I don't believe that humans can really sense it on their own. But there was/is a group of "body hackers" who would implant a small shard of a magnet into their finger tip to allow them to feel electromagnetic fields.
Of course Chinese entrepreneurs can innovate. That being said, the CCP has been making it more difficult. As of this month every single mobile game needs government approval at cost to the developer.
Yes the statistics suggest that older, less educated voted more for Leave.
But aren't those also the ones who have been hit hardest by Globalization? Isn't that the big divide we're seeing here: the fact that high skilled and well educated have greatly benefited from the EU. Meanwhile the working class have faced stagnation.
Leaving the EU gives up power, economic might, and so on, but I don't find it so surprising that so many would risk such a decision in hopes of breaking away from the status quo.
It is still an issue on a practical level. Last year of the 160K asylum seekers in Sweden less than 500 found a job. That's of a country which has a population of less than 10M. How is Sweden's benefit system supposed to cope?
I haven't read too much into the topic until a week or two ago but I've seen those exact arguments coming up time and time again. Given how close it was I think remain shot themselves in the foot by not articulating their points.
Right, but let's imagine there is a vote to abolish congress and it goes through. Wouldn't it be logical for many people who understand congress and how it works try to figure out all of the nuances of the decision?
I think the WaPost is really trying to hammer hard the narrative that:
Searched = Evidence of ignorance = Leave won thanks to ignorance.
There has been a mood that the EU has benefited many of those who were more educated and better off while many blue color working class members of British society were left very much behind.
Sure there's the immediate market shock of a decision the market didn't expect, but we can't say for sure that end result in one, two, or five years will be more negative than positive for those Britons.
Passive, maybe, but active? I'm skeptical that there's any submarine in the world which can avoid active sonar. Further more the difference between a nuclear and diesel electric submarine's noise level would likely quickly be overcome by the resulting low frequency noises produced by the propeller at high speeds.
For example the Russian Alfas class were so loud when they were going top speed that US listening posts across the atlantic could hear them.
They may say that, but I cannot fathom building a fully functioning carrier to be cheap by any measure. Chinese planners cannot possible expect for their artificial islands to last long in a conflict. They would be very vulnerable targets for cruise missile strikes from the Philippines, or Vietnam. So long as air power will play a significant part in warfare platforms to bring airpower where ever needed too will play a part.
The problem is that the same massive range of area denial weapons and cruise missiles also puts fixed assets such as airstrips and bases as far as Guam in jeopardy of attack. Thus there is the problem of how do you get platforms capable of delivering payloads onto your adversary.
Carrier's are efficient at that. Unlike fixed bases, they're far more difficult to track and hit. They can launch a large number of aircraft which can hit a larger number of targets with stand off munitions. Drones can be used to delivery, although it is worth noting that most modern cruise missiles effectively are drones themselves with a several hundred pound warhead.
The author completely ignores China's increasingly sophisticated anti-submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary? Furthermore how long with a submarine stay hidden after launching a cruise missile attack? If we're to assume that the range places it within the sphere of A2/AD then it would be just as vulnerable as a surface ship after attacking.
Which then begs the question of how do you deliver payloads? You could opt to instead rely on munitions which can be launched for farther away, but such munitions certainly would be more costly. I would think that the optimal solution in respect to limited resources would be some mix of long range munitions to counter area denial capability followed by the deployment of shorter ranged assets.
But that's just my 5cent as an enthusiast who doesn't actually have any professional experience in the matter. Although from what I read about the author, it appears we're on similar footing in that regard.
Airfields are the quintessential sitting ducks: high value targets with have a fixed position that could have coordinates recorded long in advance of any action.
An carrier on the other hand is a thousand foot runway that can move at 56 km/hr.
Were carriers truly obsolete then why is china rapidly building it's own? It already has been building forward operating bases in the South China sea. Why invest in building a new class of ship which they have only recently operated if it was already obsolete.
4 out of 6 complaints here all help reduce the size of an electronics product.
In fact some of those decisions led me to chose an Apple product over a non apple one.
