Thank you for sharing. It does help to know we aren't alone.
The bad part is, I would have been sorta-OK with breaking up if we could have talked about it, and maintained some contact. We were having problems before this point, so it wasn't a total surprise. But she suddenly turned ice-cold. I've never had a relationship end so badly. I'm still friends with my ex-wife, for instance, and am Facebook friends and sometimes exchange some messages with the girlfriend I had before that, but this gf had a "personal policy" of basically deleting me from her life if we broke up, and she did exactly that. And the thing that really pushed her over the edge was when I complained that she wasn't helping with my move (which she wasn't).
Edit: deleted the rest in response to parent's deletion; I don't want to violate his privacy.
A salt? Ouch. Then the lawsuit may have merit, unlike the free amine the salt is absorbed only in the lungs, and you are forced to inhale deeply and get a nicotine hit.
Yeah, exactly. The linked article quotes parts of the suit that specifically say "nicotine salts" which I think is suggestive that this may be a big part of the case.
The description in the patent states that pharmacokinetics and pharmacopsychology of their product is comparable to traditional cigarettes, which all smokers know are addicting as hell. It quacks like a duck and walks like a duck.
All the course material is relevant to any founder thinking about or currently working on any early-stage startup, including biotech. We'll also group similar startups together so that you can help each other out with industry-specifics as well.
I’m very open to being wrong here, but for the specific example of CAR-T, Wikipedia mentions that it was initially developed by researchers at a university in Israel. So not the pharmaceutical industry.
UPenn and Novartis brought Kymriah to market and Kite brought Yescarta to market. Universities can be great for discovery and sponsored research, but they are not leading the work needed to get to market and they are certainly not funding it. Universities efforts are the visible tip of the iceberg, pharma efforts are the bulk under the surface.
Thanks for the info. My comment was mostly coming from a place of having read articles like this about how antibiotics don’t really make money for pharmaceutics companies:
I see where you're coming from now. ABX (antibiotics) are a bit unique. New ABX are sparingly profitable because they are usually incremental developments instead of new classes of compounds. A new class would be lucrative. I see this as a reflection that ABX dev is a ridiculously hard problem with many failures. There are many working in this area, but not much to show yet.
Although Novartis and Kite brought them to market, aren't - from what I've read in several papers (correct me if I'm mistaken) - the vast majority of clinical trials in this area still publicly funded? (NIH/NCI grants)
Public funds are used up to proof of concept and sometimes early tox/CMC (often through a CRO), but the bulk of the funding for trials comes from industry.
If what caused the layoff is a microeconomic issue - your company isn’t profitable and not a macroeconomic issue - the entire economy sucks- and you’re technical with marketable skills, it shouldn’t be an issue.
Between 2009-2011, I was working for a company that had three rounds of layoffs until the company finally shut down. We all knew the company was in dire straights, management was very up front with us. None of us who were left, jumped shipped because we liked our jobs, were working on resume building technology and we knew we could get a job relatively quickly.
Without fail, within a month of being laid off, every person who was laid off had another comparable or better job. This was true for developers, QA analysts, and L1 and L2 tech support. On our last day, when the company shut down and laid all of us off, we hung around, went to lunch, laughed, joked and called our recruiters for our next opportunity.
My biggest fear is never being unemployed, it’s being unemployable. If you keep your skills marketable in tech, finding a job or at least a contract is not hard. It’s been true for me for almost 25 years asa Developer - and I’m not on the west coast.
I’m not in IT tech, last job search a couple years ago took about a year and I’m starting another that’ll likely take as long. It’s just fantastic to me that multiple people could simultaneously find employment on short notice. It’s a world I haven’t experienced and am frankly envious of.
> If they don't, you have a job you otherwise wouldn't have had.
No, you have a job for as long as you're able to keep your lie secret. Once the lie comes out, even if it's X years down the road, you're terminated for cause, and if a prospective new employer calls they will be told you are "ineligible to be rehired." There are possible legal consequences as well.
GP, do not lie. In the long run, the world works out to be pretty fair, and liars are revealed for what they are.
> It also depends of your tolerance of rednecks, prudes, puritans, and ignorant people (which exist everywhere in the world, but have particularly large concentrations there).
FYI, using "redneck" as a pejorative, as in this context, can be interpreted as pretty offensive, and maybe this is unintentional. I for one consider it offensive.
>According to Chapman and Kipfer in their "Dictionary of American Slang", By 1975 the term had expanded in meaning beyond the poor Southerner to refer to "a bigoted and conventional person, a loutish ultra-conservative."[20]
If the OP was using it in this way, I don't see the issue. If he/she was using it to just describe laboring, rural whites, I agree; it's offensive and inappropriate. Given the context of the statement, I assumed the former.
On the topic, Randy Newman's song "Rednecks" is a scathing critique of Northerners and their "hidden" racism and hypocrisy on the subject.
