The FDA was already in bad shape as far as inspections go. In 'The Secret Life of Groceries' (published in 2020) I believe the statistic was that the people responsible for keeping our food system safe only have the capacity to inspect around 5% of domestic agricultural and food processing operations nation-wide. That speaks more to the amount and size of agri-business in the United States than the FDA's capacity, but it also doesn't mean great things for the federal government's ability to preemptively intervene in most cases.
DOGE cuts to FDA, HHS, FSIC, FTC, EPA, and more have inevitably made this problem much worse.
> I believe the statistic was that the people responsible for keeping our food system safe only have the capacity to inspect around 5% of domestic agricultural and food processing operations nation-wide.
Over what time period? If they can inspect 5% in a year, that's not too bad.
Keep in mind that if they inspect without notice and do it randomly, companies have a decent incentive to keep things working in order. If serious issues are found, a given plant can be shut down for months, which if you're small enough, means you go out of business.
I don't know what a "good" number is - that would involve statistics. I'd imagine it should be more than 5%, but not something like 35% - that's quite high.
My dad was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in December 2019 and thankfully caught wind of it in its early stages due to an eagle-eyed nurse going over some routine blood work and noting his liver numbers were off, he should talk to the doctor.
You can imagine how hard it was to be sick in the early days of COVID, much less have to go to the hospital on a regular basis to receive chemotherapy for hours on end. Our family was lucky that he responded well to treatment at least and we had a few extra years with him before he passed away in late 2023.
Cancer is a terrible thing but pancreatic cancer is especially horrible due to the difficulty in detection when you're in otherwise good health. The fact that intense medical research into retrovirals has yielded something so significant as the RAS-inhibitor is nothing short of miraculous.
There's a multitude of evidence that points to the success of the ACA from a cost perspective (among other things).
Cost of healthcare for individuals is not a good metric to judge by. The ecosystem of hospitals, patients, doctors, insurers, health systems, and the federal government is complex and you're not going to get a clear picture of the overall impact of the ACA by looking as something as simple as cost savings.
One example, hospitals are required to treat patients whether or not they hold insurance. The hospital foots the bill for that care and it's a major reason why hospitals shut down (especially in underserved communities). Getting more people on insurance plans was a direct factor is keeping many struggling hospitals and health systems afloat.
If the ACA was so successful at reducing coats we wouldn't still be having discussions like this about the excessive costs of both care and insurance in the US.
We will never know how costs would have changed if we didn't implement the ACA, and cost is not the only metric of success. But it clearly hasn't led us to a place where people feel okay with what the industry costs.
The purpose of the ACA was to get more people to sign up for health insurance by creating plans everyone could access regardless of employment status or income. Solving the healthcare crisis in this country from top to bottom is going to take more than an act of Congress.
Also necessary to remember the ACA was only passed because of Democratic support in 2010. Republicans hacked away at the proposal before it became law, kneecapping any real institutional changes it had contained, and have effectively killed it since becoming the majority in the House and Senate in 2024. That bipartisan support piece is required in order for anything meaningful to happen.
Making healthcare more affordable was literally in the name. I agree they also aimed to expand coverage, but cost reduction as a top line item and my point was simply that it didn't land that goal.
At a minimum since we don't know what prices would be today without the ACA, prices have risen dramatically in recent years to a point that I think most agree its unaffordable.
I just launched my digital media shelf on my personal website, a catalog of my favorite books, movies, records, podcasts, and more. Lots of fun to build despite some false starts and fits:
Funny you should mention this. Benn Jordan, on the heels of his Flock camera research, reverse engineered a non-flock ALRP unit and built his own system using some off the shelf parts, a tablet, and 3D printer. He did it mostly as an experiment but also due to the fact that Flock's algorithm for image detection is astoundingly bad and has a high incident of reading plates incorrectly.
There are a handful of open-source models for license plate detection, I forget exactly which model outperformed the rest, but it was an excellent watch and help me really understand just how inefficient these commercial systems are and how easy they can be to defeat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ
I share all the disillusionment and cynicism about Musk, shared here by others.
