The BCG vaccine has also been found to be effective against bladder cancer. One of the two manufacturers bailed out of the market about a decade ago, limiting supply for both TB and bladder cancer.

They just opened a new manufacturing facility in Durham this past Spring to make much more. Not sure if it's producing yet, but it was a four-year build.

TB affects so few Americans that you can't even get BCG for TB prevention if you want it. Hopefully high-risk folks will be able to elect to get it soon.

> The software had a built-in limit of 200 bot detection features. The enlarged file contained more than 200 entries. The software crashed when it encountered the unexpected file size.

A built in limit is:

if ( rule_count > 200 )
    log_urgent('rule count exceeded')
    break
else
    rule_count++
    process_rule

This sounds like it did not have a built-in limit but rather walked off the end of an array or something when the count went over 200.

I heard earlier today that a court has determined that since governments are using all of this data, including license plates, that a FoIA request for all of the license plate data gathered from Flock in a city area for a range of dates was valid.

They want to have a power advantage over their serfs but turning their advantage into a burden changes that dynamic. Something to look into for those so inclined.

We seem to be well past the point of being able to expect them to follow the Law or "do the right thing".

> I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase.

Jim-bob is likely to face some serious problems if he smashes down your door and drags you away in a pre-dawn raid.

The IRS people get a promotion.

This is why the Constitution places strict limits on the actions of government agents.

(in its original interpretation)

Here I am about to think "damn, people losing their jobs to AI" and then I realize its the "pizza in 4-easy payments" people.

They should probably go all-in on AI as soon as possible. For their investors' sake.

OK, that was pretty funny. +1.

This is true - but it's also not fraud because it's legal. The only way to make it illegal is regulation and some on the NeoCapitalist side of the ledger are convinced that the only solution is less government.

OTOH, the other side of the coin, and why at least one major hedge fund has closed down, returning the capital to investors, is because it's getting hard to impossible to short where you think values are ridiculously high.

The famous case is the GameStock short squeeze. Retail investors set out to deliberately manipulate the price with the goal of forcing a liquidation of the shorts. If institutional investors had tried the same thing they would be in trouble - and possibly even going to prison - because market manipulation is one of the things that is regulated.

However, like so many things, while it was obvious from the social media noise that the goal of many of the retail investors was to manipulate a short squeeze, it's going to be hard to impossible to prove that any individual investor was doing that, especially as individual retail investors do not have the clout to do it, or even start it, on their own so you'd presumably (IANAL) have to prove collusion as well.

Bitcoin relies entirely on SHA256 ASIC's for hashing and they typically need replacing every year or two because more efficient models come out making the old ones unprofitable, especially at halvings. Due to the RoI and first-mover advantage the profitable ones are very expensive.

If you want to heat your home with proof-of-work, use a coin that uses RandomX or some other deliberately ASIC-resistant algorithm (usually CPU mining).

You can pool mine on an old CPU and still get a few pennies for your efforts, though if you want to invest in an EPYC and have other uses for it (maybe you have work jobs to run during the day and want more heat on cold nights) it could actually be profitable.

Resistive electric heating is still a very expensive way to heat, though some people don't have better options. There's a development near where I am that was built shortly after Nixon announced Project Independence and every house (cold climate) has wall-to-wall electric baseboard heating.

It'll be at least half of that in ten years.

The Zoomers have no interest in cable TV.

Yes, similar to an etf.

Perhaps a non-crypto example would be an ETF property fund.

Except the fund was formed by the investors putting in property they held rather than money.

Then they offload the ETF shares to the unsuspecting investor who trusts the value the fund has put on its assets.

> Why not just build the proper infrastructure with what we know works?

I tried to do this locally. The government allows the pole owner (electric or telephone usually) to charge $50/mo/pole to the startup that wishes to hang wires.

The owner pays $5/mo in property taxes to the town.

There are exceptions for large corporations that are in the state's good graces.

It's just to keep competition limited to the cartel.

Short answer: corrupt government.

This was my first thought as well.

Such marketplace confusion!

I don't think it's quite that.

Normally, if I'm going to create a fund what I do is raise money from investors, go out and buy the underlying assets for my fund and then give the investors shares.

The investors get two things, access to my skill at investing, and the ability to spread their risk across the market without having to have hundreds of separate holdings.

What's happening here is, instead, the fund is being funded by assets the fund manager already holds but aren't really liquid and so are hard to price.

But once they've sold the shares in the fund, they've sold their hard to value asset for cash without having to actually find a buyer for a multi-hundred million holding or even having to properly value it.

The UK also had a veto over most of the rules that the EU introduced. I don't think it ever used it. In fact, in almost every case, the UK voted for the proposed rules. It was something like under 2% that it didn't want, mostly because the EU tends to make sure everyone is happy before even having the vote - you know, how adults agree stuff.

Pretty much. Although for many things the UK didn't have a veto but did very well out of the fact that if there was a disagreement at the "big country level" then it was France vs Germany with Britain being the casting vote.

Your 2% rings a bell - although that doesn't mean that the UK voted for the other 98%. The UK did abstain in a substantial proportion. - something like 60% of the time its vote went with the winning side, 38% abstain, 2% lose due to enough numbers on the other side.

The UK government also specialized in gold plating EU legislation. It would get the law it wanted passed in the EU and would then go over and above what the EU required while simultaneously saying to the voters "It's not us, the EU made us do it".

If this were the case they would not permit manual selection of the rapid acceleration mode.