This seems very unusual on many, many levels. I hate to ask, but were you a child when this happened? If so, are you sure you were in all the conversations.
First- There are less than 600 total hip replacements conducted each year on children in the United States.
Second- It would be unusual for this surgery to be even recommended without something serious being addressed.
Third- Failure to discuss risks and tradeoffs would be regarded as malpractice if something went wrong.
I was just out of college and I believe I was involved in all conversations with the care team. My sister suffered from a rare congenital condition (MPS, Morquio syndrome) which among myriad other complications involved arthritis in the hips. (Something I didn't mention is that she was expected to live less than a decade after the surgery, which proved roughly accurate.) The surgeon was willing to discuss risk vs. benefit (although absolutely not quantitatively), but only after we brought it up after the anesthesiologist approached us. It was never discussed beforehand, to the best of my recollection.
You're not wrong, but the weakness you point out isn't a new concept.
Market cap is, at best, a rough valuation of the company. It has many confounding variables of which liquidity can be one of them. That's part of why investment analysts put out price targets for companies. The counterpoint is that market price is driven by what people are actually paying.
One of the major challenges with valuation is settling on a methodology overall. There are many ways, appropriate and not, to value a company. Many will have different estimates for value. There are also factors, like control premium, that start to become relevant when you try to completely acquire a company.
One of the benefits of an open and liquid market is that future availability of locked shares can be priced in early. We all get the benefit of consensus information.
Obesity is widely regarded as a chronic disease that includes the interaction of genetic and other factors with behavioral factors.
The unbelievably low success rate of diet and exercise programs for long-term weight reduction is widely documented and quite consistent with the earlier poster's experience.
>The unbelievably low success rate of diet and exercise programs for long-term weight reduction is widely documented and quite consistent with the earlier poster's experience.
where is your data from? what protocol did they follow?
Please suggest some studies that show high success rates in curing obesity long term (say, at least 5 years). If you seem to be so incredulous that this is a real problem, I assume you are basing this on some studies that did find it's doable, and we're just being ignorant.
Ehh... you're both wrong.
Argentina ended 2024 with an annual inflation rate close to 100%. That's significantly lower, but still hyperinflation. It should be lower this year, but how much is the question.
Whether that's maintainable long term is probably the decisive judgement. Argentina has had many cycles of hyperinflation, reset, hyperinflation again. The current bailout is not exactly a positive indicator.
It's all relative, but yes, they're still in trouble. Currency manipulation is also unsustainable. The markets are reacting poorly now in anticipation of the Peronists winning the next govt as well.
That's just not true. The models have real predictive power, they just have limitations. Behavioral economics, which tackles this frontier is still a growing field. Thaler, Kahneman, and Taversky won the prize in 2017 for building the bridge between economic theory and individual decision-making.
At the risk of being inflammatory-- These arguments are the equivalent of saying that Newton didn't really do physics because his models of mechanics break down at high enough speeds and small enough scales.
The key difference in the markets is that it takes a very long time to build more apartments and houses, especially in France. There also isn't an option to not have housing. (Low elasticity) That keeps the short term supply effectively static. Same amount of supply, increase in money spent, inflation.
In a market like solar, there is production of more solar systems. There are also multiple readily available substitutes. (e.g. on-grid power) The effect of the subsidy should drive increased volume from manufacturers, keeping net price stable.
I'm sorry, but that's not what OP said. OP didn't say anything about the essential-ness of the entire workforce. They solely spoke to the larger, well documented and endorsed by major SV players, plan to transform our government structure.
Two things that frustrate me about this line of argument is a failure to recognize the scale being discussed and an implicit assumption that something that isn't trivially obvious doesn't exist.
On the scale- We're talking about millions of checks a year. You've effectively proposed to ask every congressperson to spend all day signing checks. By doing so, you've also eliminated the time they spend working with constituents on issues, understanding the facts or background of decisions they've made, or even working to find compromises.
On the assumption- There isn't a dollar figure, but there are quite thorough rules. (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46497) This spells out how the rules are established and what governs it. You can quite easily look up the authorizing legislation for USAID and see the allowed purposes for funds. Definitionally- that makes it not slush funding.
You ade alleging that. What you do with an allegation, is you prove it, and then you make the cuts. You don't make the cuts in dark of night and then say, "trust me, receipts coming later." This isnt the shoot-fucking-first-ask-questions-never wild west, its a goddamn democracy.
