Why is this being downvoted? Perhaps on its face it seems to be anti-technology and regressive, but there's plenty of data to suggest that the industrial efficiencies of modern farms have massive negative externalities in terms of depleted soil health in the form of the narrowing of both macrobiome and microbiome, depleted nutrient content in our plants, depleted health and nutrition of our animals, leading up to depleted health to those at the top of the food chain: humans.
it's being downvoted because it's not a relevant reply to the original comment, and has potential to provide a flamewar on a topic entirely different than the original article.
This is slightly off topic since the focus of this article is racial demographics and economic standing in a culture, but it's interesting that Brazil, a country which has whole heartedly adopted chemical agriculture and monocropping practices finds themselves in a place where fertility rates per woman are lower than in the US, which has one of the lowest (and also heavily relies on chemical ag). As an investigative journalism piece, I think teasing out the effects of industrial agriculture from other social factors that contribute to people CHOOSING not to have children and relating that to fertility rates would be a much more substantive article than looking at sperm imports where n=500.
I'm not a cellular biologist or a doctor of any kind, but I consider myself a reasonably smart person. Reading the book Tripping Over the Truth by Travis Christofferson and tracking the work of Thomas Seyfried and others, it makes me think that a lot of the discussion in the battle for curing cancer is chasing a false paradigm: that cancer is a disease of genetics and if we could understand and edit the genome, we could cure the disease. The case for the Metabolic theory of cancer as laid out by Seyfried is quite compelling and if true, the implications for treatment from a patient standpoint seem to me much more preferential than the current combination chemotherapies which are only getting more and more expensive and only marginally more efficacious. Work on this front is only in its infancy, but my hope is that more people become aware, more funding directed towards metabolic therapy trials, and one day it could at least be incorporated into the standard of care.
If you read the article you'd realize that it doesn't talk about modifying the patients DNA to cure the cancer, the are just editing T cells so they will attack the cancer. Metabolic therapy seems promising, but I don't think it will ever be as effective as other forms of therapy that we will come up with.
>The treatment Wu is testing involves taking a sample of blood from each patient. A lab at a biotech company two hours away by bullet train extracts T cells from the blood. Scientists then use CRISPR to knock out a gene in the T cells known as PD-1. This engineering feat modifies the T cells so that they zero in on and attack the cancer cells, once they're infused back into each patient.
I realize the article is discussing a form of immunotherapy, but I think immunotherapy is also in its infancy, and given the nature of cancer cells and the heterogeneity of its own genetic makeup, immunotherapy still seems like a very blunt weapon in the war on cancer. For a patient who has already been beaten down by rounds of chemo and radiation, it offers a last ditch hope for survival, but its still laden with risks and adverse outcomes.
On the contrast, metabolic treatment is tough from the standpoint that it requires strict discipline by the patient to adhere to the protocol, but the "side effects" may actually enhance overall health at the cellular level. It's a treatment that at the very least could be melded with the current standard of care to achieve better outcomes, and yet there's very little awareness of it, possibly because there's not a lot of money in it for hospital systems.
My favorite "tea" to make is just chopping up a little ginger, a little turmeric, and some sort of citrus zest, steep in boiling water for 10 mins. You can re-steep it several times also. I drink it every day because it's delicious, as well as calming and anti-inflammatory.
Question from a non-Silicon Valley professional: Where does all that money go? Obviously, some [likely big] portion of it is still on the balance sheet, but does an app like Shazam really cost that much in engineering talent to update it and iterate it and server space to keep it running?
It varies quite a bit from company to company. They were founded in 2001 so I expect most of it was salary and physical plant.
The business is/was connecting resale opportunities to brands and artists[1] so you'll have a fairly significant sales and marketing effort although typically you will pay sales people for performance so their compensation will track revenue.
But to give you some things to think about, if you have an engineering team of 15 engineers, median salary $120K, and an 'overhead' (office, health plans, insurance, etc of 60%) then that is $200K/engineer/year (or $3M/year or $48M for 16 years [2001 - 2017]) that is just integrating cost per engineer over time using constant engineering. You can put any function in you want for head count (does it grow exponentially? does it grow in chunks? etc) and then add a C-suite team (higher median salary) and an 'overhead' team (IT, marketing, HR, etc) and you can burn through that fairly quickly.
It is a useful thing to build models for this stuff as your 'pre-operationally-cash-flow-positive' costs are really the health and future of your company.
There are a lot of people that work at tech companies that aren’t highly paid engineers. GP specifically called out engineers at a higher salary, so GP was obviously including receptionists, admin staff, etc. I’d be shocked to find that the starting salary anywhere around here is 120k.
Most of Shazam's engineering is in London. Going rates for engineers in London are way below the valley. Facebook/Google/Apple pay UK engineers about 30-40% less than their US counterparts.
Just because all you see is an app, doesn't mean there isn't more software they have running behind the scenes. A lot of consumer facing companies need to have DMCA copyright compliance software, explicit content software and various "big data" integrations, both to power better recommendations engines, but also for BI purposes. They also need a way to ingest content so they can identify new music.
A good app looks like it only takes a few engineers to maintain, but in likelihood there's a lot of complexity, even that's outside of the core "platform" software going on.
