As another layperson who only has a college freshman-level understanding of Biology 101, I don't think that's going to be simple.

Immune cells look for -expressions- on the surface of a cell to tell them whether a cell is wonky or not. Typically, these are proteins. These proteins are encoded by DNA, yes, but it's not going to be as simple as diffing the DNA between a regular cell and a cancerous cell because a simple diff like that won't tell you what will get expressed as a key cancer cell surface protein.

DNA gets interpreted as mRNA which then acts as instructions to build long strands of amino acids. These amino acid chains then fold (in hard to calculate ways) into proteins. There's a whole set of other machinery in the cell that regulates how those proteins behave once they're constructed.

TLDR, there's multiple compilation steps to go from a DNA to protein, and then a whole host of runtime monkeypatching to get proteins from A to B.

Shit's complicated unfortunately :/

In your first scenario, the average rent has gone from $1000 -> $1333, so I'd say a 33% increase.

In your second scenario, the average rent has not changed.

If this supply change happened over a century, a 33% increase would probably be very reasonable, and means the price went down in real terms.

Thanks for the explanation - one question though, how do we know that Melvin (or any other security/fund) is not correlated to the S&P?

To be fair, it probably is. Most equity hedge funds are probably closer to a 50% correlation, and should be benchmarked accordingly (i.e. half T-bills/half S&P). Investors would be able to see its historical monthly returns and regress them against the equity index.

I think most hydrogen proponents are pushing for it to replace hydrocarbons for shipping, planes, and seasonal energy storage, not cars.

There's not a lot of other great options today if we want to decarbonize those sectors because of the energy density required.

Also add trains to that list, mostly because the cost of stringing wire is constant and below certain traffic levels batteries make more sense.

One example is housing rent. A lot of landowners through regulatory capture or just obstruction make it too expensive to build houses, making it harder for poor people to afford to buy, hence being forced to rent.

In a world where there were no existing welfare programs, I can see UBI discouraging work and increasing bureaucracy.

But almost every UBI/Negative income tax proposal that's serious wants to _replace_ existing disparate welfare programs with UBI.

The advantages of doing that replacement would be:

1. lower bureaucracy since we would just hand over checks to folks rather than doing all kinds of checks to see if they are eligible

2. every person would be treated the same way, we would get rid of welfare cliffs in benefits

> But almost every UBI/Negative income tax proposal that's serious wants to _replace_ existing disparate welfare programs with UBI.

Would this replace social security?

You are stating a very decent, theoretical proposition I can agree with.

The problem is that this version/proposition works only in "isolated system" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system) i.e. "ideal theoretical environment", green field project, if you will.

Unfortunately, it can not happen in the real-world scenario. Existing welfare programs (80% of which, strictly in my personal opinion, is a politicized misgovernance), and dependency those have promoted are already deeply rooted in the brains of our population. 1000s of bureaucrats are employed with these programs that will not step down, people's minds and dynamics is a whole differen variable: In no way single Jessy with 5 children would agree to the same benefit as Susanne with only 2.

Also when Government was any good at anything? What we will end up with is a whole new governmental branch sucking on taxes with a set of newly emerged corrupted bureaucrats.

Well, I'll just say you have to separate the analysis of the policy proposal, from what kind of actual policy we would end up with given political constraints.

A similar critique of whether it's politically feasible could be made of any other proposal, including, say, a libertarian one where every existing welfare program is gutted.

> Also when Government was any good at anything?

Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Not a troll question, so please bear with me...

From the perspective of the author of a piece of software wanting downstream changes contributed back, I think GPL makes total sense.

From the deontological perspective of a consumer that considers closed source code immoral (aka Stallman's view if I understand it correctly), it doesn't make much sense to me.

Consider the example where you go to a bakery and ask for a cake. Most people, I think, would agree that it would be unreasonable for a buyer of the cake to consider it immoral that the baker doesn't release the recipe to the cake. What makes software special?