I don't think it's just a "market" thing at this point. Reality is if you're not a Tier 1 VC, which CRV really isn't, then you cannot get into good deals that would make any sense.
I think if you look at a lot of funds right now, you'll notice that they're all struggling to place. It's a question of inventory and while multiples are low (naturally as parking your capital in a savings account is yielding 5%) companies are not selling for less. I have seen multiples in ecommerce/saas startups go from 40-50x (early stage companies <5m ARR) to 15-20x. The appetite to sell your company for less than a 10 year DCF is really not there for founders. Cashflowing companies when capital costs are high are something you typically hold on to.
It's musical chairs and the music is currently stopped until interest rates break or until buyers (and their investors) start getting hungrier for acquisitions. This "sorry we can't place your $275M" scenario is a step in the latter's direction. T1 funds are also slowing down a lot since their main handoff is IPO and that is also dry.
That's missing the point. If this technique can result in longer lives for people with both good diets and not, it is a genuinely novel innovation in human life span that can't be replaced with better diet alone.
It could well be that this protein is good for you when you’re young but not that good for you when you are older.
For example, young people might encounter more new infection sources, and thus need a faster/stronger responding immune system. This protein might be evolved for giving you that, with a side effect of having too strong an immune system at older age.
Evolution may not yet have found a solution that turns down its production at later age, or it might have evolved it at some time, but found its benefits do not outweigh the cost of maintaining the necessary control mechanism.
It’s far from a given that having more humans live to old age has evolutionary benefits.
What happens when you eliminate the "good inflammation" in those with bad diets? Then what? There's likely going to be unintended consequences, naturally. My point, eliminating one symptom usually means eventually creating another.
It's not missing the point. The point is that a lot of people live with chronic inflammation caused by poor lifestyle choices and that results in many diseases later in life, including Alzheimer's.
The point is that chronic inflammation is bad. The comment I'm replying to isn't recognizing that it's just saying "oh inflammation is fine because it's a response to injury" which is very much missing the point.
How much of the consequences of a poor life style can be mitigated by simply reducing the chronic inflammation response by the body?
I'd love it if cheap shitty food wasn't bad for me. At the end of the day a calorie is a calorie and many animals handle the stuff that shortens our life with no problem.
Look at it another way, if dogs can't eat chocolate but humans can, is the problem with chocolate or with dogs?
A calorie is certainly not just a calorie. Different foods are metabolized differently and affect the body in different ways, regardless of otherwise equal caloric values. Take fructose, glucose, and ethanol as an example.
The problem there is with dogs, and has nothing to do with calories. Dogs (and many other animals) are simply not able to tolerate chocolate like humans can. Conversely, humans can't tolerate eating rancid meat and cat poop, but dogs can eat those things easily and not get sick. Lots of substances are poisonous to certain species, and non-poisonous to other species.
Also, the reason chocolate is unhealthy isn't because of the cacao plant, it's because of all the added sugar used to make it taste good, since raw cacao (or cocoa, which you get after cooking it) is horribly bitter.
The unique part here is that in order to even have the chance to buy a bag you need to develop a relationship with a sales rep and buy a bunch of other stuff. The more other stuff you buy the higher on whatever list they'll put you and when they get a bag in stock they'll give the chance to buy to whoever they have a positive relationship with and who has spent a lot of money.
This is always how Rolex has worked. Supply is limited, and prices are fixed, so they have to pick and choose who gets the rarer and more desirable watches, and who better to offer them to than the people who are your best customers (or have enough clout to be free advertising?).
Definitely not always how Rolex worked. Just 10-15 years ago you could walk in and purchase a stainless steel sport Rolex watch for a good discount brand new at authorized distributors.
I think you're missing a key point here and that is you have no chance of buying a Hermes bag unless you have a relationship with a specific sales associate and buy a lot of other stuff there. Very few other categories of goods can get away with something like this.
In some ways Rolex is like this but Rolex is relatively high production volume and there are many situations where you can get lucky and buy one relatively easily, especially now that the hype has died down a bit from 2021-2022.
If you are arguing that phone use inside the classroom is a distraction then we're already on the same page.
If you're arguing for a total ban even outside the classroom, then I need a little more clarity on how it is a distraction. The cheating ship has scaled; even if you ban the outside the classroom, students still have a "home" where they do "homework" that they can apply whatever cheating mechanisms they want.
