Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas
You need to process a lot of air to get that much water out. At 100% humidity, there is only 0.000017 liters of liquid water per liter of air at room temperature. So you need to process 4,882,353 liters of air per hour to extract 83 liters of water per hour. And if you have less than 100% humidity, then its worse.
What do you do with all the heat? And wouldn't you need a very large volume of air?
Income disparities encourage people to enter fields they would not otherwise select. If this study is correct even with the inflated wages in a number of tech fields, is a government program or an "awareness" effort going to change that? Why do we insist on goalseeking to 50-50 gender split in engineering disciplines but not other fields like medicine?
I have no idea why the split is what it is, and neither does anyone else. But it is not de facto evidence of discrimination or improper socialization.
Is this satire? Laying infrastructure for fast speeds cost money, and it doesn't scale up and down based on how many at the target location will buy the high speeds. Should companies be shamed into running T1 lines to 5,000 acre farmhouses, too? Rural customers are "discriminated against" far more than urban poor customers!!
What a joke.
Govt says I can't say something? There's an amendment for that.
How to view any voting change suggested by a sitting politician or political party: whatever he/she is suggesting will help their party get more votes, based on research and data mining of coring patterns conducted by a top firm during a 6 or 7 figure project.
It depends. If you are looking for raise in your current job, making people nervous to leave can be effective. If you are looking for a promotion to a more important role, making people nervous you're going to leave can be counterproductive
It's a rare disease and Daraprim cures it after about 80 pills. The market is super tiny, and unfortunately R&D for a new drug doesn't shrink in cost just because the target market is tiny. When you biggie sized your dinner tonight, you paid many times more than the premium increases from Daraprim's price change. On the flip side, a market that has been dormant for 75 years is now active and innovating through R&D. Patients with rare diseases are fucked because almost no pharma company gives a shit about them. Shkreli, whether you agree with him or not, is trying to make the numbers work so he can innovate in these diseases with tiny markets.
> Clearly he fucked over people who were totally powerless
Is this clear to you? It isn't clear to me. I think you're referring to people who get Toxoplasmosis, and if so you're simply uninformed. They don't pay anything for Daraprim. Their insurance company pays for the drug, and if they have no insurance they get it for free (or $1; can't remember). In theory this does increase insurance premiums, but we are only talking about 2,000 patients per year each taking something like 80 pills before cured. So, the apportioned cost of your Internet connection during the time you are complaining about Shkreli is many many times more than any theoretical increase in your health insurance premium from the Daraprim price increase.
Wow, that's a lot of pitchforks, Slashdot.
Let's take a deep breath for a second and talk about what Shkreli is doing. If you take him at his word, and I do, he is interested in the niche market of pharmaceuticals for rare diseases. In the case of Daraprim (the drug he increased to $750 per pill), it cures Toxoplasmosis. Only a couple thousand people get Toxoplasmosis each year, which might not sound like a small number, except that Daraprim cures it after one regimen.
Daraprim has the market cornered not because the FDA is slow to approve alternatives, but because companies don't give a shit about a drug that sells a couple hundred thousand pills per year. Daraprim has been the drug for 75 years. There has been no innovation, and luckily there have been no mutations that have made Daraprim ineffective. If there had been, those couple thousands of people would just die each year, because it's unlikely anyone would invest R&D into developing a new drug. Even so, Shkreli believes Daraprim is not that great and he can do better.
Shkreli's theory is that you can actually make money in the rare drug business and that it's morally right to do so (and morally wrong to ignore these patients just because their disease is too rare to be a worthwhile market). He raised money on this theory, bought Daraprim, and increased the price *to insurers* as planned to make the acquisition worthwhile and fund the development of a better drug for Toxoplasmosis.
Does this mean anyone is paying $750 per pill out-of-pocket? No.
Does this mean hospitals are paying $750 per pill to stock the drug? No. Almost all hospitals pay somewhere around $1 per pill.
Does this mean people without insurance are screwed? No. Shkreli gives away the pills to these people as inexpensively as he is legally allowed to (I can't remember if that's free or if he is required to sell it for what he charges the hospitals, but in either case it's as cheap as he's allowed to make it.)
Is $750 per pill a large amount for a rare-disease cure? Absolutely not. It's small relative to many other drugs with even larger markets.
Does this mean our insurance rates go up? In theory, yes. That is what insurance is for. You pay a little bit more than your expected benefit (probability X $amount) in order to cap your downside risk. In this case, the diseases are so incredibly rare that its contribution to your health insurance premium is not measurable.
Shkreli's point is that areas of the rare disease pharma market are not functioning, and he believes he can make them function. In this case, that means these drugs are mis-priced.
For someone to be controversial, there has to be two sides. Reading the comments here, there is clear universal hatred for Shkreli. That is not controversy and suggests that people here have not spent any time trying to understand what Shrkeli is doing. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
Where did I say that? Why is it impossible to have a normal conversation on this subject where you can process simple logic without spinning off into hyperbole? If you actually listen to climate scientists -- many of them anyway -- they are pretty damn reasonable about the limits of what we understand and sound a lot like me. But somehow I'm anti-science because I don't hold the position of hyperventilating politicians who wouldn't know science from a hole in the ground? Okay.
Snark aside, this is exactly right. When it comes to climate science, we have lost all humility for what we do not yet know, which is a critical element of science.
Adam Duritz, is that you?
The explicit marking of sarcasm is there for people who aren't naturally sarcastic to the core and can pick up on the sarcasm without the explicit marker. I had no trouble understanding that the comment wasn't serious. It was quite an effective trolling, as proven by the reply threads.
An egghead is one who stands firmly on both feet, in mid-air, on both sides of an issue. -- Homer Ferguson