And you're suggesting what, that we hand the reins to the democratic process you just described as flawed, one that is corrupted by lobbying? Yeah why don't we just take a corrupt institution and put it in charge of more things.
It's pretty interesting to think about happens from an economic perspective. Say I buy a house on loan (money withdrawn from capital markets). I hand cash to the previous owner and they use it to pay back their loan (return money back to the capital markets, keep the difference).
Consider the synchronous chain.
Me: Myprofit=future_profit-cost1
Prev owner: profit=cost1-cost2
Prev owner 2: profit=cost2-cost3
And so on...
Also consider a parallel behavior where I can simultaneously buy and sell multiple properties though debt.
It would be fun to model this whole chain and understand what this recursively unfolding process actually does with capital. Is it a capital sync? What behavior does it incentivize? Does it guarantee expansion/recession cycles?
Your advice is somewhat dangerous if people follow it expecting them to magically work. First, the NASA study is for VOCs, not pm2.5. Second, when I briefly looked into using plants to clear VOCs indoors, I found that the number of plants, lights, and air-circulation required is completely impractical. Plants are awesome, I love them, but they're not enough. I wish it wasn't so.
My use case is pretty much parallel time series alignment with several layers of aggregation. I guess I perceive stream-stream joins as an easy way for me to wrap my head around how to structure my compute graph, but it seems doable with the method mentioned by @grammr. I'd hope for an interface roughly like "CREATE join_stream from (SELECT slow_str.key AS key, sum(slow_str.val, fast_str.val) AS val FROM slow_str, fast_str INNER JOIN ON slow_str.key = fast_str.key)". I do realize there are some tough design decisions for a system like this, but I'd also like to drop my wacky zmq infrastructure ;)
That's awesome! If you don't mind - one more q.. I see that stream-stream joins are not yet supported (http://docs.pipelinedb.com/joins.html#stream-stream-joins). Can you comment on when you think this feature cold land or is it still a ways off?
Great, let's evaluate the deaths caused by regular cars. Lets evaluate risks posed by burning fossil fuels. Let's evaluate pretty much every single little detail about other auto brands and present our findings in a fashion where we can compare and rank best to worst. Having just done this I'm completely satisfied with Tesla's approach in comparison to what other brands have been doing.
As far as I'm aware the majority of failing biotech companies have very broadly targeted Amyloid beta (apparently because they thought it was a good risk tradeoff). A narrow focus on APOE4 could be a wiser strategy. I could even see gene therapy playing a role.
If you are CC genotype for marker rs7412 AND marker rs429358 your status is APOE4.
Note that there are several other markers/genotypes that can reduce risk, but research appears to point to APOE4 status having the most impact. Also be aware that genetic reports could always have errors due to chance, operational errors, or problems with original research.
I get that you have strong feelings. But this is just uninformed. If you took a sec to understand Musk's comp structure you'd see that its paper wealth, as in he doesn't take cash out of the company. Instead he puts cash in the company. Also he only sold stock to pay taxes. I'd guess its likely he paid more in taxes than you, if you're an average earner.