Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    8561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chainsaw

  1. I think a natty would bring him legend status. Maybe the same tier of greatness as VY and Colt, but I have a feeling he'd still be looked at as slightly beneath them. Colt woulda beaten Bama, but any QB1 could win the 2025 CFP
  2. Before I even clicked I knew it would be property manager. Profession of peace.
  3. If he returns Texas to the promised land, this thread is gonna be like a time capsule. I can't tell which version of him we're going to get, but he is definitely capable of winning it all. It's just frustrating to watch when he underperforms.
  4. People have tape on Pedo too, though. Oregon was never behind either
  5. Boise has really been overlooked. Based on their losses to a common opponent (Oregon) I don't think it's crazy to think Pedo could lose. This won't be a home game, and Boise ain't SMU.
  6. Milroe sees things that ain't there
  7. We have evolved to a point where the chant is already living rent free in your heads.
  8. who is this content even for?
  9. If he hates players getting paid so much there are over 1,000 high schools in Texas he could coach at.
  10. I think Conover's point about civic life is overlooked, and the point about the DNC's obsession with fundraising is inarguably true at this point.
  11. The definition of insanity
  12. Mack Brown is great at recruiting Lago Vista. Is it DEI to leave open one or two scholarships for good kids from good families?
  13. Jim Spencer or gtfo
  14. I'm not against every patent all of the time, I'm only against abuses of the monopoly that go beyond anticompetitive (something which is inherent in any monopoly, by design) and become harmful to public health (something that only happens when greed overpowers decency). The true culprit(s) is/are likely these non-patent market distortions, so we're in full agreement on that.
  15. Do you think it needs to be? This is where I become less sympathetic to the pharma industry. Like, we can't just quantify "the upfront risk" as some huge number as a pretext for hiking prices beyond what ordinary people can pay. We probably know more or less what percentage of drugs that enter Phase 1 Clinical Trials are going to ultimately get FDA approved, and I don't exactly think the odds are so much worse than any other business. Just pull the rip cord before jumping in to Phase 2 and save some money, or whichever phase, if you can't pass the phase you just paid for. Most of those sunk costs are probably tax advantaged. Exclusivity, fine, but with some strings attached to ensure the monopoly isn't being abused to the public's detriment.
  16. Here's where I stand: True I doubt it. My sense of things is that there are dozens of companies we've never heard of, who don't innovate shit, and have perfectly healthy balance sheets and don't want anything to change so they lobby the fuck out of politicians to make sure nothing changes, and if anything does change, it's only to make their business even more cushy. I wouldn't accuse you of saying something like that. But yes, R&D certainly wouldn't justify their prices. If by "they" you mean the companies themselves, I don't think the answer is quite that black and white. A lot of public grants go to researchers at universities, and some grant money gets mixed up with private investments that are linked to pharma companies, and while there are some strings attached it's usually a stretch to say "they" (the pharma companies) are "engaged" in that research. I'm not saying these companies don't have research departments, but I've not heard of anything worthwhile happening in those labs. I could be wrong, but I get a distinct impression that private researchers are MLS whereas the minds in academia are Champions League caliber. It's not black and white though, as I said, so I'm sure there are some rockstars in private research and some flameouts in academia, and of course due to all the public-private partnerships and the way research gets funded, the line between "them" and not-"them" is blurry. I can agree with you that innovation DOES happen. I don't think I can agree that the innovation is rightfully "theirs" when it's more often the innovation of some grad students. I agree. Patents incentivize investment in invention, but not necessarily the invention itself. I still find it immoral for someone to be able to monopolize life-saving or livelihood-saving treatment. I'm not against the patent system, I'm against capitalistic mechanisms that deprive people of the care they need. In this particular case, I think monopolies on drugs (whether it's a patent or whatever the fuck orphan thing Shkreli was exploiting) are immoral. There has to be a better way to reward innovation, and a better way to reward people who are willing to pay for research even when the research itself doesn't pay off. Those are losses I'm fine with socializing, and I don't believe these losses are so great that the only way to offset them is by depriving people of the care they need.
  17. If you went to BYU it would be a soak bank
  18. Any eczema girl sightings yet?
×
×
  • Create New...