Interest rates have been on the decline for this period resulting in everything going up (the everything bubble). Rates now have to go up because inflation is running rampant, and so we need to see valuations (as a whole) reverse.
This looks amazing. This is something that I would probably recommend to my clients as a consultant as a tool they could use to build their own tools. Right now I tend to recommend Airtable but that has issues and deficiencies with building tools/UIs on top of it.
I guess a lot of comments here will be about low-code which probably speaks to the bias of HN but that's kind of silly since low-code is extremely powerful and pervasive in the corporate world now.
Can you explain why the emphasis is on the collaboration on tool building? The collaboration ability seems like a cool and valuable feature but it seems really confusing to make that so central to the marketing.
The tool building itself is extremely valuable and sophisticated on its own. That must have taken an enormous amount of work so I don't understand why the collaborative aspect is the main thing being highlighted.
The only thing it's really lacking is granular (per-field/entity) access controls, which is on their roadmap (although it's worth noting it's been on their roadmap for quite a while).
> Spewing hate at the system or at practitioners is just fucking awful.
It's as awful as it is unwarranted.
> The system can’t afford to throw Dr. House and his team at every patient walking in off the street.
Telling a patient they're inoperable or not a candidate for immunotherapy or are going to die in 6 months from their disease is immoral and yet very common. It's really not difficult to just say to someone "based on my experience and the protocols we have at this institution, this is what I believe to be the case for your situation but you may find others with a different perspective".
There's a seriously depraved amount of egoism and elitism in the medical world, in particular among younger medical professionals.
> They’re essentially sitting there all day making trolley-track-payoff decisions.
Yes but that's precisely not their job in a non-emergency context. They're not philosophers, they're not Maimonides. Their job is to provide medical expertise, not make value judgements on behalf of patients or arrogate themselves to a level of expertise or knowledge they don't have.
The title of the article is exceptionally misleading to the point of being defamatory. The article absolutely does not support the headline. He was NOT 'turned away' by the NHS.
> Telling a patient they're inoperable or not a candidate for immunotherapy or are going to die in 6 months from their disease is immoral and yet very common. It's really not difficult to just say to someone "based on my experience and the protocols we have at this institution, this is what I believe to be the case for your situation but you may find others with a different perspective".
I am not sure exactly what he was told, but the article says 'Mr Dons was told the average survival time for someone in his condition was between seven and nine months', not that he was going to die in six months. This is a fair thing to share, and I believe aligns with NHS guidance on how to share this kind of prognosis.
The article goes on to say:
> NHS treatment would have involved urgent surgery followed by chemotherapy. But Mr Dons, who divides his time between the UK and Japan, was concerned that a cancer drug called Avastin, was not widely available in the UK.
So he wasn't told he was inoperable (in fact, he was offered surgery) or that he was going to die in 6 months or anything like that. He was offered treatment, but he chose not to take it because he'd heard of this Avastin wonder drug, which the NHS were not offering him. However, Avastin is far from a wonder drug and the jury is still out as to whether it actually prolongs life or improves quality of life at all.
> Yes but that's precisely not their job in a non-emergency context. They're not philosophers, they're not Maimonides. Their job is to provide medical expertise, not make value judgements on behalf of patients or arrogate themselves to a level of expertise or knowledge they don't have.
That's wrong I'm afraid (rhetoric aside). In the UK, it is definitely the case that they are making value judgements on behalf of patients (or more accurately it's not the individual practioner who is generally bound by value judgements made by other bodies). because we have a single payer healthcare system, which cannot simply waste resources on treatments which are expensive, and ultimately the decision rests on balancing cost, likelihood of treatment success, and expected QALYS if the treatment is successful. Adoptive cell transfer is still an expensive and experimental treatment, and is not generally available to adults in the UK, although it is available for children with leukemia. People cleverer than I am debate these topics and come to their conclusions. I am very glad that I do not have that job.
My main point though is that I think it's very damaging to suggest that a doctor is 'immoral' for sharing a prognosis and offering a treatment plan.
> was concerned that a cancer drug called Avastin, was not widely available in the UK
One of the important points here that the "privatisation is great" people are missing is that the reason Avastin isn't used off label so much is because the makers of Avastin have already spent vast sums of money suing the NHS to stop off-label prescribing, and they refused to allow Avastin to be licensed for one common off-label use (for AMD).
Long story, it costs more than the national minimum wage, and on average improves the life expectancy by only 7% compared to chemotherapy without Avastin (21.3 months vs 19.9 months). Fundamentally though the sticking point is the cost. The article also says:
> Data also suggests the trio of drugs means the liver tumours of 78% of patients shrink to such a degree that they are eligible for potentially life-saving surgery.
But this seems to be limited to liver tumours, not colorectal tumours, and it doesn't give any success rate for the surgery. The implication is that the liver tumours were previously too large to operate on, but that's not clear.
The trick is, what people refer to "experience" in the workplace is very strictly defined as workplace experience in your role. But you can get experience from a wide variety of tasks, even ones that don't involve your current career. Working with vendors to organize a convention can prepare you for writing software. Or a volunteer/school software project could prepare you for a paid role, but nevertheless it is not counted.
There was an enormous amount of liquidity pumped into the system by fiscal and monetary authorities. That all these companies massively increased headcount is entirely rational. Wealthy people and companies did very well during the pandemic because they were direct beneficiaries of the fiscal and monetary support.
If you believe in the utility of markets then breaking up the oligopolies formed by market failure (unless price gouging monopolistic practises are not viewed as "market failure"...) is very important.
Regulating them is ineffective because the oligopolies get so rich they heavily influence, if not actually write, the regulations. By bribing the regulators.
For complementary medical diets for the treatment of cancer the idea is to reduce inflammation in the microenvironment around the tumor. Most complementary medicine anti-cancer diets promote high anti-oxidant, low inflammation foods and supplement regimens which include antioxidants such as NAC.
Patients on such regimens (which also included traditional chemotherapy) generally showed significantly improved survival rates compared to the control which just had the chemotherapy.
This is honestly one of the most impressive things I've seen. This is sci-fi levels of technology. It's very cool, inspiring, and refreshing to see such ambitious projects.
It's only wise to buy stocks when the Federal Reserve is printing money or you know that they will print money.