80% of people agreed to give consent, and only the data of those people are being used for research purposes.
It is furthermore used at a population level, and in anonymous fashion. Your individual genetic data is not very useful as a singleton, it is only useful in large numbers to do GWAS (genome-wide association studies) to identify novel disease-gene relationships.
This is not the first GSK collaboration with 23andMe. They identified a novel cancer target now being further developed CD96. So... wow, what a terrible thing, you may now have contributed in a tiny way to people potentially getting life-extending medication. What terrible abuse.
23andMe has about 14million customers. 80% of that is about 11M customers. GSK is paying $20M per year I think. So that's about $2 per customer, if we're being generous. Would you feel less abused if each customer got a $2 discount or rebate?
>It's not that the other people have incomplete knowledge, it is that they disregard it.
From the article:
"If each team member is provided with all project statements, then the team can match the decision-making effectiveness of an individual (which is about 80%)."
So depending on who got which portion of which information is the critical part here, bringing communication and social skills into it. Human skills are then much more important then pure technical knowledge. This seems to be the truth in other settings as well.
No one is demonizing hydro here. You don't know what you're talking about. The environmental benefits of dam removal far exceed the hydro generation capacity in all the cases where people actually decided to remove a dam. Most removed dams don't generate hydro anymore, and some never did. They were remnants one wants to deal with the expense of removing.
As the article states, the three dams produced less than 2% of the electricity of that utility. It won't have any meaningful impact. Unfortunately your salmon will likely remain farmed salmon..
Dam removal is practiced across the world to bring rivers back to life. This happens in England as well. It prevents the accumulation of agricultural runoff, and increases fish habitat. This is an environmental project that benefits everyone except the few people who had "lakeside" property on the artificial dam reservoir.
The linked article dismisses Robert Allen's explanations, unfairly. I find Allen's work to be very clearly articulated and convincing. The question many economic historians ask is, why the British as opposed to the Dutch, or the previously-wealthy states in Italy? etc. The Dutch comparison is especially important, because prior to the Industrial Revolution the Dutch were actually more "advanced" on most metrics.
The Dutch were advanced in lots of ways, but they weren't very industrialised. Flanders would have been more likely. But they weren't in a great position at the time, controlled first by Spain, then Austria, then France; their trade blocked by the Dutch.
Netherland was in fact rather late with the industrial revolution, especially the introduction of trains, because there wasn't a real need for them. Netherland already had an extensive transportation network with its rivers and canals, with towed barges transporting goods at reliable speeds.
It is furthermore used at a population level, and in anonymous fashion. Your individual genetic data is not very useful as a singleton, it is only useful in large numbers to do GWAS (genome-wide association studies) to identify novel disease-gene relationships.
This is not the first GSK collaboration with 23andMe. They identified a novel cancer target now being further developed CD96. So... wow, what a terrible thing, you may now have contributed in a tiny way to people potentially getting life-extending medication. What terrible abuse.
23andMe has about 14million customers. 80% of that is about 11M customers. GSK is paying $20M per year I think. So that's about $2 per customer, if we're being generous. Would you feel less abused if each customer got a $2 discount or rebate?