The answer also includes a link that shows many other representations including Einstein's "4d generally covariant tensor calculus".
The point is that the most common formulation today is not the one Maxwell made (with 12 equations). The idea is preserved, but it was Gibbs and Heaviside that formulated the current 4 equation representation.
Chemotherapy means "Chemical Therapy" so this is still technically categorized under that. But the general term has gotten really negative in recent decades so I suppose it's why they're distancing the branding from it.
Wasn’t it around this time last year that Google had their big layoff? I suppose the rumor that Google implemented stack ranking might be true after all.
Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other as if you're making the decision for others.
Not sure it's really easier though, economics and emotional affect are often at odds. Ask people if a hospital administrator should spend 100k on either a single liver transplant for an 11 year old girl, or spread over 100 less expensive life saving interventions for 50 year olds, most people will say save the girl and demand the administrator be fired for even needing to think about it.
(Half remembered but apparently real scenario, though I'm not sure where from)
Why? The way health insurance works, all of those are profitable treatments. There is no "choose one or the other". Sick children/adults becoming healthy adults that can pay for health insurance is not a moral dilemma.
The median income in America is a little under $40000 per person[1], so that $2.2 million pretty much represents the entire financial income of the average American over a working lifetime (55-60 years).
So in essence, you'd be trading the equivalent of one person's entire lifetime of productivity in exchange for the first generation of a radical new medicine whose outcome is unknowable.
I don't think it's crass to err on the side of caution for such a scenario.
These people mostly do get treatment now, for decades, involving regular expensive long term hospital stays. So you're trading already expensive treatments that cut their earnings potential drastically both by cutting number of productive years but also due to extensive sick leave.
So if there even is an increase in the total cost of treatments, it's not at all a given it's a a net increase once account for decades of additional working life.
But almost all care services end benefiting from some sort of subsidies. Even if just by increasing the cost of inssurance for the rest of the population
Yes, but spending it preventing debilitating disease that would cost about the same amount over the lifetime of the sufferer is a no-brainer, even in net econonic output, terms.
But it is so only for few countries with ridiculously high costs of medical services. What about other? If we are talking about someone from south America?
2m is much higher that either costs or economical output the treated person could deliver through lifetime.
I just want to point out this is only aimed at coal power plants. This has nothing to do with other uses of coal which is used for steel making. According to the EIA, a little over 90% of coal is used for power[1]. But there is close to 10% of that used for Steel.
This has been an incredible year for gaming already but even more so for classic series. So far we've seen a new Zelda, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Balder's Gate and Counter-Strike come out. The last time this happened was back in 2000.
Sequels of sequels are hardly a good thing for gaming. Maybe I was spoiled, but in the '80s/'90s we'd get multiple genre- creating titles every year or so. As good as these sequels are, they're not creating any new genre.
Wasn't it easier to create new genres back when there weren't many yet? In the 80s you were lucky to get hundreds of games a decade. Now we get that in a week. But there are still many innovative indie games.
The sequels still sometimes offer cool things. BG3 is a very big change from BG2, as much as Divinity Original Sin is different from Divinity 2. It's not like the Calls of Duty.
But granted, that's an exception. Diablo 4 is a soulless cash grab. Payday 3 was a bust.
But there are still plenty of innovative games these days that create new or hybrid genres. Bridge Constructor. Portal. Slay the Spire. Frostpunk. Guitar Hero. Dead Cell. Firewatch. Braid. Human Fall Flat. Among Us. Superhot. Stanley Parable. Viewfinder. Rocket League. Surgeon Simulator. Overcooked. Soooo much more...
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/8173/did-maxwell-ori...
The answer also includes a link that shows many other representations including Einstein's "4d generally covariant tensor calculus".
The point is that the most common formulation today is not the one Maxwell made (with 12 equations). The idea is preserved, but it was Gibbs and Heaviside that formulated the current 4 equation representation.