It's an example showing that institutions elsewhere are actually responding to this (a question asked by the parent post), and Norway will very likely not be alone here.
100M NOK is a 1% increase to Norway's annual research budget, but to replace what the current US administration is asking Congress to cut the whole of Europe would have to raise its funding level by 300-400%.
It's worth considering that there's still a chance that the cuts end up being more limited than proposed.
Kind of like the tariffs or the Tiktok ban that's totally going to go into effect after the most recent extended grace period ends.
So it makes sense that the current raises aren't big enough to make up the shortfall. They're aniticipatory in nature, with the assumption that the actual cuts will be a lot less crazy, and increases to take advantage of a talent exodus will take some time to ramp up.
Not really true. Kiwi birds are very furry (unless you define furry as having mammalian hair, which sort of defeats the point) and are more related to lizards than to mammals.
It looks like you are using ChatGPT too much and feeding yourself untrustworthy information for no reason.
Internet search still exists, there is no need to use ChatGPT for this. Simply typing "how much water per btc transaction" into Google will give you this top response much faster than ChatGPT would:
> Buying or selling bitcoin uses 16,000 litres of clean water for every single transaction.
This is reported by New Scientist, who's reporting is based on actual calculations (using real data) from a PHD candidate at the Amsterdam School of Business and Economics.
Whereas the number given by ChatGTP is based on nothing but the statistical probability of what would sound correct in this context, and has no guarantee of accuracy at all. In this case it was off by an order of magnitude compared to the number based on real data.
The internet search probably used a lot less water as well (beside being both faster and more trustworthy).
Wether the actions have been approved by a democratic majority seems orthogonal to whether human rights have been violated (if a government performs torture on some humans it would still be a human rights issue even if there's democratic support for it).
The fact that this would imply that other countries, such as India and China, also would have similar human rights issues doesn't seem very strange either - several countries often violate human rights in the same way.
Not saying I agree with the legal case, but your explanations of why it's "insane" doesn't really hold water to me.
Your analysis is contradicted by the evidence presented in the article.
> One study took 1,600 men with low-risk prostate cancer in the U.K. and randomly assigned them to get surgery, radiation or active surveillance. Fifteen years later, the researchers found that mortality rates for all the men were low, and similar for each group no matter which approach they took, according to the study which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine.
If aggressive treatment regularly saved lives the healthiest 35% of the population, one would probably see a noticeable difference in mortality between the randomized groups.
Maybe it would be possible to find flaws in the study, or an interpretation of the results that would align with your analysis, but it seems like you haven't engaged with the evidence at all.
> If aggressive treatment regularly saved lives the healthiest 35% of the population, one would probably see a noticeable difference in mortality between the randomized groups.
It isn’t different from no treatment according to that statistic, but it does save lives. Unfortunately, it also kills about the same number of men.
It also, for thousands, decreases quality of life. Unnecessary operations can have side effects and there are scares on early false positives. Even the visits for checkups decrease quality of life a bit, and you’ve to do millions of those to save a life.
The problem is that, once the word ‘cancer’ has fallen, people categorize dying and side effects such as erectile dysfunction as the cancer’s fault and surviving as being thanks to medicine. So, on parties, they’ll say “doctors saved my life” and “cancer killed my brother”
Worth noting here is that "proton flash therapy" is a new therapy, but "proton therapy" is not. Proton therapy is a lot more recent than x-ray therapy, but still a conventional therapy.
Flash therapy is the part is which just now entering clinical trials, where you treat the patient with ultra-high dose rates (so you deliver the same dose of radiation, but in maybe 90 ms instead of 90 seconds). There are indications that healthy cells are better at recovering from the ulra-high dose rate than tumor cells are, which means it would have a protective effect on healthy tissue, but the mechanism behind it is not known. The type of radiation is not specified, it can be protons, electrons, x-rays, etc.
So "proton flash therapy" is a Flash therapy that uses protons. Other clinical trials are using electrons instead, i.e. "electron flash therapy".
Edit: If anyone thinks this is interesting and is looking for work in Stockholm, my workplace develops simulation / treatment planning tools for radiation therapy (including proton therapy and flash therapy) and is currently recruiting C++ and C# developers: https://www.raysearchlabs.com/career/
Thanks for explaining this, I'd heard of people being treated with proton beams already and it was pretty confusing to hear this was new and experimental.
What are the theories as to why healthy cells recover better than tumor cells, if any?
That anecdote is not necessarily true. The combination world be very rare even if blindness offers no protection, and it seems to simply not have been studied enough to be confident those rare individuals have been identified as such and published as case reports.
> The review was triggered by the Icelandic medicines agency following reports of suicidal thoughts and self-injury in people using liraglutide and semaglutide medicines. So far authorities have retrieved and are analysing about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts.
> Liraglutide and semaglutide medicines are widely used, with an exposure of over 20 million patient-years to date. It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors.
I think 150 case reports (3 reports from Iceland) across 20 million patient-years, with no evidence of a causality, seems to be very far from a "high likelihood" at the moment.
Lead is already a commonly used material in the sheath for medium and high voltage cables[1]. It is not considered a problem for industrial applications, where proper disposal of the cable at end of life is regulated, as far as I know.
A good reason to want self-absorbed bullies to publicly fail rather than publicly succeed is to discourage others from adopting similar attitude and methods.
If Elon was self-absorbed he'd be buying private yachts or private islands or massive mansions. He wouldn't be constantly talking about existential risks to humanity and trying to come up with ways of fixing them. Is Bill Gates self-absorbed? Much of what Elon Musk does is in a similar vein as the Gates Foundation, though often through for-profit companies.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but the source is actually him denying it.
> About the contention that he had a threesome with Ms. Heard and her friend Cara Delevingne, Mr. Musk said, laughing, “We did not have the threesome, you know. So I think people think these things are generally more salacious than they are.”
He's laughing at the reporter for even proposing the idea, followed by downplaying it in a way that makes it clear that this was the media being sensationalist for clicks again.
reply