We're considering moving from the US altogether. My family is jewish and made their way to the US during the holocaust. We're ironically using that status to get citizenship and potentially move to Germany or Austria.
So because a homeless person today has $1, can sleep under a bridge in a jacket they got from Goodwill rather than $0.05 like 50 years ago or sleeping under a tree possibly getting eaten by wolves, this means the world is positive sum?
Standard of living has improved generally over time, but day by day the world is a zero-sum game.
I'm confused. How could the argument about Gates' philanthropic motives been obvious for decades but those about economic inequality not been simultaneously obvious?
It's all one in the same problem. Philanthropy comes from wealth accumulation.
What's the tangible evidence that the world is a positive-sum game? The tangible evidence to me seems to suggest it's a zero-sum game. E.g., a product costs $X, owners get too large of a % of that compared to employees.
In general, you don't want to take anything if you can.
Drugs usually inhibit biological processes. Metformin inhibits mitochondria. This can be good for diabetes and good for aging, but it depends. Hopefully your doctor understands when to prescribe it.
I get it. Funding saving life on earth isn't predictable like some $10/month SAAS like this. Doesn't make the pain that humans choose money over earth every time less painful.
This is not very specific. Lipids like Oxysterols and phospholipids are altered in many diseases. Need a little more information to understand the specificity of the defect.
It's often said that if the writing is dense, the writer probably doesn't understand what they are saying. Being in academia for 20 years now this seems spot-on.
Desperately need this in academia. The academic literature is full of hyped-up phrasing. Probably safe to say the more hyped-up something is presented, the less novel it actually is.