Expez
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
The study does a poor job of helping an individual asking a similar but different question: Is it worthwhile for me to pay out of pocket for a colonoscopy?
The latter question is very important in a system that isn't single-payer and so this has sparked a lot of debate in e.g the US.
It seems that bacteria in the human gut already produce some hydrogen gas and that breath contains measurable levels of it[0]. This was news to me, but means that dumping a tiny amount of H2 into the body is probably fine.
[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-013-7606-6
The difference is debt they've taken on.
I highly recommend reading the book, as he goes into the key features that get us into the pleasant flow state, so you know what variables to tweak if you can't get there.
In practice people (e.g. exchanges, that know who you are after KYC) still opt to wait a little because if something does go wrong it's a hassle to actually get paid. For the same reason, we are likely to check some of the bills in a large cash payment for authenticity, even though we have effective recourse through the police and the judicial system.
If you're buying a coffee the vendor is likely to let you leave the shop after no confirmations (as soon as their node hears about the transaction) but if you're buying a car the same is unlikely to be true.
I use it extensively and it's both easy to use and super flexible (for the rare cases when you do need that).
Here's a link to the indent spec, if you want to read more: https://docs.cider.mx/cider/indent_spec.html
> I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: ‘try being rich first.’ See if that doesn’t cover most of it. There’s not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job. . . . The only good thing about fame is that I’ve gotten out of a couple of speeding tickets. I’ve gotten into a restaurant when I didn’t have a suit and tie on. That’s really about it.
> He added: "Unlocking these patterns means it should now be possible to develop new diagnostic tests, that pick up signs of cancer much earlier."
The journalist probably pressed this last point, because it can't possibly be true in a practical sense. Even if you can detect these changes early on in cells, we can't possibly test every cell in the body for mutations on e.g. a yearly basis, right?
The lack of published negative results isn't a problem unique to pharma but the drive for profits and the actual life and death outcomes makes it particular severe in this area of science, I think.
I highly recommend the book, it was both hilarious and terrifying.