rjett

Collective bargaining can be used to leverage other assets, besides money.

Why is this being downvoted? Perhaps on its face it seems to be anti-technology and regressive, but there's plenty of data to suggest that the industrial efficiencies of modern farms have massive negative externalities in terms of depleted soil health in the form of the narrowing of both macrobiome and microbiome, depleted nutrient content in our plants, depleted health and nutrition of our animals, leading up to depleted health to those at the top of the food chain: humans.

This is slightly off topic since the focus of this article is racial demographics and economic standing in a culture, but it's interesting that Brazil, a country which has whole heartedly adopted chemical agriculture and monocropping practices finds themselves in a place where fertility rates per woman are lower than in the US, which has one of the lowest (and also heavily relies on chemical ag). As an investigative journalism piece, I think teasing out the effects of industrial agriculture from other social factors that contribute to people CHOOSING not to have children and relating that to fertility rates would be a much more substantive article than looking at sperm imports where n=500.

I realize the article is discussing a form of immunotherapy, but I think immunotherapy is also in its infancy, and given the nature of cancer cells and the heterogeneity of its own genetic makeup, immunotherapy still seems like a very blunt weapon in the war on cancer. For a patient who has already been beaten down by rounds of chemo and radiation, it offers a last ditch hope for survival, but its still laden with risks and adverse outcomes.

On the contrast, metabolic treatment is tough from the standpoint that it requires strict discipline by the patient to adhere to the protocol, but the "side effects" may actually enhance overall health at the cellular level. It's a treatment that at the very least could be melded with the current standard of care to achieve better outcomes, and yet there's very little awareness of it, possibly because there's not a lot of money in it for hospital systems.

I'm not a cellular biologist or a doctor of any kind, but I consider myself a reasonably smart person. Reading the book Tripping Over the Truth by Travis Christofferson and tracking the work of Thomas Seyfried and others, it makes me think that a lot of the discussion in the battle for curing cancer is chasing a false paradigm: that cancer is a disease of genetics and if we could understand and edit the genome, we could cure the disease. The case for the Metabolic theory of cancer as laid out by Seyfried is quite compelling and if true, the implications for treatment from a patient standpoint seem to me much more preferential than the current combination chemotherapies which are only getting more and more expensive and only marginally more efficacious. Work on this front is only in its infancy, but my hope is that more people become aware, more funding directed towards metabolic therapy trials, and one day it could at least be incorporated into the standard of care.

My favorite "tea" to make is just chopping up a little ginger, a little turmeric, and some sort of citrus zest, steep in boiling water for 10 mins. You can re-steep it several times also. I drink it every day because it's delicious, as well as calming and anti-inflammatory.

Question from a non-Silicon Valley professional: Where does all that money go? Obviously, some [likely big] portion of it is still on the balance sheet, but does an app like Shazam really cost that much in engineering talent to update it and iterate it and server space to keep it running?

I see that happening only under an employee owned company. Most companies start small though, with 1 to n founders and/or equity owners. I think it takes a special owner and a very special set of employees for an owner to later abdicate control back to their employees.

Owner of a business here... I'm 6 years into owning my own business and things have grown year over year for the company and we are doing quite well. In theory, the democratization of the workplace is a nice idea, and I initially tried to build my business around this idea. But over my time running things, I've realized that hierarchy is necessary, especially when things start to scale up. One of the biggest things I've come to realize is that most people take comfort in structure: what time to arrive and what time they can leave, specific directions on how to do their job and what exactly their job is (or isn't), when they will be paid, etc. As things begin to scale up in a business, it's necessary to create specific roles and specialized work for things to operate efficiently, and while a healthily functioning company relies on everyone doing their job well and working together, every role in the company does not carry equal weight, either because of the skillset or knowledge base required to perform a given task or because of the network and social abilities of a given person might open more doors for the business. People also go through different stages in their personal lives where they might be more or less invested in the work they're doing, and when you're an employee you have the luxury of checking out every once in awhile. For better or worse, good owners are married to their businesses and don't have that luxury.

I'm still learning and I consciously try to value the input of each employee and make myself openly available for criticism when it's called for. I also realize that the temptation is there to siphon off marginal profits into my own check, but I think that's short sighted if you have good employees who do "own" their job and are growth minded. Investing in those types will only pay dividends. There's a balance to be had, and it sounds like the OP needs to find a company where he feels better respected and supported. Maybe pay is a component of that, but communication and a healthy culture are also pieces of the puzzle.

Depends on the person. Angus Barbieri completed a 382 day medically supervised fast in 1966. Depending on body composition and physiology, one might reap a lot of benefit from simple intermittent fasting while another person might continue fasting for longer stretches to help reset their body to more normalized hormone levels.

Cost of production from variety to variety at this farm is going to be fairly consistent. The reason coffee has traditionally been relegated to developing countries is because of labor costs. To get a good harvest with quality in mind, farmers typically have to do several passes through the fields of coffee trees to select the coffee cherries at their optimal ripeness. Altitude also factors into quality as well, since coffee that slowly ripens due to cooler temps typically translates to a better product. Farms at high altitude can have some pretty gnarly topography.

Coffee farms where attention to quality is less important and raw output more important will plant trees in full sun, nice conventional rows, and then send mechanical harvesters down each row to strip pick the trees, harvesting cherries that might range from under ripe to perfectly ripe to over ripe. Yields might be higher and labor costs lower, but quality suffers and these beans are typically sold in the commodity market.

I would guess any restaurant funded out of the gates with this amount of VC would fail. Call it a food-tech startup if you want, but Sprig and its competitors are restaurants. The reality of restaurants is that their growth is linear, even if they are successful. That's because it takes time to develop trust with the consumer, and even once that is established, people either want variety or their trust can be shattered completely on one off experience. Deploying this much capital on a restaurant concept straight out of the gates would be fine if and only if they managed to execute flawlessly and if VCs were ok not making money for a few years and then churning out 0-15% returns after that. But that's not the VC game.

As coffee ages, especially in the first 2 weeks, it degasses CO2, thus the one way valves on most coffee bags. Since CO2 has a lot to do with crema, it's usually lacking in coffees that go past that 2 week mark. It really depends on the coffee, but I find grinding older coffees at a finer grind setting may help you pull your shot at similar parameters (input/output/time), but more often than not, I prefer updosing by half a gram or so to achieve balance in the shot. Also, this is probably heresy to any Italian reading, but I don't consider crema a super important aspect of the espresso shot. That part of the shot contains many of the bitter compounds of the extracted coffee, which is why espresso shots are commonly served with a demi-spoon, used to stir the shot and incorporate/dissipate the crema.