This is just projection. Most "progressive" policies are white-knight-ism that ends up empowering the status quo by consolidating political power in the hands of elites, who have climbed the political ladder and are pulling it up behind them. If I had to choose, i'd much rather have people try to pull up economic ladders than political ones, one game is zero sum, and the other is not.
Hybridization is this wierd fiction. It's trivially true because you can create any orbital via conservative linear combination of other orbitals, but only some of them will be energetically meaningful.
What hybridization would you expect water to have? You're wrong. It's not.
the graphs in this are shockingly laughable and belie the complete insanity of macroeconomic dogma. To compare, I once simulated electron transfers between iron-sulfur clusters in an enzyme and, not knowing the exact kinetic parameters, used a monte carlo method to estimate variational effects. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yeiOE1Gy0YoPXlLdMo9y8XSS...)
The graphs, accordingly, show confidence intervals and are most certainly not smooth or simple.
You can't think of one because "it hasn't happened". You can construct your definition of free trade to be restrictive enough that no countries fit the bill and it looks like evidence that the proposition is untrue (I'm not necessarily arguing that it is true).
Furthermore there is broken windows here, you don't know how those economies would have done if they were freer.
Sure, but we can compare countries where there was more protection of their own industrial base with countries where there was less. Surely we can get some conclusions there.
The path that is normally recommended to the "developing countries" doesn't match the path that the industrial powers followed. If you wanted that Bangladesh developed an industrial base you would do well in advise them to develop and industrial base and some internal market. That takes time and takes some kind of protection.
> The path that is normally recommended to the "developing countries" doesn't match the path that the industrial powers followed.
Yeah, well, would you rather we recommend Bangladesh adopt a US-like "path forward" including 150 years of chattel slavery, a bloody civil war that more than decimated the population, and nuking a rival world power at the end of a 4-year global conflict?
Oh. Some bonus content (I hadn't read that blog post in quite a while). That DARPA program manager... About a year ago on pubpeer very credible claims emerged suggesting that all of her work in grad school was an instrument artefact. Her PhD advisor committed some ethically questionable actions overdefending it.
And after spearheading several bio-hacking-type calls within DARPA, and seemingly being groomed to take Arati Prabhukar's position, she seems to have suddenly disappeared from her position at DARPA altogether in the past few months.
DARPA is doing the same pretty much with some stuff going on at MIT in neuroimaging… so i hear… :P
And there's a lab in Wisconsin that's sucking up 10's million of dollars from private foundations of which a co pi of that lab visited ours to tell us about their soon to be created public outreach arm… on top of the questionable custom eeg head cap for dual/eeg frmi thats close to a million who knows nothing about e&m, who I confronted directly about that while getting the backing from the senior research scientist (who is on a visa…) in my lab whose phd is in soft condensed matter physics who worked on SQUIDs at yale, who is now conveniently "volunteering" most of the time doing mobile apps for some company attached to our lab who wrote most of the code for the system people saw Anderson Cooper hooked up too on CNN not too long ago… but you'll never hear about him over others trying to capture 100% of what they think is the only opportunity now.
#WhatAFuckingJokeThingsAre and this is why things are due for a shake up lol
Author of the blog post here - to be a good sport, I gave the open insulin guys the design they're using. I think the chemistry is solid and it will work, but I can't say I'm confident the team will be able to get it together. Insulin is hard.
I could probably whip it up myself, but I'm already stretched thin doing two biology projects that aren't paying me anything - and in fact are costing me (my nonprofit and a startup) and I make barely enough on some part-time contract coding work that I am really lucky to have landed through roommate-nepotism.
As to why I'm not really that excited about helping the Open Insulin Project any further: I've become kind of wary about prevailing attitudes in the tech-to-bio transition field that basically takes an exploitative attitude following the Postdocapalypse... There's this investor class expectation that they can hire frustrated grad students and postdocs for cheap. I think this is true, but they better watch out, in 99% of cases they are going to get what they are paying for.
I've decided to quit impostor syndrome and accept that I am kind of a biochemistry badass (I redesigned an enzyme and made it 4x better on my first shot based on first principles), and that if anyone wants my expertise they have to pay $$ for it. The other week an ALS advocate showed me a drug candidate structure and I correctly identified the mechanism of action without knowing much about the target. I've never been terribly excited about bringing the marginal cost of scientific labor closer to zero, and the OIP is basically that.
> "I've decided to quit impostor syndrome and accept that I am kind of a biochemistry badass…"
I think the work you do is pretty awesome (at least from reading your posts here and on your blog) and can understand that you are stretched, but I can see that you also want to move the field forward (and not in the "lets shit some papers out and maximize for 'impact factor'" way).
>"As to why I'm not really that excited about helping the Open Insulin Project any further: I've become kind of wary about prevailing attitudes in the tech-to-bio transition field that basically takes an exploitative attitude following the Postdocapalypse... There's this investor class expectation that they can hire frustrated grad students and postdocs for cheap. I think this is true, but they better watch out, in 99% of cases they are going to get what they are paying for."
I can see where you are coming from about the whole Postdocapalypse economics… I see it heating up as well with mindfulness being the current carrying agent in moving the neural tech forward (some neuro phd i was talking to on twitter said this to when I was mocking the "run matlab on cluster for months mentality" and saying it could be done way faster (hours) and cheaper: "Sounds a little bit more complicated than just reporting what you did in a paper.", so yeah, the investors who fund people like that are going to get exactly what they are paying for), but I'm going to help people milk it for what its worth just to help foster something that can compete with the abomination that academia has metastasized into that masquerades such games as science.
> "…I've never been terribly excited about bringing the marginal cost of scientific labor closer to zero, and the OIP is basically that."
Yeah I can understand that, but I also think the way that resources are allocated as a society are in for a major shake up (esp with the whole crowdfunding bonanza across so many industries, and have people who worked for the UN and a gov agency in Turkey contact me about the software I wrote to track it on social media), which I think is why people aren't terribly excited on top of the personal stress all the uncertainty brings which I'm familiar with being a drop out who's in the neck of it up here in the boston area (and happen to be the only one it seems to have open-sourced a spacial beamformer in c++ for real time neural feedback for eeg that can be adapted for dual eeg/fmri). I do think though, because you aren't necessarily confining yourself to what things have to be (as defined by the status quo), you'll probably end up doing way more than you think you are capable of now.
it's not regulation, occupational health, and safety standards that keep the price higher. Drugs sold in india have just about as good standards as in the US. If it's made by Novo Nordisk, it probably comes out of the same plant that supplies the US supply. Even Indian generics manufacturers get themselves certified by the FDA because they want the lucrative US market.
Now if we could only convince India to move upmarket and develop new drugs instead of simply making generics. India would be richer and their population of 1.3 billion people would greatly benefit, as would little countries like the United States.