genericresponse

This seems very unusual on many, many levels. I hate to ask, but were you a child when this happened? If so, are you sure you were in all the conversations. First- There are less than 600 total hip replacements conducted each year on children in the United States. Second- It would be unusual for this surgery to be even recommended without something serious being addressed. Third- Failure to discuss risks and tradeoffs would be regarded as malpractice if something went wrong.

You're not wrong, but the weakness you point out isn't a new concept.

Market cap is, at best, a rough valuation of the company. It has many confounding variables of which liquidity can be one of them. That's part of why investment analysts put out price targets for companies. The counterpoint is that market price is driven by what people are actually paying.

One of the major challenges with valuation is settling on a methodology overall. There are many ways, appropriate and not, to value a company. Many will have different estimates for value. There are also factors, like control premium, that start to become relevant when you try to completely acquire a company.

One of the benefits of an open and liquid market is that future availability of locked shares can be priced in early. We all get the benefit of consensus information.

Obesity is widely regarded as a chronic disease that includes the interaction of genetic and other factors with behavioral factors.

The unbelievably low success rate of diet and exercise programs for long-term weight reduction is widely documented and quite consistent with the earlier poster's experience.

Statistically. Do many trials and measure how often it succeeds/fails.

Ehh... you're both wrong. Argentina ended 2024 with an annual inflation rate close to 100%. That's significantly lower, but still hyperinflation. It should be lower this year, but how much is the question.

Whether that's maintainable long term is probably the decisive judgement. Argentina has had many cycles of hyperinflation, reset, hyperinflation again. The current bailout is not exactly a positive indicator.

That's just not true. The models have real predictive power, they just have limitations. Behavioral economics, which tackles this frontier is still a growing field. Thaler, Kahneman, and Taversky won the prize in 2017 for building the bridge between economic theory and individual decision-making.

At the risk of being inflammatory-- These arguments are the equivalent of saying that Newton didn't really do physics because his models of mechanics break down at high enough speeds and small enough scales.

There are two more steps:

- Demand drops due to increased price to buyers.

- Prices drop so manufacturers can remain profitable.

The key difference in the markets is that it takes a very long time to build more apartments and houses, especially in France. There also isn't an option to not have housing. (Low elasticity) That keeps the short term supply effectively static. Same amount of supply, increase in money spent, inflation.

In a market like solar, there is production of more solar systems. There are also multiple readily available substitutes. (e.g. on-grid power) The effect of the subsidy should drive increased volume from manufacturers, keeping net price stable.

I'm sorry, but that's not what OP said. OP didn't say anything about the essential-ness of the entire workforce. They solely spoke to the larger, well documented and endorsed by major SV players, plan to transform our government structure.

Proof or you're lying. Yelling doesn't make something true.

It's the standard you've asked others to be held to in these comments. It's fair to be held to it yourself.

Can you provide a basis in fact for the argument about a large portion of government spending? I'm asking because I think the argument is specious.

First- 49% of national spending goes to Social Security, Medicare and interest payments. The first is a direct payment, the second is very heavily regulated and has a bounty program for fraud waste and abuse, and the third is paid directly to bondholders.

Second- I'm almost certain that most, if not all, government contracts have auditing rights included. So we could audit them if we want, in fact almost every government agency has an inspector general to do just that.

This is /s, right?

First- Many of the cuts haven't been legally conducted and, rather, represent waste themselves as they are going to disrupt activities and create litigation. So we, the people, will pay at least as much and have less productive results and have to pay for legal fees.

Second- Federal contracts are usually bid on the free market. There's an RFP, bidders, and the best fit wins. It's usually lowest cost while meeting requirements. I'm not sure why selling to the government is not a "real customer."

Third- It's reductive and inflammatory to say that not detailing out the contracts were for was because you would have seen it as wasteful corrupt spending. How would the prior commenter have even known what you see as wasteful and corrupt?

Definitionally, at least in the US, Autism is a disability. It's a qualifier for the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The specific definition: "A disability is a physical or mental impairment that makes it harder for a person to perform certain activities or interact with the world around them." For many ASD makes it harder to interact with the world around them, whether that's overstimulation, communication challenges, or something else.

It's reasonable to wonder if the disabilities were caused by brain damage post-partum or are symptomatic of his autism. At the same time we shouldn't forget the many others with ASD and similar disabilities who lack another explanation. Some of the population with ASD have limited communication skills and cannot pass as neurotypical.

Can you clarify what you mean by "social politics?"

I ask because rural health is effectively its own subspecialty in family medicine. There doesn't seem to be a locality equivalent for other geographic subgroups. This implies, to me, an extra level of focus on the needs of a population.