ilya_m

> Which would explain why current treatments don't really work ... [they] at best slow the rate of decline

This is called working! I am struck by the double-standard applied to assessing treatment options for Alzheimer's vs cancers. Many (most?) Stage IV cancers are incurable, and the main goal of treatment is to slow progression of the disease. Adding years to patients' lives is absolutely worth it, assuming the side effects are not overwhelming and the costs are not prohibitive.

To wit: Moderna added ~30B to its market cap on the news that it observed _statistically significant_ improvement in its primary endpoint for treating metastatic melanoma. Great! I'm as excited about this development as anyone. A new treatment option for a terrible disease that meaningfully improves on the current standard of care (Keytruda). Sadly, Stage IV melanoma is still considered terminal, and no one suggested that Moderna changed that.

Why not reset expectations for Alzheimer's? If we manage to slow its development enough so that most patients (who tend to be elderly) would die of other causes while maintaining decent quality of life, that's a win in my book.

Your definition of an expat matches undocumented immigrants from Latin America to the US perfectly, and yet somehow the word is never used in that context.

How come a person living abroad is an expat only if they are white and an immigrant if they are not? I would expect better from the NYT... How about "undocumented Mexican expats" for a change?

A fine for faking a license plate, may be? ÁÀÂÀÄ are not in the Danish alphabet.

I am sure if she could pull the wool of JP Morgan's eyes, she could convince Scientist-1 that it was legit. "I want to expense it under Marketing not R&D, which would let us pay you more. My CPA's eyes glaze over, can you uplevel it?" or something

> I wish I'd put $1,000 into bitcoins then; I'd be a billionaire. I thought bitcoin was a Ponzi scheme.

These are not mutually exclusive statements. Actually, this is how Ponzi schemes work ; -)

(Somehow I never connected Bayer et al. and Bayer & Diaconis. Wow!)

Do I think it's the best use of taxpayers' dollars (ie, mine) to screen for objectionable content on social media? No.

Do I trust the government to police opinions? No, especially when there's no accountability and appeals process.

Do I believe the overall benefits that harassment-free international travel brings to this country outweigh the costs of letting in some visitors whose views I disagree with? Yes.

Please change the title to "Why 536 was 'the worst year to be alive' (2018)".