The big difference is the profit motive in the absence of a truly free market.

The big difference is the requirement to test them to make sure they work. It's expensive, and most candidates fail.

This is potentially the biggest strenth of a vaccine approach. According to the Internet the flu vaccine costs my government an average of $5.43 cents. Individuals can get it for under $100 in most parts of the world where you have to pay the full cost. The reason it's not stupid expensive, being a new drug with novel components most years, is because the procedure for making flu vaccines is well known and has a special type of approval that lets new variations be used without extensive trials.

It's not particularly difficult to determine the protein that a bit of DNA codes for. It's more difficult to figure out which of those are going to be reasonable antigens to target, but you don't really have to. Cancer cells aren't unknown pathogens, they're regular old human cells with mutations.

You don't need to do that either though. Cancer mutations aren't infinitely diverse. "Personalized medicine" sounds like a treatment just for you and you alone, and maybe in a Star Trek future it will be, but in the meantime it means a targeted treatment. You'd identify something that occurs in 10% or 1% or 0.01% of a particular type of cancers, make a treatment, and sell that along with a test for that mutation. We've already got several of those based on more traditional immunotherapy. RNA vaccines just make it a lot easier so we'll have lot more options, including ones that target the 1% and 0.01% instead of just the 10%.

It's worse than that. They insist on not selling any bitcoin. So their ability to repay the loan, issue dividends, whatever, depends entirely on their ability to get more people to give them money.

Infinity: I do not think it means what you think it means.

ACs say the darndest things.

Social media has become a toxic dump. If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant, then you shouldn't allow them to play in the social media that's out there. Because, frankly, of the two, plutonium is safer.

I do, however, contend that this is a perfectly fixable problem. There is no reason why social media couldn't be safe. USENET was never this bad. Hell, Slashdot at its worst was never as bad as Facebook at its best. And Kuro5hin was miles better than X. Had a better name, too. The reason it's bad is that politicians get a lot of kickbacks from the companies and the advertisers, plus a lot of free exposure to millions. Politicians would do ANYTHING for publicity.

I would therefore contend that Australia is fixing the wrong problem. Brain-damaging material on Facebook doesn't magically become less brain-damaging because kids have to work harder to get brain damage. Nor are adults mystically immune. If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points. Australia is, however, at least acknowledging that a problem exists. They just haven't identified the right one. I'll give them participation points. The rest of the globe, not so much.

They had a very good reporting engine when OLAP was a new thing back in the early 2000s. A business model licensing software that actually delivered value to their customers. What a concept!

Now they are a Ponzi scheme dressed up as a company. Another indication how far the US has fallen that the SEC tolerates this kind of BS.

It's common in English too. The two OPs might be from a particular society that's allergic to multisyllabic words.

A corporation is a legal concept that lets a group of people own property and act together. Many people are expecting AI to replace corporations, especially in software development because one guy with an idea will be able to do what now requires a bunch of shareholders to pool their resources and hire a bunch of specialists.

And then we invented LLMs.

Inflation is not being treated as noise, if it were then we wouldn't index it away, we would just ignore it. The fact we are indexing it away is due to treating it as a real predictable trend.

However, the purpose of indexing it away is to normalize, due to the recognition that it's not the absolute prices that matter, only their relative relationships

Inflation is a flaw in the measuring instrument we're using (fiat currency), kind of like if you have a metallic ruler and you increase the ambient temperature, then the expansion will make the inch markings on the ruler be longer than an actual inch.

Your Streisand Effect definition is too narrow, imho. The issue isn't disclosure against the company's wishes, it's the increased awareness by the public arising from consequences of the company's initial policy choice of halting operations and service to the Russian public.

I rise to speak!

'Tis but risible, in the extreme!

Recently, even!

Yours in rice,

Rhys

Oh yeah? If you're so Canadadian, where's your accent, eh?

(not disagreeing)

No, you see, it's an emergency. The US is being invaded and the president is using his legally granted emergency powers to shake down, er, regulate the flow of trade to China. And deploy the US military against American citizens in American cities. And conduct extrajudicial murder.