ramanujan

7 ms·

1.
by ramanujan 13y ago
You are insane. No charity will accept an amount of 500 uBTC. They're probably batching the donations and then sending them in bulk.
2.
by ramanujan 13y ago
Very interesting and highly creative. A few thoughts. 1) If a graphical plot turns data into something visual, an audio "plot" turns data into something audible. Your output is an audio file rather than an image or video file. The
3.
by ramanujan 13y ago
I believe the rule of thumb is that there are 15 that reach $100M revenue . We could square the figure of 200 at $100M valuation with this rule of thumb if we assume valuation is say 10X revenue, so 200 reach ~$10M revenue. Thus maybe 1&#x
4.
by ramanujan 13y ago
This is amazing work. Could you explain why you decided to go with many individual stills rather than filling in the gaps in a video codec? It's a really counterintuitive approach.
5.
by ramanujan 13y ago
Genomics is now in the clinic in a big way, albeit for diagnostics rather than cures. Two recent links you might find informative: http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/23/counsyl http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/25/sv-angel-health-informatics
6.
Counsyl Is Pioneering A New Bioinformatics Wave(techcrunch.com)
27 points by ramanujan 13y ago|2 comments
7.
by ramanujan 13y ago
Datastax, Datastax. Must have appeared 20 times in the piece. I'm sure they are a great company but Oracle's real problem is Postgres (and, to a lesser extent, SQLite and the various MySQL forks). Oracle might want to consider paying $1B to
8.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Can you put an email in your profile? We've got some people independently interested in the Bitcoin-for-Cyprus thing.
9.
by ramanujan 14y ago
It looks like this possibility was known and broadcasted to merchants during the maintenance window two days ago. It's kind of like the Rails mass assignment or security bug: merchants are just going to have to stay on top of Bitcoin issues
10.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Strongly agree. If he names names, something good might come of this now that it has HN's attention for the day. And if he was going to journalists, he had a willingness to name names at some point in the past. I understand that these guys
11.
by ramanujan 14y ago
People can inject just about anything they want into themselves Actually, that is expressly not what the Cowan or the earlier Rutherford decision on Laetrile say. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=19981...
12.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Three points. First, many (most?) medical advances seem crazy and kooky because they haven't been tried before. So it's not usually as obvious as "this is a proven scam" vs. "this really works". It's much more frequently "this is unproven".
13.
by ramanujan 14y ago
You might be interested in these studies. The second link is to a discussion of Andy Grove's editorial in Science calling for the FDA to only certify safety (rather than safety + efficacy + comparative effectiveness). But it's the third tha
14.
by ramanujan 14y ago
The issue is not really whether these treatments work or not. Every new treatment is by necessity unproven and more risky than an established one. Some people are early adopters or terminal patients with high risk-tolerances; others would r
15.
by ramanujan 14y ago
I remember reading an academic article that showed how the real cost was almost always 1/20 of that This is the Light and Warburton study. The short answer is that it's kind of like a freshman saying "I could build Facebook overn
16.
by ramanujan 14y ago
First off, I am happy that we both seem to agree on a qualitative fact: there is indeed a tradeoff between what statisticians call type I and type II errors. At one extreme, you can let everything through, advance technology rapidly, and su
17.
by ramanujan 14y ago
So, regarding efficacy testing, I think the costs/benefits have to be assessed in full context. If you go back to the time before the FDA, it was a time of incredible wonder drugs and useless patent medicines. Kind of like the Internet: the
18.
by ramanujan 14y ago
So, a few points (I didn't downvote you). 1) First, FDA fast-tracks many bad things. Hundreds of millions of people were irradiated by scanners that FDA waved on through because a fellow .gov agency (TSA) sponsored them. So: even the risk-a
19.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Lot of important points to engage there, and generally agree with the spirit of the comments. I think many biotech startups would instantly take a deal that gave them and their patients the ability to opt-out of FDA, in exchange for some de
20.
by ramanujan 14y ago
approved treatments in humans often lag 10 years or so behind what's known to work in animal models The reason for this is regulation and IRB. I direct you to Banting and Best (which I also linked below): http://www.nobelprize.o
21.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Let's go point by point. 1) Regarding diabetes and the FDA: I don't think removing the FDA is going to find a cure for diabetes. Well, before the FDA as such even existed, Banting and Best came up with the idea for insulin supplem
22.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Right, but if there were a private system similar to the one in which Underwriters Laboratories operates, that'd be preferable. I'm not sure how to get there from here, which is why I said "I'm not sure how you'd pull this off". For example
23.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Good question. Broadly speaking, the whole regulatory space (not just FDA, but all other agencies) is indeed a massive business opportunity. There are basically two ways to operate here: Option 1: reduce costs of complying with FDA.
24.
by ramanujan 14y ago
2. There are regulatory obstacles for businesses. As someone in the biotech space, this is by far the biggest factor. When you are dealing with humans, crashes and bugs mean deaths. Deaths mean increased regulation, often under the
25.
by ramanujan 14y ago
One thing worthy of notice are the "combo" nature of these penalties. For example, he says Computer Fraud is pretty much the same as Wire Fraud. Yet that's a separate count, with more years/fines/numbers, which gives the prosecution a large
26.
by ramanujan 14y ago
He had no money left, was already bankrupt after defending himself to this point...Besides, this is the wrong question - on what earth should it even be possible for a prosecutor to threaten thirty five years and a felony conviction for t
27.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Well, you might be interested in the technical guts of that GSK fine. It is related to the idea that no one knows what is legal anymore, and in this case too federal prosecutors drove a man (Peter Gleason) to suicide. Very briefly, once you
28.
by ramanujan 14y ago
Unfortunately, a lot of lobbying these days is done in self-defense. This is a good article on how the politicians corrupted Microsoft and turned it into a lobbying machine. Congress will threaten you with banning your business or passing l
29.
by ramanujan 14y ago
When, in your opinion, was the golden age of human history? The reason I ask is that something like 80% of the world today has mobile phones. Or, as another example, this source says about one in seven people don't have clean water: http:/
30.
by ramanujan 14y ago
The dead white guy was responsible for 100 million people dead, most of them non-European. If you want to feel guilty for something, feel guilty for denying that. His great idea was to abolish private property, such that you didn't own the

More ›