vwinsyee

Joined 14 years ago

Karma
657
Submissions
96
Member since
Sep 8
email: w.victoryee/at/gmail.com
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 12 years ago
In many cases, I'd agree with you. But in context of what happened here, the fact that the company was Chinese (or simply just foreign, for that matter) is absolutely relevant. A few outstanding points:

1. The company was "unaccustomed to the rigor of American construction rules" and "lacked basic quality control", leading Caltran to "relax U.S. standards when the firm couldn’t finish fast enough."

2. "ZPMC violated the job contract by delivering key documents in Chinese instead of English. ABF lacked sufficient quality-assurance staff to speak directly to its own subcontractor – also a contract violation."

3. "Counting the money spent on travel and living costs for Caltrans and its contractors, the suspension span consumed much more than the $250 million in ZPMC’s assumed efficiencies that made the Chinese steel so cost-effective." On living costs alone, Caltran "paid about $50,000 annually per person to rent more than a dozen well-appointed rooms."

Asked for justification, "Caltrans described the accommodations as "reasonable and appropriate" in a written statement. 'The hotel provided a government rate that was comparable to rates at other western hotels,' and followed bargaining agreements, based in part on providing adequate 'safety and support for employees far from home.'"

Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
The FDA has more than likely directly prevented hundreds of millions deaths worldwide. It's literally one of very few safeguards you can rely on to know that you're not eating poison.

Amusingly, the top comment on a front page HN post [1] right now concerns one of the first court cases [2] that gave FDA some real power. Before this case, companies could sell a poison like emetic tartar and market it as a hangover drug. Selling stuff like this still happens today in countries without an FDA equivalent. [3] It even happens in countries with a drug regulatory body, but one that's weak. [4]

As with all regulation, there's a balance between benefit/risk. As you point out, there is a financial and time burden of regulation. But with warts and all, the work that the FDA has done and currently does far outweighs these burdens.

> The only good thing I can find to say about the bureaucrats at the FDA is that they respond to regional regulatory arbitrage - to medical tourism - by loosening their grip and letting things through. Or at least they do when said treatments are so widely available elsewhere in the world that the risk of looking bad by continuing to block them in the US is worse than the risk of looking bad because one of the outcomes of a normal, low error rate in medicine gets picked up by the press. Look at simple stem cell transplants, now available in the US these last couple of years, for a good example of this in practice.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this rant. But I'll point out findings from a 2012 NEJM study comparing the FDA to the EU's EMA and Canada's Health Canada: [5]

"RESULTS: There were 510 applications for novel therapeutic agents approved from 2001 through 2010 — 225 by the FDA, 186 by the EMA, and 99 by Health Canada; among the applications, there were 289 unique agents. The median length of time for completion of the first review was 303 days (interquartile range, 185 to 372) for applications approved by the FDA, 366 days (interquartile range, 310 to 445) for those approved by the EMA, and 352 days (interquartile range, 255 to 420) for those approved by Health Canada (P<0.001 for the comparison across the three agencies). The median total review time was also shorter at the FDA than at the EMA or Health Canada (P=0.002). Among the 289 unique novel therapeutic agents, 190 were approved in both the United States and Europe (either by the EMA or through the mutual recognition process), of which 121 (63.7%) were first approved in the United States; similarly, 154 were approved in both the United States and Canada, of which 132 (85.7%) were first approved in the United States."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7758508

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._11_1/4_Dozen_...

[3] http://ijp-online.com/article.asp?issn=0253-7613;year=2007;v...

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1151014/

[5] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1200223

Comment · 12 years ago
Thanks for the response; I'm definitely applying to the Data Engineers program. My engineering background has been more on-the-job than from formal coursework, so I was a bit subdued by list of engineering disciplines in the "Accepting Applicants From" section (though I now see "Scientific Research" as one of the fields, yay!). I really hope I can participate.

eggoa: Sorry for hijacking your reply-thread!

Comment · 12 years ago
I'm seriously thinking about applying (actually to the Data Science program). I'm currently looking to start in the SF Bay Area as a data scientist (or data analyst, if need be) in late May to June.

But I have a question -- I've only advanced to the masters level at this point; I recently graduated with an MS in biostatistics. "PhD" and "postdoc" is written all over the site. Should I even consider applying?

Finally -- what's the best way to contact you? Should I email the email address under "Contact"? Or is there a preferred alternative?

Comment · 12 years ago
I agree with your general sentiment. However, it only takes one member of the underrepresented group (with endorsing capability), or any member of a centrist or neutral party, to approve the a comment. (And as of so far, it doesn't seem like pending comments can be disapproved, e.g. by a hostile party.)

Granted, it's true that by nature of being underrepresented, the probability of that one member showing up to approve the comment may be unacceptably low. But I doubt it. In other words, to use your example, as long as the probability is high enough that at least one woman will show up to approve another woman's comment, there shouldn't be a problem.

Personally, I think that this probability is pretty high, though, as pg mentions, this'll have to be determined empirically. For example, it's entirely possible (as discussed in previous threads), that the population of active endorsers are skewed toward certain groups. Or that even a slightly <100% probability of legit comments being seen can ultimately compound systemic biases in the long run.

Comment · 12 years ago
Abstract: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/12/4418.short Full Text PDF: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/12/4418.full.pdf

I'm on an academic network, so I'm not sure if the PDF's paywalled...

From a cursory glance at the paper, this is what they had to say about how they kept the mice awake:

Mice were housed in a light/dark environment with lights on from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. ... A previously validated, enriched, novel environment (Gompf et al., 2010) was used to promote spontaneous exploratory wakefulness. The short-term wakefulness (Sh Wake) period selected was 3 h during the lights-on period. With zeitgeber time 0 h (ZT0) referenced to the onset of the lights-on period, Sh Wake occurred at ZT8–ZT11, while extended sleep loss (Ext Wake) consisted of 8 h of continuous wake time at ZT3–ZT11 with 16 h intervals in the home cages after the first and second days of 8 h wake time.

Comment · 12 years ago
When I saw "6x4", my immediate thought was a "six by four" matrix. So, by convention, this means 6 rows and 4 columns, corresponding to e.g. 6 observations of 4 variables each (from a statistician's perspective). The closest answer I could find here was "six lots of four."

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton