>If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation.
Every law is open to interpretation. If tech can barely secure the doors on machines that execute instructions near-flawlessly, you think we can construct flawless frameworks out of inherently ambiguous linguistic building blocks run and understood by deeply human executors? This just plain doesn't work when the rubber meets the road.
Someone's going to make a choice, and SCOTUS just decided unilaterally that it's going to be a body that hasn't been able to decide anything productively for a decade.
This isn't about creating better structures for the analysis of rules; it's about gutting the regulatory capacity of agencies.
Not really. When performing clinical trials, if you'd like to use the results of the studies in chinese/indian populations you'll need to prove bioequivalence in many cases, so you're going to need to collect a meaningful sample in the first place.
The reality is that most clinical trials aren't successes. If you can get a huge cohort of people for relatively cheap elsewhere, you can screen a lot of promising but doomed tests at a cheaper price point, then only re-create similar testing on the most promising candidates in your lucrative markets.
What the grandparent post was referring to as "obvious reasons" must be the high prevalence of HIV in the study countries[0]. Why wouldn't they test in countries with the highest infection risk?
There may be common reasons to trial there like it being cheaper or less regulated. But there is a good reason for this specific medication to be tested in those specific countries. Criticizing the study authors for being "cheap" is uncalled for in this case.
I'm not sure developed countries are the most lucrative market for HIV vaccines. How many people would even get them and why? This is a product almost entirely developed for Sub-Saharan Africa so it only makes sense that they focus on testing it there?
Hard to say, maybe it's not inconceivable that ~1% of potential patients in the US/EU/etc. might end up paying more than > 50%-90% of the people living Sub-Saharan Africa for whom getting the vaccine would make a lot of sense.
Kinda? Lawyers are myopic, vain, and we don't really do much to innovate.
We wanted to make sure there would be no cross pollination between legal advisory services and other professional services in most jurisdictions, but the only thing that division did was significantly restrict our ability to widen our service offerings to provide more value.
The end result is that we protected our little nest egg while our share of the professional services pie has been getting eaten by consulting and multi-service accounting firms for the past 20 years.
Makes sense I wasn't thinking about the full on laundering aspects. But even so, if the real estate is used in laundering, it will eventually have to be sold to get back clean money. This should still run up prices at the start, and run them down in the end. So I think the majority of the point still stands: there should be an uptick in sales (which there is not). They could be speculating on top of laundering, in which case they are taking some losses. We are -20% from peak. The time will come when they (the launderers) will need liquidity and sell which has not come. Will it ever come?
They can get clean money from the start if they structure things right.
Have other mules or partners purchase crappy properties at a low price. "Flip" the properties, having another mule purchase at a greatly increased price and service the mortgage with more laundered money.
So you get the capital gains immediately, and they are apparently completely clean. If the crappy house continues to appreciate naturally, that's also a bonus, but if not, you can eventually default the mortgage or short-sale.
I think they want to get their money out of china and parked into a safe place. If they pay off their mortgage, they don't want to find a new place to park their money, they can just keep the house as an asset. I think a lot of investing in china is real estate based and is part of the reason that market is struggling over there so much now. It would make sense for them to continue to follow that investing model when exporting their wealth to other countries.
Vaccination generally uses an adjuvant to increase immune response to the target antigen in order to provoke a response strong enough to produce lasting immunogenic memory. Antigens alone in small numbers aren't enough.
Taking random adjuvants consistently after minimal exposure to environmental antigens is more likely to give you deleterious allergies or issues associated with chronic inflammation.
>but does that make it surprising that people hate doing it?
When an activity validates you, it's tough to imagine other people having the opposite experience with it. Imagine every time you went to a round of interviews you were offered riches and status. It would be tough to understand why others just didn't muster up the gumption to go downtown and get what they're worth.
I am the person y'all replying to. This is a good prompt for my mental model on interviewing.
I assume that the answer in any interview process I go into will be "no" 90%+ of the time. That's not some defeated pessimism, it's just reality that the process is hairy (how many people do you go on dates with before you get married?) and every single instance can fail for reasons that have to do with you (how you did that day, fit for the role) or not (hired internally, headcount went away, etc.)
While obviously it's frustrating to fail a round / not get an offer, there's less sting to it when you manage your expectations as above, and then add to it that the frequency of at-bats + the learning process can lead to a better outcome despite - and in fact - because of - the rejections.
So yes, there's a big mental/attitude component that helps you engage with this productively and see the process as something you're doing for yourself - and thus even the fails are part of the plan - versus stepping into some sort of meat grinder.
And to be fair to your comment about "offered riches and status" - I would not put it that way and the 90%+ fail rate is very real. That said, I definitely feel positive about work and have been lucky with opportunities and there's no question that extensive experience interviewing - and learning from the fails - has been key to that.
I think most people recognize that you don't get every job you apply for, but there are people who contact hundreds to thousands of organizations, apply with custom crafted letters and tailored resumes, put in thousands of hours of job searching time over months of time and get jobs well under the median of their cohort.
The assumption that other people's experiences are like yours is a key cognitive bias. A 90% fail rate means 10 offers after a hundred applications - that's an incredibly solid success rate. Now imagine some people have orders of magnitude more difficulty because their name is strange, or because their social class shows through in their dress or mannerisms.
If I can offer a comparison, most people on this forum have it made. It's like asking a group of models how difficult online dating is and having someone say "I can't fathom anyone having trouble keeping their weekends full of new people to date... It's just so easy!"
Also, I note that you seem to assume I'm talking about my own experiences; I'm not. I am a very well established professional in a lucrative field.
Because for some people, the activity itself is incredibly unpleasant regardless of the outcome.
> It would be tough to understand why others just didn't muster up the gumption to go downtown and get what they're worth.
If I were guaranteed to make a million dollars and/or gain high status by cleaning a cesspool, that wouldn't make cleaning the cesspool any more pleasant.
This is only true to a point. Evaluating incremental cost benefits on the basis of the delta of energy loss along specific lines ignores the state change that occurs when main trunk elements of the grid become lossless and energy generation and storage solutions can be deployed in a near-location agnostic manner.
As with all toy models being applied to the real world, there are important factors to model in that aren't immediately obvious.
Retail banking is low margin high volume, but a bank's CMG or IB divisions are NOT low margin operations. Trading desk margins vary depending on the strength of the group and the clientele. If you're a primary desk for a trillion dollar AUM entity, you make a very pretty penny off your Bloomberg terminal subscription.
The number of banks is not a good indicator of how much competition exists in a market. The elasticity of prices in that market is a better measure, but also has flaws. In general you need to look at how much margin a given industry is pulling in to determine how much leverage it has.
On the bank metric:
There are plenty of quasi non functional FDIC insured banks that are used as vehicles for reverse takeovers to allow a market entrant to avoid the hassle of obtaining their licenses.
Additionally given the substantially increased variability within different European markets we'd expect significantly different competitive dimensions between regional and international tier banks.
Every law is open to interpretation. If tech can barely secure the doors on machines that execute instructions near-flawlessly, you think we can construct flawless frameworks out of inherently ambiguous linguistic building blocks run and understood by deeply human executors? This just plain doesn't work when the rubber meets the road.
Someone's going to make a choice, and SCOTUS just decided unilaterally that it's going to be a body that hasn't been able to decide anything productively for a decade.
This isn't about creating better structures for the analysis of rules; it's about gutting the regulatory capacity of agencies.