Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | graeham's comments login

Expensive by UK standards, but cheap vs Bay Area: Cambridge UK.

I've not been anywhere else that has the density of interesting people doing interesting stuff. London is not far if you need to break the bubble (and Stansted Airport even closer).

Downsides: salaries are generally lower than SV (esp for technical work), Brexit uncertainty, weather is fairly average, limited outdoor sport options (other than running, road cycling, rowing)


Cambridge is crazy cool and one of my favourite cities but it's expensive by many standards, not just UK ones. "vs Bay Area" nearly everything in the world is cheap.

For those looking to spend though: Cambridge has a cool tech/startup scene, almost everyone bikes and there's no cars in the city center. It's a fairly small city, very green, both quiet and lively.


There are cars in the city center and there are traffic jams most working days. Maybe one of the reasons so many people cycle there.


Its just a bit boring if you are young. As a young student its fantastic but as a young professional, it can get monotonous


"In the US food is generally cheaper than it is in Europe, medical care generally more expensive."

I'm not sure when medical care is cheaper in the US. Within the VA system, maybe?

Also, the ranking does not stack up against wikipedia figures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... (Where PPP is already accounted for, so this guy is doing it twice).

UK would come in ~35th. Similar to Nevada or Michigan.


> I'm not sure when medical care is cheaper in the US

You literally just quoted the article saying it's more expensive in the US.

> In the US ... medical care generally more expensive


generally = sometimes it is less expensive. I guess it wasn't clear, but my point was that healthcare is on average much more expensive in the US.


The author is saying that the medical care is more expensive in the US, not cheaper.


I did my PhD in a lab with a few people do 3d printing of organ scaffolds. Many (all?) of them used gelatin over collagen - I think the main factor was cost being much lower. There may have been something about gelatin being easier to extrude in a 3d printing process as well. I think the idea is that gelatin is a prototyping material.


For Tesla or Newfies?


Its great that the NFL is supporting biomechanics research (and will hopefully help the sport as well).

However, while the models are open source they seem to be created for LS-DYNA, which is a fairly expensive program. I'm not aware of any good open source finite element packages, but I bet this will limit uptake of their models.


I don't think it's 100% of either of these (outcome vs tech used). If its true research, the outcome isn't known. There are major benefits in developing technology for it's own sake, which then provides tools that can be used towards other applications.


To be truely useful as a diagnostic in major decision-making, it needs to be 90-95%+ accurate.

But unfortunately there isn't anything close to this yet.

High blood pressure, for example, probably more accurate than the retinal image technique here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25632496

The major goal here would be to screen for people to go for a more advanced test, like an MRI. But even that wouldn't hit the 90-95% level of predictor.


There is an interesting additional link between cardiovascular disease and bones: calcification (calcium deposits in arteries) also seem to have some link with heart attacks and strokes.


Seen similar things, with the effect of learning curve being fairly massive - particularly for the first 5-10 procedures done. Really understated in the article for being a fairly major factor.


People in a clinical trial typically don't pay for the treatment (or placebo).


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: