estearum

28 ms·

721.
by estearum 4mo ago
Uhh... the question was "can the market detect efficacy." My answer is: Generally no, and it also can't detect negative effects either. That's answering the question. > this only require information regarding if the t
722.
by estearum 4mo ago
This is why (in the US anyway) The Business Journals are fantastic. Also, they're extremely localized, which is most stuff of direct relevance anyway. Absolutely love those publications.
723.
by estearum 4mo ago
> But cigarettes' negative effects are significantly stronger than most drugs' positive (or negative) effects I am clearly talking about both positive and negative effects of drugs. Both would be generally extremely hard to d
724.
by estearum 4mo ago
Sure, in the same way "the market" discovered that cigarettes cause significant health problems. Step 1. Ensure extremely widespread use to ensure that effects are noticed relatively quickly (i.e. within a few decades) Step 2. Hop
725.
by estearum 4mo ago
Regulators don't demand byzantine trials. They'd prefer simpler ones for a million different reasons. Byzantine trial designs exist because it's incredibly hard to prove your drug works even in an RCT. But GP thinks you can
726.
by estearum 4mo ago
Brilliant idea. This way both actual working drugs and vitamin-aisle potions look identical to consumers. Neither (or both?) can make claims to their effectiveness since they're both backed by the same (lack of) actual knowledge. This
727.
by estearum 4mo ago
> Demands for increasingly byzantine trials This is silly. FDA has essentially one requirement: prove that your drug is safe and effective. The reason trial designs get more and more byzantine is because the drugs themselves work less-a
728.
by estearum 4mo ago
Also, despite GP's dismissal of the "low-hanging fruit" hypothesis, it is obviously true that we've found the easy-to-discover drugs, and therefore drugs would get harder and harder to find. A flippant dismissal in an HN
729.
by estearum 4mo ago
Yeah, GP is basically saying: "Large controlled experiments are costly and can hurt people who opt-in to informed consent. Instead, we should do significantly, significantly larger experiments, with undefined success/failure con
730.
by estearum 4mo ago
For real. How much more do we need to spend to learn that plants crave Brawndo?
731.
by estearum 4mo ago
It has nothing to do with democracy and I don't know why you keep injecting that. There's state involvement because it's a communist country. You should let the CCP know that their government is uninvolved and lacks effective
732.
by estearum 4mo ago
Somebody reading your comment would come away with the idea that the government is allowed to track cars with GPS so long as they do not trespass in order to do it. This is not true. The unanimous opinion did not rule on that, but also th
733.
by estearum 4mo ago
It's the completeness of the record that matters, not the publicness of it.
734.
by estearum 4mo ago
No no no, not true. US v Jones ruled that installing a GPS car tracker requires a warrant at least when it involves trespass on private property. That case explicitly did not answer whether it would also require a warrant if no trespass
735.
by estearum 4mo ago
> A cellphone is effectively you in the eyes of the law. No. I just laid out the reasons why cell tower data is different. It has nothing to do with whether a cellphone "is effectively you," which obviously it's not.
736.
by estearum 4mo ago
The reason cell tower data is excluded from Third Party Doctrine has nothing to do with the contents of a cell phone. Cell tower data doesn't have any relationship whatsoever to the contents of the phone. The relevant factors are:
737.
by estearum 4mo ago
Nope. United States v Jones already answered this question.
738.
by estearum 4mo ago
Just like cell towers record a cell phone's travel history. Cell phones are highly regulated and having one is a privilege. There is no _right_ to carry a cell phone from point A to point B, in secret or not.
739.
by estearum 4mo ago
This is pretty much how SCOTUS approaches the 4th Amendment, yes. It's basically a continuous rebalancing of private vs government power, and new technologies cause more rebalancing.
740.
by estearum 4mo ago
Nope, this is not an element whatsoever in the most relevant cases, being Carpenter and now Chatrie.
741.
by estearum 4mo ago
This is not true. For example, this would allow the government to wiretap anyone without warrant. Katz v United States would be the place to start your research.
742.
by estearum 4mo ago
No, they argued these records are akin to a record of the person's travel history. > As Google puts it, and no one seriously disputes, Location History serves as a “diary” or map “of a person’s travels.” "Diary" is a red h
743.
by estearum 4mo ago
This is implying the contents of the data are relevant. They're not. What's relevant is only that the government ends up with a very complete picture of a person's whereabouts without a warrant. That is what is disallowed.
744.
by estearum 4mo ago
Which is also irrelevant There's nothing special about any particular technology at all. The question is whether people have an option to generate the data for a third party (Google, Flock, or cell tower operators) and then the sensiti
745.
by estearum 4mo ago
Why would the expectation of privacy be different depending on which spectrum of light the information was captured in (visible vs radio)? In both scenarios, the data is held by a private third party and a person generates this data pretty
746.
by estearum 4mo ago
Oh yeah that's a good point. In that case, this Chinese hedge fund is choosing to sink billions of dollars in R&D alongside vast opportunity cost in order to create models and release them for free because umm... they're just
747.
by estearum 4mo ago
That's why Lyft/Uber drivers who use Teslas need to cover them in stickers explaining how to do such esoteric behaviors as "open door"
748.
by estearum 4mo ago
Side note for other readers: Parent is describing a reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism , which is a distinct (but sometimes overlapping) worldview from effective altruism. The primary effective altruism cause areas are extremely acute
749.
by estearum 4mo ago
Because they are a state-owned enterprise tasked with destroying the aforementioned alpha of private American labs...?
750.
by estearum 4mo ago
DeepSeek is acting in accordance with their incentives, just like Anthropic is

More ›