Pushback on costly #drugs
http://CEN.acs.org/articles/95/i9/Pushback.html Table of signpost meds: $80k Sovaldi hep. C treatment, $14k/yr for PCSK9 inhibitor Repatha
Posts Tagged ‘x57s’
Pushback on costly #drugs
Does Trump…Have the Best Words?
http://www.LitCharts.com/analitics/inaugural #Lexical analysis of 58 inaugurals; words/sent., we-v-I & will-v-shall usage, &c
“V. Inaugural Language Has Kept Up With the Times
Modern inaugurals are less complex than early inaugurals, but not at the cost of lexical richness. Presidents aren’t exactly dumbing things down for us–they don’t assume we have limited vocabularies–but they are trying to speak our language. So they tend to use words that fit the current vernacular.
Take, for example, the choice to use “will” or “shall”:
To Americans, “shall” began to sound outmoded (or perhaps British) somewhere around World War II, and presidents pretty much stopped using it. “Will” has the same imperative force, but doesn’t clang as much to modern ears.
Mr. Trump, who has an ear for vernacular, didn’t use “shall” at all in his speech. Instead, he used “will” a record-breaking 43 times, and its prevalence was plain as he declared his intention to upend Washington politics, reinforce borders, and turn us into winners in what he sees as a zero-sum world:
In addition to “we,” Mr. Trump also hit the word “America” pretty hard. If you compare the use of “America,” “American,” and
“Americans,” to “citizenship,” “citizen,” and “citizens,” you’ll see that this tendency is also part of a trend:”
The 2nd Avenue #Subway Is Here
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/the-second-avenue-subway-is-here/amp A century in the making (+ costing $4.5B for phase I) for a mass transit Q-tip
extends the tip of the Q !
With #AlphaGo researchers are learning how an algorithm thinks
https://qz.com/897498/by-sparring-with-alphago-researchers-are-learning-how-an-algorithm-thinks What images #NNs conjure up for a classification term
-“Tyka was part of the Google team that first published work on DeepDream, a computer-vision experiment that went viral in 2015. The team trained a deep neural network to classify images, i.e. show the network a picture, it tells you what the image depicts. Except instead of asking it to look at pictures, they programmed the network to look at a word and produce what it thought would be an image that represents the word. The deep neural network would then supply its visual “idea” of different words.
And it worked. The team gave the network the word “banana,” for example, and it produced a dizzying fractal of banana-shaped objects. But the experiment also provided insight into how the machine thought about objects. When asked to produce dumbbells, the network generated gray dumbbell shapes with beige protrusions—arms. The neural net correlated arms and dumbbells so highly that they were seen as almost one object.”
“One of Esvelt’s goals at M.I.T. is to facilitate that shift. Part of his job, as he sees it, is to challenge what he describes as “the ridiculous notion that natural and good are the same thing.” Instead, he told me, we ought to think about intelligent design as an instrument of genetics. He smiled because the phrase “intelligent design” usually refers to the anti-Darwinian theory that the universe, with all its intricacies and variations, is too complex to have arisen by chance—that there had to be a guiding hand. The truth is more prosaic, and also more remarkable: for four billion years, evolution, driven by natural selection and random mutation, has insured that the most efficient genes would survive and the weakest would disappear. But, propelled by CRISPR and other tools of synthetic biology, intelligent design has taken on an entirely new meaning, one that threatens to transcend Darwin—because evolution may soon be guided by us.”
How DNA Editing Could Change Life on Earth
http://www.NewYorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/rewriting-the-code-of-life Intelligent design from CRISPR & gene drive rather than natural selection
Some ones l liked.
Schedule or cancel a meeting. Ex.: “Schedule a meeting with [name] tomorrow at 11:30 a.m.” or “Cancel my 5 p.m. appointment.”
Set location-aware reminders. Ex.: “Remind me to remember my keys when I leave,” or “Remind me to feed the dog when I get home.”
Set alarms. Ex.: “Set an alarm for 1 a.m.” or “Set an alarm for six hours from now.”
Delete/turn off all alarms. Ex. “Delete all alarms” or “Turn off all alarms.”
Check the number of days between dates. Ex.: “How many days until October 6?” or “How many days between April 3 and June 16?”
Send an email. Ex.: “Send email to [name] about [subject] and say [message].”
Set a timer. Ex.: “Set the timer for 10 minutes.”
Check the weather. Ex.: “What’s the weather like today?” or “Do I need an umbrella?”
Random tips and tricks:
Find out what airplanes are currently flying above you. Ex.: “What airplanes are above me?”
Roll a die or roll two dice.
Tell me a joke.
What does the fox say?
Who’s on first?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
What is zero divided by zero?
Learn how to say my name.
The Heroism of Incremental Care, by @Atul_Gawande
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/the-heroism-of-incremental-care Positively compares GPs-v-surgeons to bridge inspectors v rescuers
“For a long time, this would have seemed as foolish as giving your money to a palmist. What will happen to a bridge—or to your body—fifty years from now? We had no more than a vague idea. But the
investigation of the 1967 Silver Bridge collapse marked an advance in our ability to shift from reacting to bridge catastrophes to anticipating and averting them.
