I'd vote you up if I could since I know this was tongue-in-cheek.

Yeah, really! I don't have any points to give you right now, but If I did, I'd give you 3.

Truth is that discovering new drugs is really hard. If all these billionaires want to toss their filthy lucre back into the game, I'm all for it. It will be better for mankind than building yachts. And yeah, they're not gonna get rich doing it. A few will, most won't. But all you'll hear about is the one who did.

I think this is an unfair assessment. Big pharma has plenty of incentive to actually cure things. The Hep C drugs are a good example. This crap, suggesting that big pharma is suppressing good drugs to make more money, is tiresome and not useful. How about offering some useful insight into just how they should be going about it? I'm waiting.

If Apple has a sense of humor, they're drawing up new ads based on this, as we speak.

We've made molecules like this (cy 7.5) in our lab that we can selectively deliver to transformed cells. We've never thought of exciting them enough to jackhammer cells. They just used store bought molecules. We can do better targeting. Worth a look.

Word 5.0 for the Mac was the pinnacle. It's been sliding ever since.

I don't see any mention of "Will it Blend?" https://www.youtube.com/channe...

Maybe they should just cancel it. Let the private sector do it. There's better places to put $7B.

I would tend to agree with this. First, because of publisher greed, there are way too many journals. The good stuff was always getting published. When you increase the number of publications 10-fold, we know which side of the bell curve the increased publications are falling on. I'm looking at you ACS, Nature, Cell, etc.

The second reason is the old "publish or perish" rule. In most of the world, it's sort of enforced by peers. In some parts of the world, it's more likely enforced or monitored by political hacks, who, lacking expertise, rely on numbers only. We know where that leads.

Most journal readers are aware of these problems and so the impact of garbage getting tn the way of real science is less than one might think. If someone is publishing a lot of garbage and nobody is calling them out for it, it's probably because nobody is reading that garbage.

Good point!

700 down by a third is close to 460, not 250. Down to a third is closer to 250. Where are the editors?

My 2021 Model 3 LR easily gets 4m/kWh most of the time including a fair amount of highway driving. That's about 1/25 of this thing. Is my 2-ton car the most efficient thing available commercially? I don't think so. Bad math.

People buy them and use them because they're semi reliable and cheap. Wyze dramatically dropped the price of getting a camera that you could monitor from anywhere on your phone and catch short videos of what's going on. No one thought they were robust or secure. You don't expect that for $20. If somebody wants to sit and watch my front porch all day, well, I'll take that chance for $20. Having said that, Wyze is the master of bait and switch. They keep trying to upsell me on subscriptions to features that were included when I bought the camera. "Oh, you like that? Now you have to pay for it". But I don't complain too much because they're cheap. Smart people buy them and put them in places where they don't really worry if someone in China is also monitoring them.

You shouldn't be allowed to write stuff like this without proposing some kind of mechanism which explains a causal relationship. Well, actually, you can write anything you want to. It's just that it's kind of useless. Maybe you shouldn't read stuff like this.