>Yes he's free to be put in a cage
In Harlem in New York City
And he's free to be put in a cage
On the South Side of Chicago
And the West Side
And he's free to be put in a cage
In Hough in Cleveland
And he's free to be put in a cage
In East St. Louis
And he's free to be put in a cage
In Fillmore in San Francisco
And he's free to be put in a cage
In Roxbury in Boston
They're gatherin' 'em up from miles around . . . (apologies for the formatting)
When Jeff Foxworthy does his (incredibly unfunny) "You might be a redneck, if..." bits, the crowd is not laughing and nodding and saying "That's so true, I too am a bigoted and loutish ultra-conservative!"
To many people, redneck simply describes a particular rural lifestyle. If the OP wanted to call out bigotry, they should have called out bigots.
(This, admittedly, might have been a difficult sell given that it was immediately followed up an attack on a religious group)
Can you quote the text here? For the life of me I can’t find the section you’re referencing. I’ve heard the “timing production to match tax credit” thing before and it doesn’t make sense to me, hence why I’m trying to track down the primary source.
There's a tax credit of $7500 that will begin to be phased out as soon as they sold 200 000 cars to US customers.
Phase out starts with the same tax credit still applying for the remainder of the current quarter and the next one (before being reduced in later ones) and that's exactly the reason why they would want to match reaching the threshold to the beginning of a new quarter. This way they have as much time as possible to ship as many cars as possible to their customers (that's OK then since numbers sold do not affect the phase out beside the threshold of 200 000 cars).
The way the tax credit works is that a car company's customers get $7500 US tax credit for the first 200k Tesla type electric cars. Then begins the phase out. First the $7500 tax credit remains for the rest of the quarter when the 200k US sales was hit and the following quarter (so between 3 and 6 months). Then the tax credit goes in half for 2 quarters and then 1/4 the original for another 2 quarters. Seems strange to have a variable length phase out on the full amount but maybe the people who wrote the bill couldn't envision a company selling so many cars in a quarter that when in the quarter the company passed the 200k marker would be something the company would focus on.
Tesla is near the 200k mark and has been holding back domestic sales so to hit it at the beginning of a quarter (i.e now).
"The new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit phases out for a manufacturer’s vehicles over the one-year period beginning with the second calendar quarter after the calendar quarter in which at least 200,000 qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer have been sold for use in the United States (determined on a cumulative basis for sales after December 31, 2009) (“phase-out period”). Qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer are eligible for 50 percent of the credit if acquired in the first two quarters of the phase-out period and 25 percent of the credit if acquired in the third or fourth quarter of the phase-out period."
> > > They timed production to maximize federal tax credits for US consumers.
This is what is confusing me: if the credits are timed to domestic sales (so international sales don’t affect the timing of the tax credit phase out) what does this have to do with production?
If timed right, they have 6 months to sell cars after the 200k cutoff. Some people say they have been storing some cars and not selling them along with selling more overseas so that all the cars produced (and sold, but with the reservation backlog, this is the same thing for now) for the next six months can get the tax credit. It has to do with production because you can't have sales of cars that don't exist.
> It has to do with production because you can’t have sales of cars that don’t exist
Rather, you don’t want to rush to produce vehicles you don’t want to deliver quite yet. You want to get to maximum output at the same time the timer starts on federal tax credits phasing out (which, keep in mind, would’ve happened without Model 3 production due to 2k/week Model S and X production).
It's under Hyperdrive Tesla Production Blog, Friday June 22, 2018: "The $366 Million Subsidy Play, Part 2" as well as "Tesla's 200K Strategy".
tl;dr they'd basically benefit from an additional 336M in government subsidies if they delay recording their 200k'th sale to July 1 instead of June 30.
Actually the customers benefit from the subsidy. No other car company has sold enough evs in the us to get to this point. After they finish q4 2018 and the subsidy if greatly reduced, there will be one less reason to hate tesla. How many volts and bolts has gm sold? I haven't ever even seen a bolt on the road. Apparently gm doesn't make many of them on purpose, too expensive for the batteries - tesla's super advantage!
One biotech person's perspective is that these are changes in the right direction. Things were certainly not perfect in the pre-AIA era, but post-AIA and recent court decisions have had many negative impacts on our industry, particularly diagnostics and particularly new ventures. The uncertainty associated with an “issued” patent has decimated their value, to the loss of innovation in our industry.
I hope you get down voted not for taking a contrarian position but just because your comment does barely support the argument. Maybe anecdotes would help to illustrate your point?
I wasn’t intending to advance an argument, merely present that as a biotech entrepreneur in the process of forming a new company I for one like many of the changes in this proposal. I completely get why software people take umbrage with patents, but wanted to politely put forward that it isn’t a universal feeling.
