This is normally a great thing, but it opens up two risks: the blind leading the blind, and conspiratorial thinking.

The blind leading the blind is what happens when someone has an idea about a disease or treatment, finds one article in pubmed or one book by one author to support that idea, and proceeds to remain ignorant about the entire rest of the body of work on the topic. It's almost like a race: if the good information gets there first, people believe it; so too for the complete hogwash in Medical Hypotheses.

The second issue that plagues first year med students and HNers is conspiratorial thinking. This is largely a consequence of having little knowledge, and this finally brings me on topic.

This current article discusses how someone was denied funding for human trials of stem cell therapy despite the fact that it cured T1D in animal models. When I see this, I think, "Of course nobody would have funded that!" Here's why I think that:

Ten years ago, stem cell biology was far more limited than it is now. And I'm talking strictly about biology, not ethics or politics.

The first gene therapy trials resulted in the death of Jesse Geisinger; though stem cells are a different beast entirely from the viral vector used in that trial, this still cast a pall over the use of active biologics.

Using stem cells that do not come from the recipient may require immunosuppressive drugs. This is such a high burden to pay that it seems inconceivable that someone would take this risk. I'd rather inject insulin all day long than be on immunosuppressive therapy. Induced pluripotent stem cells did not become a possibility until Yamanaka discovered his factors.

There is the risk that stem cells will lead to tumor-like conditions. A woman died in 2009 from an unlicensed stem cell therapy that caused just that. Animals are the model in which we should fully understand these risks, subjecting humans to them only after we understand what the risks are, and why they might occur. Especially for T1D, which has very good, lifesaving therapeutics already. The human risk-benefit has to be there.

People often work on animal models for years, even a decade, before going to human trials. This fuy had a successful mouse model. So far, so good. But let's see primate work; let's see replication in other labs.

At the end if the day, this just doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me. Some small drug company would love nothing more than to completely disrupt the market for diabetes therapeutics. Sure, it might transform a $100 billion market into a $10 billion one - but they currently have 0% of the 100 billion market, and would have 100% of the 10 billion one.

Tl;dr - Stem cell biology is novel and poorly understood, especially 10 years ago. It is unsurprising that nobody wanted to fund a highly risky human trial for a disease that already has lifesaving therapeutics. I find conspiratorial thinking to be a trait shared by those early in their medical training and by HNers, and it can be frustrating to see great minds turn to those rarely-correct conspiratorial thoughts.

Because no matter how many units Microsoft continues to sell, they no longer set the agenda, and that's the important shift. 10 years ago, the entire industry had to dance around MS on tiptoe. That's over.

There is no longer a single app platform that one company controls that dominates the industry. Microsoft is continuing to milk their golden cow by copying all the best features from everyone else's products and using their sales muscle to push their products in large volumes, good for them.

But they no longer dictate the technical specifications and business models of the platforms I write for, and as long as that's true they can sell a billion smart phones for all I care.

So sad, so true. This is what happens when you play a zero-sum game. Even if you win, someone has to lose.

Here's an idea. For the next 8 years, why don't you do something that helps others by making the pie bigger for everyone instead of just trying to game a bigger piece of a smaller pie for yourself.

When you do for others, you always have something concrete to show for your efforts. It may not be what you expected, but it will definitely be something worthwhile, I promise you.

Naturally.

My current company has about 40 linux servers and 3 windows. My previous company had 1 windows server to 5 linux. The one before that was a similar ratio.

I'm looking around online to see how IDC collected/calculated this data but can't see anything that actually says. The only thing I can think of is if they are taking commercial unixes like redhat and suse and comparing them against windows. If that is the case these numbers are beyond worthless due to the fact that most linuxs end up being centos, debian, ubuntu or other free distros.

This strikes me as dubious and high-handed, to say the least.

First, as to the value of the endeavor. He is trying to, in his words, "come up with an algorithm that finds pockets of profitability in a cloud of probable randomness." If he could really do this, it would create capital flow, the ability to borrow, and so on, for people that could turn it into wealth that would not otherwise have access to that wealth. Financial markets serve a real function, and beating the efficient market hypothesis would improve their ability to fulfill that function.

Second of all, he's extremely interested in the problem. He's obsessed with modeling complex systems and sees this as a sort of holy grail. Surely the fact that he's interested in it and values it counts for a lot, especially if you grant the above point, that there is a value to what he's doing. He has his reasons for being interested in it, and it's a productive endeavor.

I think it's false that his lack of progress, or the reasons that he's frustrated at his lack of progress, have to do with these aspects of his goal. It's more that he's working on an extremely hard (arguably insoluble) problem where it's hard to see incremental gains. This is a problem that ambitious people in many different fields face.

In many cases, the pharmaceutical companies are making billions by selling drugs which merely reduce undesired symptoms. But do not CURE the underlying problem. And the symptom reduction only lasts while the user continues to buy and consume the drug. Therefore, in many cases, these companies have a strong financial incentive to NOT cure a disease, instead, to prolong it and only sell palliatives. Government funding and government directed research should be one of the ways we ensure that we have people actively trying to CURE diseases. It's a classic example of an area where government can do something better than business, because there does not have to be a profit motive. Just a collective desire to reduce human suffering.

This also touches on why it's important to vote carefully in US presidential and congressional elections. Because certain political groups cater to the Big Pharma companies. A vote for them is almost certainly a vote towards a world where there are more palliatives than cures. Where even new forms of ill health can just be considered new "markets" or new ways to increase profits.