but I do agree with you that it's mostly a combination of newer process and lots of cache.
Why does it matter how they achieved their thunderous performance? Why must it be diminished to just a boatload of cache? Does it matter from which implementation detail you got the best single-core performance in the world? If it's just way more cache, why isn't Intel just cranking up the cache?
Intel IS cranking up the cache. Unfortunately, Intel chose to allocate significant resources to improving their fabs instead of immediately going to TSMC and pumping out a competitive chip, and in the years where they were misspending their resources, their competitors were gobbling up market share. Their new stuff that's competitive with Apple is all built by TSMC.
It's worth noting that Intel is not a stranger to building CPUs with lots of cache - they just segmented it into their server chips and not their consumer ones.
It matters because it is useful to understand why a given chip is faster or slower than its competitors. Apple didn't achieve this with their architecture/ISA or with some snazzy new hardware (with some notable exceptions like their x86 memory emulator), they did it by noticing how important cache was becoming to consumer workloads.
This approach has two benefits: it can be unstuck without sending out a physical driver and while collecting training data, and it efficiently lets m humans control n cars with a wide range of acceptable m and n values.
It's intended for the ratio of m:n to smoothly shrink as the software gets better, but m will always be greater than zero.
Iran's leaders are caught in a trap of their own making. For decades they've held up America and Israel as villains and used that boogeyman to justify their military and police expenditure.
After this Israel-Gaza war, Iran's proxies who fought Israel on their behalf (Hamas, Hezbollah) are mostly destroyed. Their allies in the Gulf States (Qatar) have buckled to US pressure over the war. When they've tried to strike Israel directly, combined US-Israeli antimissile defenses stopped it dead in its tracks. Now hundreds of thousands of protestors are thronging the streets and the regime realizes it cannot kill or jail all of them.
In short, Iran has realized that its conventional military will not be able to prop up the regime if anyone decides to attack or arm a rebellion.
That's the motivation for this. The hateful theocratic rulers of Iran see the US as a bigger threat, and are chasing a nuclear weapon as the one they might actually get some protection with.
The other reading is that Iran tried pursuing nuclear power through legal means (since the 50s!), but deals were reneged and obstacles were put up at every turn. They then pursued enrichment on their own terms while keeping the door open for negotiation.
But Israel and the US do not want to negotiate. The empire wants to neuter Iran’s capabilities by force, hence the escalation and ongoing threat of war.
In fact, I would argue that Iran has proven time and again to be a much more restrained and diplomatic regional power than Israel. At best, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Also, defeating Iran is not going to be as “simple” as it was with Iraq. They are a resilient people with a long history of struggle in a country with highly defensible terrain. The opposition is overblown, and was actually damaged after the 12 day war as it ended up rallying many Iranians around the flag. Read up on the Iran-Iraq war to see what they’re capable of.
Your argument of "Iran is just a misunderstood peaceful state!" is somewhat undercut by the fact that the multiple leaders of Iran have sworn to destroy Israel by any means necessary, and the even more inconvenient fact that Iran is objectively ruled by an awful regime which the world will not miss.
Iran doesn't need to be defeated, it needs a revolution. Iranian people are great and deserve a better government.
Stolen cars are often sold for low amounts of money - like $50 - and then used to commit crimes that are not traceable from their plates. It hasn't really been possible to steal and resell a car in the United States for many years, barring a few carefully watched loopholes (Vermont out-of-state registrations is one example that was recently closed).
When Kia and Hyundai were recently selling models without real keys or ignition interlocks, that was the main thing folks did when they stole them.
In Canada there's been a big problem with stolen cars lately. Mostly trucks, and other high value vehicles though. Selling them locally isn't feasible, but there's a criminal organization that's gotten very good at getting them on container ships and out to countries that don't care if the vehicles are stolen. So even with tracking, there's nothing people can do. Stopping it at the port is the obvious fix, but somehow that's not what is being done. Probably bribery to look the other way.
Same thing in Australia - some gang was busted recently for stealing mid-range four wheel drives, packing them in shipping containers with partially dismantled cars (I guess so that a cursory inspection would just show "car parts" rather than a single nice looking car) and then shipping them around the world (I guess an overseas buyer isn't checking if a car with this VIN has been stolen on the other side of the world).
Yeah, the only way to do it would be a cash transaction where you'd have to forge a legitimate looking title/registration and pass it off to a naive buyer. So it's still technically possible, but not in any kind of remotely scalable way.
How is it obsolete? If everyone is unemployed and a few AI barons are obscenely wealthy, the velocity of money will be low because most people will be broke.
Seems to me like that's still a worthy target if chasing it fights that outcome.
People need to develop memetic immunity to AI flattery. It's exactly like how conspiracy sites on the Internet worked. A lot of people get one-shor in the beginning, but 10 years later mostly everyone understands that you can't just believe what you read on the Internet.
You'd be surprised. I'm already sorry if I sound condescending, I just don't know how to rephrase this: please but please look around how effective is nowadays all that internet, dare to say more and more effective, in pushing "alternative truth" for the obvious goal of covering dirty businesses, wars, and even more crimes.
People have had several thousand years to develop immunity to flattery and yet here we are with a President where aides have to put his name in every paragraph of a memo to get him to read it.
At an individual level, we have a lot of psychological plasticity and can work to overcome our limitations. At societal scale, though, we are social primates and any system that takes advantage of natural social primate behavior is likely to succeed indefinitely.
They should be allowed to make bad choices like they are everywhere else.
reply