It seems insane to me that naloxone isn't over the counter everywhere. It's a drug with (as far as my limited reading goes) literally no potential for abuse. To be fair, it has no purpose unless you are taking opiates, but it seems the worst kind of paternalism to say that you can't have something because it makes it less dangerous to do drugs.
For those who don't have the three minutes, the "punchline" is: "I know those forces are real, and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today. So before we start talking about genetic differences, you gotta come up with a system where there's equal opportunity, then we can have that conversation."
In the absence of any other context, saying "X has a conflict of interest because Y" implies "and therefore X is unlikely to be believed." Yes, presumably the UN does have a conflict of interest here. However, as Cholantesh points out, the size of the IPCC makes it unlikely that conflict is a major factor in affecting the interpretation of data (I am agnostic as to how likely the CoI is to affect the actual policy recommendations). Just pointing out the conflict, without any additional interpretation, is dodgy enough that it's reasonable to assume it's motivated by a conspiracy theory.
I am impressed that the effort to enforce a corporate monoculture (if we want to be uncharitable to Hsieh) has such a humane escape clause—3+ months severance and COBRA is nothing to sneeze at. I would be curious to see if there's any kind of option for bailing later, as a sort of "I've tried it, and now I know it's not for me" option.
Sutton's law: that's where the money is. Even if it's not going to make you rich, someone has to pay for the research, and funders want to have funded big ideas.
Your last question is about right as well. All the most successful academics I've met are incredibly creative people, with tons of ideas. If you have the choice of working on two equally interesting ideas, why not pick the one that's likely to turn out to be big? That will also help attract smart colleagues, which is, as much as anything else, one of the big perks of academia (not that you can't get that elsewhere for better salary and job security).
> We’re going to go out on a limb here and guesstimate that the remaining “maybe” answers can, given enough time and effort, be turned into “yes” or “no” answers, and that these will be distributed similarly to the 20:17 ratio of the fully answered headlines.
The OP does admit to going out on a limb, but I don't think this is a justified assumption. Without having seen the headlines in question, I would guess they are in the maybe category because they are dubious at best.
There are rare instances of people coming back to academia after being very successful in industry. It's hard to say whether the rate is low because there's a bias against it from the hiring committees, or if people are actually generally happy in industry and uninterested in going back, or likely some combination of both.
I've heard of one example of that in the MIT AI Lab in the '60-70s, although it helped that "very successful" can equal "can pay for his research budget" ^_^. And of course there weren't many real CS graduates to turn into faculty members in the bad old days.