You can fairly easily find a room in a shared house for pretty cheap, and you don't need a car.
I don't really see how moving out of state somewhere where you might rent a place for slightly less but then tack on a car means you save money in any meaningful way.
Everything costs more in SF besides the rent, especially if you're constrained to shopping (groceries etc) at places you don't need a car for. Though it might not matter as much for a single person living without housemates.
$4k/mo in rent vs $1200k/mo in rent is more than enough to make up for the expense of having a car (if you move somewhere you need one) and still leave you with an extra $25k/yr in an account somewhere....
This is silly because it doesn't take into consideration all the health issues that are alleviated when people stop overeating and get down to a normal weight
Which ones weren’t accounted for in the CBO report, which tried to take into consideration other health issues (from a financial perspective at least)?
It states that “at their current prices, [anti-obesity medicines] would cost the federal government more than it would save from reducing other health care spending—which would lead to an overall increase in the deficit over the next 10 years”
I know 10 years is the standard CBO timeframe but are we sure it's the correct one for a drug like this?
If you gave a vaccine 100% effective against cancer to 18 year olds it would probably look like a money loser on a 10 year timeframe but that's clearly not the window to measure.
> It states that “at their current prices, [anti-obesity medicines] would cost the federal government more than it would save from reducing other health care spending—which would lead to an overall increase in the deficit over the next 10 years”
… and that reason is because obese people have lower lifetime medical cost. Anything that reduces obesity will tend to increase long-term healthcare spending, because it’s cheaper to die of congestive heart failure at 50 than to live to 80 and incur a couple hip replacements and a bunch of expensive end-of-life care.
(technically it varies by country, depending on their particular allocation of end-of-life spending vs earlier care, but generally the expected cost of a 1-unit BMI reduction is more likely to be neutral or positive than an overall total reduction. And the US is even worse since we weight spending enormously heavily towards senior care due to Medicare - someone dying at 40 is a very cheap outcome for our system.)
> A one-unit decrease in BMI showed gains in life expectancy ranging from 0.65 to 0.68 year and changes in total health care costs varying from -€1563 to +€4832.
Skinny people have been absolute bastards about the whole thing from the start, they don’t want to lose the ability to look down on and belittle a class of sub-humans, they want to smirk and tell people to eat less and work out more, and losing that underclass will hurt their own perceived social standing. So now that there’s a drug that helps people eat less, it needs to be argued against strenuously lest that eventuality come to pass.
That’s why you’re seeing the moralizing and “they should lose weight without medical assistance!!!” come out instantly yet again. It was never about actually wanting them to lose weight per se, it was about the ability to moralize to an underclass who that group argues deserves their status - the whole “my assholery is an incentive to lose some weight!” school of thought that is so prominent.
Semaglutide and the class of drug is overall extremely well-studied, well-tolerated, and effective at treating several different families of chronic medical problems around the reward system of the brain. And that’s frankly terrifying to a large group of people who are low-key bigots and are facing the loss of their favorite punching bag. Like what if there was a drug that you just took it and 90% of people lost significant amounts of weight? That’s terrifying to a group of people who without a subclass to look down on will now move down a rung on the social ladder themselves.
The black mirror with the exercise bikes nailed it. People want to toss soda cans at fatties forced to work menial subclass jobs and tell them to lose some fucking weight, that’s what it’s always been about in this discourse from the start. They just can’t quite get away with physical assault in our reality, but they’ll certainly endorse emotional abuse and unequal treatment, “for their own good” etc.
It’s just a shame that this sentiment has also hindered the ability to look into endocrine disruption or gut microbiome etc. There are lots of interesting things that skinnies were too emotionally vulnerable to allow research into, that have just been vaulted over by semaglutide.
Interesting, thank you for linking to that study and providing the quote! I agree that the "losing weight naturally" thing is ridiculous. Medication for mental health gets some of the same rhetoric ("nobody needs drugs, they should just go outside and exercise!"), but really it's all the same as stigmatizing toothpaste and then blaming people for getting cavities imo.
If it economically better to hire AI then humans for most jobs, and they only need Nvidia hardare and electricity then today's Nvidia are tiny, real tiny.
so you think if they came out and said we have created AGI there would be no changes in stock prices to any stock that has anything to do with AI even if they are already "huge"?
