sorcerer-mar

8 ms·

61.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
The issue with relying on placebo effects is not that they aren't real/don't work (everything you said also applies to e.g. a painkiller), but that they are very context-sensitive. Deploy that drug to an individual or populat
62.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
There are also studies that test against placebo. There have been lots and lots of trials on these things with different designs that make different cost/benefit tradeoffs. A difficult one with psychedelics is as-mentioned: people can
63.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
That isn't how these studies are being done... because yeah, it'd probably confound the results.
64.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Honestly I get the sense that you're not even reading these links. They do not substantiate the argument that you're making. I have at least skimmed every one of the links you've shared (except the Atlanta BizJournal since I
65.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Residency slots are not capped. Common misconception. Private parties are welcome to create and fund residency slots if they want. They typically don’t because it’s a totally nonsense investment — perfect example of a problem that private i
66.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Pharma companies already aren't very profitable and it's getting worse and worse every year (called "Eroom's Law" for the reverse of Moore's). The US's uniquely fucked healthcare situation is thanks to 1)
67.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Okay then, please demonstrate it and/or provide evidence. Otherwise you're on a thread where someone is pooh-poohing an effort to improve costs where we know they exist (labor) and suggesting it is meaningless compared to costs
68.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
No it doesn't. Any publicly funded construction is rife with tons of additional regulations designed to limit (but sometimes perpetuating) corrupt contracting, and transit projects in particular have very unique needs around land acqui
69.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
I don't know what point you think you're arguing against. I am not denying permitting exists and it slows things down. The original point was that this is a major contributor to cost of construction, which it's not. They spec
70.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Is there a reason you're pointing out San Francisco and New York in particular? Is it because we both know they're by far the most absurd instances of this problem and quite obviously unique in how absurd they are?
71.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Maybe! But it still does not comport with the original post that I replied to which said that permitting etc are the major driver of cost of any construction project. It is not.
72.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
You're referring to the delta in material and labor between project start and project permission? That's also a fraction of overall costs.
73.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Transit costs are a small fraction of "construction". I agree our transit development costs are insane though this has a lot more to do with America's very strong concept of property rights (and the weaponization of other app
74.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
That's not analysis
75.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Could you link to some analysis on this?
76.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
The carrying cost of land is very low compared to any overall project. The issue is that extended timelines drive down the IRR and add risk which is not the same as being expensive to carry. > All of the local large projects around me ar
77.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
I am not saying costly in direct “money being spent” terms. I mean costly in “adversely affecting project investment profile.” This is not the same as costing a bunch of money.
78.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
The time component isn’t draining bank accounts…
79.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Permitting, zoning, etc are all like <3% of a construction project’s cost. This is a meme with no basis in reality. All of the cost is labor and materials. That said, the time component of the zoning, permitting etc is very costly due
80.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Extreme precipitation events are also getting more common.
81.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Sure. I'm not saying it's a good idea. It was a glaring omission from the provided list.
82.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Reading tons of reports, no?
83.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
How is that relevant to my point? Despite its failures (however many you want to point out), our regulatory regime converts a pipeline of almost universally ineffective and/or dangerous compounds into a marketplace of almost universall
84.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
The point is that it's nowhere close to a crapshoot. 99.99999% of drugs ever created are unsafe or ineffective. 99%+ of the drugs you will ever encounter in your life are both safe and effective. That is not a crapshoot. Obviously.
85.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
What incentive does an insurance company with an expected coverage period of 4 years have to prevent a drug with long term harm from reaching its patients? What about drugs that people do not buy via insurance? Just have a free for all ther
86.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
We know for a fact (like actual empirical fact) that FDA prevents vast numbers of unsafe and ineffective drugs from reaching the market. This is absolutely indisputable. So uhhh, maybe we think in reality instead of offloading to metaphor.
87.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Challenge: Answer basic question with anything other than slogans Difficulty level: Impossible
88.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
It seems to me they were referring to FDA as a member among other "oppressive regimes" that fail in this way.
89.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Tell me: how do you prove that a drug hurt you? Spoiler alert: you cannot. The reason clinical trials are so expensive and complicated is because it's extremely hard to isolate signal of "what is this drug doing to people." S
90.
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Anyone who has worked in drug development knows how vital FDA is. The FDA costs taxpayers less than $4 billion per year. If FDA is a net negative, next time you need a medication you're aware you can go participate in a Phase I study,

More ›