Around the same time, something similar was happening in medicine. Scientists were discovering the long-term health significance of high blood pressure, diabetes, and other conditions. We’d begun collecting the data, developing the computational capacity to decode the patterns, and discovering the treatments that could change them. Seemingly random events were becoming open to prediction and alteration. Our frame of medical consideration could widen to encompass our entire life spans.
Our ability to use information to understand and reshape the future is accelerating in multiple ways. We have at least four kinds of information that matter to your health and well-being over time: information about the state of your internal systems (from your imaging and lab-test results, your genome sequencing); the state of your living conditions (your housing, community, economic, and environmental circumstances); the state of the care you receive (what your practitioners have done and how well they did it, what
medications and other treatments they have provided); and the state of your behaviors (your patterns of sleep, exercise, stress, eating, sexual activity, adherence to treatments). The potential of this information is so enormous it is almost scary.
Instead of once-a-year checkups, in which people are like bridges undergoing annual inspection, we will increasingly be able to use smartphones and wearables to continuously monitor our heart rhythm, breathing, sleep, and activity, registering signs of illness as well as the effectiveness and the side effects of treatments. Engineers have proposed bathtub scanners that could track your internal organs for minute changes over time. We can decode our entire genome for less than the cost of an iPad and, increasingly, tune our care to the exact makeup we were born with.
Our health-care system is not designed for this future—or, indeed, for this present. We built it at a time when such capabilities were virtually nonexistent. When illness was experienced as a random catastrophe, and medical discoveries focussed on rescue, insurance for unanticipated, episodic needs was what we needed. Hospitals and heroic interventions got the large investments; incrementalists were scanted. After all, in the nineteen-fifties and sixties, they had little to offer that made a major difference in people’s lives. But the more capacity we develop to monitor the body and the brain for signs of future breakdown and to correct course along the way—to deliver “precision medicine,” as the lingo goes—the greater the difference health care can make in people’s lives, as well as in reducing future costs.”
#Software or softwear?
https://www.1843magazine.com/style/software-or-softwear Appears fashions change faster for computers than clothes. Cf
For years now I’ve written about fancy-schmancy clothes, shoes and bags. I’ve visited factories and ateliers across Europe to observe artisans make Hermès bags, Kiton suits, Berluti jeans, Tod’s loafers, Mulberry luggage, Private White VC jackets, John Lobb Oxfords, Brunello Cucinelli sweaters – and much more besides. I love watching skilled craftsmen going about their business, then trying to explain the process in print without resorting to hype.
But buying the stuff? Despite my privileged access and my love of beautiful things, whenever push comes to shoving my hand into my pocket and slapping down the moolah, I tend to cringe: £600 ($750) for a pair of shoes? A £900 coat? A £3,000 watch? Uh-uh.
I tell myself that my hesitation is based on prudence. I’ve got kids to feed, after all, and the closest I’ve come to planning for the future is booking a hotel in Paris. Yet when it comes to another retail category that dominates this golden age of consumer capitalism – personal technology – it’s another story.
Ever since my childish paws first caressed the orange plastic contours of my beloved Texas Instruments Speak & Spell, I’ve been a sucker for a screen, a shutter-click or a bleep. From my first computer (an Amstrad CPC464), first camera (a Pentax me Super) and first mobile phone (a Sony Ericsson whose model number eludes me – maybe it fried the relevant synapse), I can chart each period in my life according to the hardware I was using. And I’ve never felt anything but virtuous about forking out when the cash was, briefly, in hand. Why? Because personal tech is the toolbox of 21st-century life. It empowers. It frees. It improves.
But last month I had an epiphany. It happened as I sat in the Genius Bar of an Apple store feeling stupid, paying £300 to repair the suddenly blank screen of a laptop purchased not much more than a year earlier. The cheery Genius at hand had told me that in my position, he’d probably just buy a new computer: “but that’s just me”, he said, “I always want the latest model.”
Briefly, that technophile, Pavlovian response kicked in: woof! Lead me to the newest, most expensive version! But it was swiftly replaced by a howl of inner fury.
More and more, I observe technology companies adopting the marketing strategies of luxury-goods firms. Sure, their narrative focuses not on heritage or trends, but on incremental upgrades in processing speeds, peripheral capabilities and software compatibility. Yet many companies talk just as enthusiastically about design as functionality, and propose that owning their products is a declaration of personal identity. Each new launch inevitably presents whatever product is being pitched as the ne plus ultra of its type – a big fat lie that becomes ever more glaring as the cycle of enforced obsolescence spins faster and faster.
I’ve spent the last week or so sifting through my personal archive of the obsolete: à la recherche du tech perdu. From tangles of cable and brick-like batteries I’ve excavated minidisc players (Sanyo!), BlackBerrys, Nokias, ThinkPads, iMacs, a Google Glass, Coolpix and more. None, of course, is fit for purpose now, unless you’re going to a “Back to the Future” party.”