But he has also done amazing things. When someone declares they are going to create a Martian colony, something literally "out of this world", and against all odds makes unbelievable progress for years, including re-usable rockets that return and land vertically, more efficient powerful engines, and fast operational turnarounds, while making orbital travel mundane, hanging a criticism of schedules on the weak hook of "yet" is myopic.
There will never be a colony on Mars. Not in the way we think about "colonies".
For starters it's too cold, too dry, atmosphere is too thin, and there's no reasonably sustainable power source.
But all of that is irrelevant because there's no magnetic field. So radiation. So unlivable.
There's also no point in a colony there. If life ends on earth it ends on Mars. There are no materials there we want. It offers exactly nothing we can't do better here, for much less money.
Will we land on Mars? Sure. There's always the goal of being first. But live there? No. Unsupported by earth? Very much no.
I personally believe that the legacy we send to the stars will be silicon.
Robots have landed on Mars. Maybe they will even figure out how to use minerals on Mars to build more of themselves. It is plausible to me that as far as space exploration is concerned that it will be autonomous within a few hundred years.
'..it might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years- provided, of course, we can meanwhile eliminate such little drawbacks and embarrassments as the existing relation between weight and strength in inorganic materials. No doubt the problem has attractions for those it interests, but to the ordinary man it would seem as if effort might be employed more profitably.' Oct 9 1903
I think many may not understand your quote, especially given the nature of the language and the apparent non sequitur: https://archive.is/F3nnP
That's an archive of the article it's originally from, from the NYTimes - "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly", October 1903. The Wright Bros first successful flight would come in December 1903. The NYTimes also similarly published about the impossibility of spaceflight relatively shortly before it happened.
I anxiously await the day for the NYTimes to dismiss colonizing Mars as impossible, as it means we are most certainly on the cusp of achieving exactly that.
The value of flight is incalculable. Especially if we see it as a precursor to satellites. A lot of people invested a lot in getting g it to work. Many people died making it better and better. The cost in treasure and lives was substantial, but the return is worth it.
Contrast to the moon. The prestige was great, the investment enormous. The return was more-or-less zero. There was a reason Apollo 18 was canceled, and we stopped going.
(Current efforts are in no rush, and are mostly about prestige.)
The value of a colony on Mars is precisely zero. We might visit a couple times. But colonize? Nope.
The value of the first Mars colony may be zero depending on how you value it just as the value of the first Wright flier was 'precisely zero' or even negative. It didn't carry cargo and it killed or injured many of those that dared to fly on it.
Assigning zero long term value however to another entire planet worth of resources just seems like a failure of imagination.
You can't get to the 777 without the Wright Flyer.
I'd add to this that Mars also isn't the end, but rather the beginning. The moment the first human steps on Mars, we will already be thinking ever more outward to ever more exotic targets, perhaps Europa being next. The bigger picture is starting the process of putting humans into the cosmos - and so it's not just another planet full of resources, land, and unknown discoveries awaiting us - but an entire solar system, and on a longer time frame - an entire galaxy.
And I think once we start iterating on these concepts, the timelines might not be as long as might otherwise be expected. Forget the 777 - it's completely stupefying that we went from the Wright Flier to the SR-71 Blackbird [1] in 61 years. That beast is another product of the magic of the 60s - long-term sustained flight at Mach 3.2 - 2450+mph. London to New York in less than 2 hours. There really was something in the water in the US in the 60s.
You're right there's a reason Apollo 18 was cancelled, but I'm not sure what you'd reference this. The main issue is that Nixon was increasingly paranoid that there was going to be a catastrophic failure in the Apollo program, and that it would affect his political career. He tried to hard to the cancel the program immediately after the first successful landing. NASA had already drawn up plans for not only getting to Mars, but for a complete human settlement of outer space with large space stations and more. This was all cancelled.
So I think the comparison with flight is perfect. Imagine after the Wright Bros. flight, which countless people had died in the process of seeking to achieve, we had one uninvolved entity able to say 'yeah, I'm responsible for all this' and then canceled everything in a simple self-motivated political calculation to try to 'go out on top' so to speak.
