pgcudahy

This is frustrating that it's marketed as FDA approved but people won't recognize that it is regulated as a medical device, which have to only show safety, rather than as a drug, which have to show safety *and* efficacy.

They target gamma-aminobutyric acid chloride channels (GABACl) that aren't present in mammals. There is a relatively narrow therapeutic index in animals, but generally felt to be safe at approved doses. They're given to millions of animals, so we'd probably know if there was a problem.

"I have not witnessed one machinist harmed by lead in 40 years." Do you know what you're looking for? Lead poising can be subtle but eventually devastating. This is like the asbestos industry saying that miners didn't get harmed because they didn't follow up with them years later when mesothelioma slowly strangled them.

Has anyone tried the new anker or ecoflow lithium portable power stations as a UPS?

I've got it running from a Pi3 with no issues serving to multiple roku clients simultaneously. I'm also really happy with how the roku client has gone from just working to well polished in the past year, even on my first gen device.

I would think of Henry Ford and the assembly line just prior to this period as the birth of modern manufacturing. Moving from artisans doing most or all of the work on an item to individuals repeating one process repeatedly as the product moves down an assembly line. So I think it was a very relevant question for the period of how designers could adapt to it. The article just claims they didn’t really have any experience with these new methods.

There seems to be no analysis of whether these are neutralizing antibodies. The idea of using serology for immunity certificates or "golden tickets" is never going to go well. Even with 99.9% specificity, if the population prevalence is 1%, 10% of positives will be false positives. If in real world testing, specificity is 99% and population prevalence is 1%, then 50% of positives are false positives.

With only 58% sensitivity and 2 false positives for every true positive, this is going to be like the automated drug interaction checks that we all click through because they are too many false positives

These articles are posted monthly and I love them. Great in-depth histories.

In this article and others I've read, people complain about the tidyverse's lack of performance, but I think that places too much emphasis on speed of execution versus speed of development. As an academic, most of the R users I know only code as a portion of their scientific projects. Besides data analysis we're doing data collection, manuscript writing and grant writing. The tidyverse's more english-like syntax (eg select() versus `[`) and following a series of pipes rather than unnesting ten sets of brackets makes it so much easier to come back to my code after a few weeks or months and pick up where I left off, or to work with other people's code. My time is more valuable than computer time so the tidyverse is my choice.