tangerine_beet

Seems this newfound ability to detect cancers earlier than we thought possible could be used to develop better treatments to boost the body's innate ability to eliminate cancerous cells before they turn malign: 1) identify thousands of people with traces of cancerous DNA that are too weak to merit immediate action and who are willing to participate in a trial. 2) Divide them into two groups, one group gets for one month a daiiy dose of auricularia auricula fungus extract or whatever that is believed to possibly prevent cancers from developing, the other group gets a placebo. 3) Run the early-detection test again at the end of the month to see whether or not there is a difference in cancerous DNA signal strength between the two groups.

Just an idea: Could the effects of trauma from slavery be trans-generational, via biological or cultural channels, and impacting ability to compete in the workplace?

Decentralized finance, in theory at least, undermines their power to determine the rules of the game: the decentralized nature of DeFi potentially dimishes the ability of financial lobbyists and the revolving door to influence regulation and policy. It also enables the lightning-fast rise of what would be serious competitors for JPM's customers. That's why I think that, if DeFi were to actually get big enough, companies like JPM would for a change start crying for MORE regulation. All in the name of protecting easily-swindled retail investors, of course.

"Patients admitted to private equity-owned nursing homes are 50 percent more likely to be placed on antipsychotic medication. By sedating patients rather than applying behavioral therapy, nursing homes can reduce staffing needs...."

The author suggests that knowing poetry's rules, and the history of how poets have broken those rules, can help people "get" poetry. I'm skeptical that cerebral understanding alone can help much. On the rare occasion that I've "gotten" a poem, it never happened through reason. If I tried analyzing while reading it I don't think the getting could have happened at all.

As stated I don't get many poems, but I feel that cultivating the ability to get them probably has something to do with: 1) awareness of your own emotional state in the present moment; it's the needed reference point to connect with the poet's state at time of writing 2) awareness of your accumulated life experience -- it's the material you reference to make sense of the poem 3) sensitivity to the sounds & rhythms of words 4) a broad perspective on life that includes awareness of its ultimate frame -- death; Spanish poet Lorca wrote about a creative force called 'duende' that arises from experience of the darker side of life; I think such experience may also give rise to a receptiveness to and appreciation of the more significant things conveyed in poetry and other arts 5) desire and ability to connect content of a poem to other things, be they other poems, history, the poet's personal history or whatever; poems are not islands, they have contexts, and your moment of reading one also has a context consisting of your personal intellectual history and current mental and emotional state, among other things.

Glad to learn about this site, thanks.

I'm wondering how popular media sites could apply to their comments sections some of the things Wikipedia is doing. For example, imagine commenters divided into two opposing camps over a controversial issue discussed in a news report. A separate discussion is organized to create a report on the issue using the Wikipedia process and rules. Any commenter can contribute, and it is guided by (perhaps volunteer) editors. Such reports then get aggregated in a separate section of the site...

Could something like this actually 1) create value for the media by engaging users and generating content 2) elevate the discourse between readers and 3) actually make the media less biased over time as it is repeatedly called out for partisan slant in its editorial and reporting?

I don't believe they'll maintain editorial independence either. But the reason is not so much guanxi as the need to cower to the will of the central government, especially on anything relating to national image and social stability. It's not a 'scratch my back I'll scratch yours' situation, but rather a 'central gov says scratch my back and I will or god knows what's going to happen to me'.

That said, there is another angle to this that I think worth mentioning. Ma and his partner claim their motiviation for the takeover is to counterbalance the bias they see in western media coverage on China, and I see no reason to doubt that. However, it doesn't mean they can't have other motivations, and a leader of a high profile Chinese company like Alibaba may have ideas or motivations that are better left unsaid until the time is right. If they were buying the newspaper to give more voice to government critics, do you think they would come out and say it?

The word 'wormhole' suggests to me that there would be no loss of field strength or signal strength, irregardless of the distance in three-dimensional space. A device that could tunnel its magnetic field between, say, Tokyo and New York, with no energy loss -- that's my idea of a wormhole.

Seems there are some fundamental but overlooked assumptions running through these comment threads, the stance that companies "should" pay higher salaries to workers who create more value for the company being one. The assumption is that the company, or its management, is like a parent that must treat each of its children equally. Why should this be the case? Who says a company should be a full-fledged meritocracy? If you work for me and I wish to pay your colleague more money than you, even though you produce more, why shouldn't I? I may have good reason to. Your colleague, I may think, simply needs the money more. Of course I understand you might choose to leave. I may even feel that would be best for you, that you have more to offer the world than you'll be able to give it in your current role. At any rate, you're free to make your life choices, including where you work. I'm free to make my life choices, including how I run my company. CEOs are not moms or dads.

A second assumption is that companies "should" reward people who have invested in educating themselves and cultivating valuable skills. You're in danger if you think like this. Companies pay good money for such knowledge and skills usually because they need to, not because they "should". That is why most will ask you to tell them your salary expectations when you apply, rather than tell you up front what they are willing to pay you. By letting you speak first, they may find you're willing to accept a less-than-market rate.