The Moon was never the goal, anymore than the Wright Flyer was the goal. It was one small step on a very lengthy journey - a major milestone for sure, but nowhere near the end of the road. And that's where we remain in space, but thanks to the fact that so much expertise was lost in the ~60 year do-nothing era, we're now having to essentially start over. On the bright side, this time the driver's going to be private industry, just like with airplanes - and there will be no myopic politician to cancel it.
How are robotaxis coming along, versus the promises?
How are Optimus robots coming along, versus the promises?
How is the 2nd edition Roadster coming along, versus the promises?
You need to stop thinking of Musk in terms of a person who has "done amazing things" and letting that lead you to a belief that he has some kind of special ability in this space.
He's the money guy. He's occasionally managed to acquire talent that has done amazing things. This does not give him an innate "make amazing things happen" ability. He can throw money at bad ideas and ineffectual people. He can make something happen given the size of his wealth, but whether that actually achieves any of the stated goals is largely independent of his own actions.
Lots of late deliveries. This seems to be important to you.
On the one hand, we have major advance, after major advance. But on the other hand, we have crossed out dates on a calendar! Cool things that were mentioned but haven't happen yet! Sad calendar! It's a real toss up!
Puzzle question: is aspirational calendar-target overoptimism good or bad if you get things done late, but sooner than you would have, or at least, more things than you would have, than if you had set more "realistic" targets. Like decades. And then been late for that.
I suggest instead complaining, you your time and Elon's tardiness to beat him to the punch! Lemonade punch.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are late at things, but without the contrast of famous wins, nobody complains. It is so unfair!
People don’t look at the complexity of a human character. They take the easiest extreme and run with it. I was on another HN thread where practically everyone was calling Elon a psychopath.
If you think objectively Elon is not a psychopath.
He has a higher body count than any serial killer who has ever lived with DOGE alone. He may or may not be clinically diagnosable, but he's a monster either way
While I share your opinion on his character, the first part of what you say is also true for almost everyone who wielded the kinds and scales power that was given to him via DOGE: Every battleship is a hospital not built, etc.
It's sad that this is believed when it's most often the opposite. Especially in this case we have a literal historical example. You'll never guess what Henry Kaiser built before creating Kaiser, the largest set of hospitals in CA.
I can't imagine why you think that's a good example.
The money spent on the ships* could not be double-spent on hospitals. The workers whose manual labour was dedicated to those later ships could not be simultaneously dedicated to more hospitals. The crew of a battleship cannot be simultaneously working in a hospital, the maintenance teams repairing it cannot be simultaneously repairing a hospital.
Every resource-management game demonstrates this principle, even if they're all gross simplifications.
* Wikipedia says Kaiser's ships were cargo and transport, not battleships, which means they had the potential to be a net positive on the economy. This is better than a battleship, because domestic military gear can't be a net positive: the point is to keep matériel and personnel around to deter enemies, and only use them for training and when enemies aren't deterred.
... Did you just suggest gp is "worse than Hitler" for suggesting Elon Musk, a man who's very publicly called empathy a "fundamental weakness" and "threat to Western Civilization", a sociopath? And you went on to compare the powerless women tried for witchcraft to the richest man in the history of the planet? Please go touch grass, my dude.
I suggested he's not in touch with reality when he accuses someone of being a sociopath who is clearly not.
I compared him to the MOB that burned those women. That's the main comparison. You're the same because you and him would put elon to the slaughter because you're mob mentality is as violent as hitler.
> Here's a test: Given the opportunity to kill Elon, you probably would. Given that you think Elon is a sociopath or evil incarnate.
I'm generally against the death penalty. I'd be fine with just stripping him of his wealth and locking him in prison for the rest of his life. He doesn't need to die, but it would be good to minimize/eliminate his influence on the world.
The destruction of the last vestiges of rule of law in the United States, an act in which Musk played a substantial role, unfortunately means he will likely not be prosecuted - but make no mistake, he has committed many crimes.
And now that we are living in a lawless nation, we will all get to see how bad an idea that is.
The president is using the DoJ to represent him in a civil appeal.