Locked down software ended up being a business decision for Apple's App store. As for the screws, I have no idea, but you can easily find appropriate screwdrivers online so it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
But I think it's very important to note that Elon surrounds himself with the very best domain experts he can find. He also has a reputation of deeply engrossing himself in a topic to learn as much as he can. While he may not be a domain expert when we starts, I believe he does eventually becomes one.
Theranos shouldn't be an excuse to discount domain experience because fundamentally the impeding failure of Theranos isn't due to lack of domain knowledge. It was pushing their product before it was ready and misleading doctors and the public as to the accuracy of that product.
Elon would be "pulling a Theranos" if he obscured failed launches and solicited launches without being transparent on SpaceX's capabilities.
I think its also worth to keeping in mind that SpaceX nearly went bankrupt in the process. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the rational behind Theranos's actions were caused by financial pressure. But that's just my speculation.
If you could manage a ratio of 5 big losses for one massive hit you'd be quite a successful investor indeed :)
Microfludics itself was still a young science at the time Holmes founded Theranos. It still is. I'm not sure if she could have really done due diligence that would have provided an insight how Theranos turned out at the time. I believe this was one of those try it and see if you can make it work science problems.
Having built a microfludics chip as a student, I do still think that there is plenty of promise the technology. I hope life science investors don't shy away from it. Just perhaps ask for more supporting evidence of claims. And extraordinarily evidence for extraordinarily claims.
I think the phenomena that you're seeing is a result of the kind of personally cargo cult that surrounds leaders like Holmes. As everyone sees the shadow of Icarus pass over them they marvel at his brilliance. Try to soak in every detail less they too can figure out how to soar just as high. And then when Icarus falls suddenly everyone who held him in such high esteem feel foolish. "I'm no fool, of course he was going to fall."
At least that's my theory.
I do empathize. I've been working on a product which started with very ambitious goals. It's been painful cutting out capability. I'm going to ship a product tomorrow that is less advanced than the designs and prototypes I have from a year ago. But it works consistently and I can use it as a the foundation from which to build upon. And if anything, I think the lesson from Theranos is that in healthcare the path to MT. Olympus must be a slow and steady climb. Skip a step or try to move forward before you have good footing where you are now and you'll fall.
I am not familiar with the actual laws involved in this kind of case. If it were proven that a Theranos tests harmed a patient and that Theranos willingly obscured the accuracy data to regulars could Holmes be held criminally liable?
I don't see an issue at hand of not investing in big ideas. In fact it has become clear that what has been invested in was ideas alone with insufficient substance.
But for healthcare there is a simple golden rule: Primum non nocere - First do no harm.
Theranos has broken this rule in an absolutely egregious way. I would hold no issue if they failed and that was that. It would be upsetting if someone got hurt because of some failures which were not picked up by regulatory adherence, but sometimes things happen and I wouldn't hold it against them. But to willfully hide the inaccuracy and poor performance of your healthcare product? To allow it to be marketed to doctors and the public as just as effective and accurate as existing tests?
I'm not certain if it is criminal, but I believe it at the very least should be. The individuals who have caused this to happen should be held responsible.
As for the uBeam & Theranos comparison, I don't believe it to be completely fair to Theranos. Had they had more time and not horribly cut corners as they had, then perhaps Theranos would have become the billion dollar world changing company it was hyped to be. There is still plenty of research and science that needs to be conducted in microfluidics before we can conclusively declare weather or not it can work.
But uBeam was dead on arrival. The core assumptions could be challenged with a basic understanding of physics. There's a big difference between, we don't know how to do something because the science is still being collected vs we know this won't work. Investors fell in love with a cavalier founder that had rebuffed the experts.
As long as HIPAA rules are followed I don't see an issue. Further more I would argue that the doctors in this case have a moral imperative to inform the public just how harmful these faulty test results have been. It is becoming clear that Theranos has harmed patients and public knowledge of this is crucial to discover more cases and inform those whom may have had medical decisions made on faulty testing.