Marketing, sales, legal (especially in the music space, though less so for Shazam), engineering (integrations with Spotify, Etc.). People cost a ton of money. :)
Salaries for - Chief Twitter Feed Monitor, Chief Assistant of The Twitter Feed monitor. The Special Secretary to The Assistant of Twitter Feed Monitor, etc etc etc
Owner of a business here... I'm 6 years into owning my own business and things have grown year over year for the company and we are doing quite well. In theory, the democratization of the workplace is a nice idea, and I initially tried to build my business around this idea. But over my time running things, I've realized that hierarchy is necessary, especially when things start to scale up. One of the biggest things I've come to realize is that most people take comfort in structure: what time to arrive and what time they can leave, specific directions on how to do their job and what exactly their job is (or isn't), when they will be paid, etc. As things begin to scale up in a business, it's necessary to create specific roles and specialized work for things to operate efficiently, and while a healthily functioning company relies on everyone doing their job well and working together, every role in the company does not carry equal weight, either because of the skillset or knowledge base required to perform a given task or because of the network and social abilities of a given person might open more doors for the business. People also go through different stages in their personal lives where they might be more or less invested in the work they're doing, and when you're an employee you have the luxury of checking out every once in awhile. For better or worse, good owners are married to their businesses and don't have that luxury.
I'm still learning and I consciously try to value the input of each employee and make myself openly available for criticism when it's called for. I also realize that the temptation is there to siphon off marginal profits into my own check, but I think that's short sighted if you have good employees who do "own" their job and are growth minded. Investing in those types will only pay dividends. There's a balance to be had, and it sounds like the OP needs to find a company where he feels better respected and supported. Maybe pay is a component of that, but communication and a healthy culture are also pieces of the puzzle.
Democratization of work doesn't mean zero hierarchy. It means the workers get to choose how their labor value is used. It is perfectly acceptable for a majority of a company to decide to elect a CEO and form a capitalist-style company, but it is important that it is their choice to do so! And of course, they would still retain their right to revoke such a hierarchy.
So what's stopping this from happening now? The existence of other firms where employees own 0% shouldn't negatively impact worker-owned cooperatives, right? If anything, coops should be at an advantage because no one is sucking out all their value!
My theory: corporate tyranny is commonplace and accepted, and a democratic (or more likely, a republican) workplace is new and different, and a lot of people are rightly suspicious of building their lives on a new and possibly unstable foundation.
Also the law is set up assuming the firm will ultimately be run through a single point of authority, and if you want to run the place as a coop you'll face investor uncertainty and legal difficulties.
Most of all, the US culture doesn't have much in the way of cultural norms for a firm like this. We have centuries of experience working in a hierarchical style workplace, but people don't really have manners for working in an democratic firm, and there would have to be a lot of time and energy spent on cultural factors that a conventional workplace doesn't have to.
It's hard to raise money for such a business, because venture capitalists typically aren't willing to loan a new business money- they want ownership equity for their money. And at that point it's no longer employee owned. In fact small business loans specifically exclude any new business from consideration- established businesses with documented profits only, thank you very much. So usually employee owned businesses start out privately owned and then the employees buy out the original owners at market prices. I think there is hope though- there are financing options for cooperatives starting to appear here and there, still on a very small scale though.
I see that happening only under an employee owned company. Most companies start small though, with 1 to n founders and/or equity owners. I think it takes a special owner and a very special set of employees for an owner to later abdicate control back to their employees.
Socialists have a particular hate for voluntary leftist organizations that allow choice, and then have the workers choose individualization, mostly because that's exactly what open communes keep doing, and it destroys them.
For a good example, see the evolution of the Kibbutzim system in Israel and what sort of image Israel has today in leftist circles (and the image and reputation Kibbutzim have in Israel's own considerable leftist parties). You will see that leftists cannot deal with individual choices and, also, that allowing individualized choices will destroy any leftist society. Therefore, they cannot be voluntary.
Depends on the person. Angus Barbieri completed a 382 day medically supervised fast in 1966. Depending on body composition and physiology, one might reap a lot of benefit from simple intermittent fasting while another person might continue fasting for longer stretches to help reset their body to more normalized hormone levels.
Cost of production from variety to variety at this farm is going to be fairly consistent. The reason coffee has traditionally been relegated to developing countries is because of labor costs. To get a good harvest with quality in mind, farmers typically have to do several passes through the fields of coffee trees to select the coffee cherries at their optimal ripeness. Altitude also factors into quality as well, since coffee that slowly ripens due to cooler temps typically translates to a better product. Farms at high altitude can have some pretty gnarly topography.
Coffee farms where attention to quality is less important and raw output more important will plant trees in full sun, nice conventional rows, and then send mechanical harvesters down each row to strip pick the trees, harvesting cherries that might range from under ripe to perfectly ripe to over ripe. Yields might be higher and labor costs lower, but quality suffers and these beans are typically sold in the commodity market.
I think it screams the need for price increase. If not enough people want to purchase coffee at the price to support local labor, then either sufficient demand does not exist or a new method of performing the laborious task needs to be invented.
The reason labor is cheaper in other countries is because those people have no other options, and I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a luxury good.