The president is creating a slush fund to pay off people who acted violently on his behalf.
The president has declared himself and his family immune from IRS investigation indefinitely.
The president is selling pardons.
The president is running influence schemes in the form of crypto sales and ballroom "donations".
The president is at a minimum enabling the people who are playing the markets (traditional and these new prediction atrocities) in advance of his on again / off again announcements about Iran, tariffs, etc. It's not out of the question that he approves of the activity and/or receives benefits himself.
The president uses mob tactics. Tariffs and DoJ threats are used to run protection rackets. Play along, pay up, and you can make your problems go away. For a bit. They'll be back later and they'll want more.
I value it. But I value it practically and NOT delusionally in the sense that I understand that even though there is law, there will always be people who break the law.
Then when I take this non-delusional perspective and apply it to the US I understand that the US and every country on the face of the earth has a degree of corruption.
Then I do another realistic comparison about the DEGREE of corruption... and we find that the US is relatively NOT lawless when compared with MANY countries.
Also Elon is not a psychopath. But you and many on this thread are delusional.
Of course there will always be people who break the law. There are always people who are going to attempt to do things they're not supposed to do for a variety of reasons.
Rule of law is about consistent application of the law. Laws that aren't consistently applied are just words on paper.
It seems to me that what you actually intended to say is "there will always be people who break the law and get away with it due to their wealth and status."
And yes, there will probably always be some degree of that too. But in a society that claims to follow the rule of law, the goal should always be to minimize the inconsistent application of the law. Part of that is challenging these events when we see them. Like the extreme corruption of the Trump administration versus every president that came before, including his own first term.
Treating an increase of corruption as inevitable is not, in my opinion, valuing the rule of law. It's at best a half-hearted "whatcha gonna do?" shrug-off.
I read this as "why are they going after a soldier who made $30k when they could be going after guys who made seven figures off of expertly timed trades on going to war with Iran"
Pursuing this case doesn’t mean they’re excluding other cases. If you read the article this case was very clear because he made amateur moves and didn’t conceal his identity at all.
This was an easy nab. All leaks should be pursued regardless of who did it.
Zero chance? What odds are you offering, because this bet looks very appealing?
I am guessing that you would not actually go all-in against a penny, and I’m curious to know what implied probability you actually offer. I will see your bet amount as an expression of your confidence level. If you say that you don’t bet, I’ll take that as an indication that you have no confidence, and believe the probability to be something above 50%
Initially I did set a number to be donated to a favorite charity but decided it was in poor taste/mean spirited and quickly edited it out. We don’t need to be petty just because we disagree.
The Trump admin will not be held accountable for the blatant market manipulation and betting on internal info they engage in. That’s the smart “bet” metaphorically speaking. It’s a self enriching circus.
One of the biggest accounts on X hosts one of the most listened to podcasts on Spotify/Apple and has a huge following that's grown exponentially since 2023. He's an active Holocaust denier, proud antisemite, and dined with the president and members of his cabinet on more than one occasion.
To say there's no growing movement towards Nazi and anti-Jewish ideologies is to be willfully ignorant of the world around you.
Twitter has over a billion users. You can find big accounts saying all sorts of inflammatory things.
What you are complaining about is that tweets which rile you up are not censored. But those days are basically over, so you may want to consider leaving twitter if you insist on a higher level of censorship than what twitter is giving you.
Of course if you already left twitter, and are still complaining merely about the existence of a business that doesn't censor to your taste, then I would recommend looking for other past times. Try baseball.
It seems to be more complicated (or unpredictable?) than that:
> In this study, rapid weight loss was associated with the loss of kidney function in males with normal weight, and with improvement of kidney function in overweight males.
> Our study showed that BMI and BMI change were not associated with eGFR change in females.
Taking continuing education credits to check a box for retaining professional licensure and educating yourself about emerging and novel concepts in your field are two vastly different things. If anything, CE helps professionals update their knowledge base regarding existing processes and procedures.
DOGE cuts to FDA, HHS, FSIC, FTC, EPA, and more have inevitably made this problem much worse.