@temfr13@Yuchenj_UW if the lore about his several lines of code tweaking is accurate, the market cap increase attributable to that alone probably paid for his compensation several times over. Modern day "The Old Engineer and the Hammer" parable.
@onamixt@HFI_Research I suppose if the AIS is being spoofed (ironically to assist in hiding a dark transit), an individual ship can appear to teleport between images. Admittedly, there are additional rules that they can bake in to reduce this error.
@AppleHelix agreed. in their defense, the bar for best-in-class moves mid project. so one needs a healthy dose of paranoia to set a high bar at the outset, knowing that it doesn’t currently exist
@oakazaki Maybe their model for expected returns favored late stage instead of innovation in that time window? They seem nimble enough, could pivot back tomorrow if they choose to.
i suspect there does exist a framework to understand crude oil (as a proxy for energy). john arnold had good information and i believe fed into a good framework resulting in phenomenal success with natural gas.
where current forecasts can lead to bad predictions:
- can't cleanly observe all the most important data until it's too late to adapt model (eg., china utilization of inventories / satellites have limitations on storage )
- any analysis from say IEA gets repackaged in consideration of political consequences
- out-of-distribution shocks likely requires some extrapolation
if current shock continues, there are some local pockets where elasticity will snap, but yes, i believe human behavior will adapt to keep the overall system going. at best that's reflected in stable prices, if need be higher prices, and hopefully never shortages.
@MichaelPBento even if it were to break the triangle, wouldn't $75-80 still be considered elevated, relative to pre-war? or are you thinking much higher?
might be more about pressure in phase 2 to put a large weight loss score in a shorter amount of time. people tend to focus on efficacy estimand, with modest penalty for discontinuation.
whereas in phase 3 you’re already required to do 52 weeks at top dose, and discontinuations are a big penalty in intent-to-treat, which goes on your label. so penalty to redo study is very high.
@TerraStrand@AB1001_disciple@MartinShkreli@0xMasonH My guess is that pricing mechanism will dictate uptake. I wouldn’t expect insurers to payout 20x annual price of repatha upfront. And that’s not even framing relative to generic, WHO essential medicine statins.
Anybody know the cost of goods for the gene therapy?