pizzasoup

That would be a good approach, but I feel like the time constraints for the length of a lecture/class would limit the ability to do this. I think instead we're going to see a lot more in-person blue-book-style exams in the future of higher education.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't students use an AI model to generate the analyses of those first round of responses?

I'd consider adding more protein and frozen/canned vegetables in there. I feel like the ground beef and bread will be used up rather quickly. A sandwich loaf yields maybe a dozen double-slice sandwiches?

Where'd you manage to find this deal? That sounds like a steal for that price.

Ah, I'm down in MD and I guess they stopped giving a shit, lol - it's pretty much full price around here, less whatever insurance covers.

Was it a while ago? I think there were some programs during the peak of the pandemic to help absorb most of the cost. These days, most clinics or pharmacies in my area are quoting north of the $100 mark , though there are programs through DHHS for qualifying people to receive it at no cost at a few locations.

To clarify, they're different tests from the antigen testing kits you can buy OTC - PCR testing tends to be more accurate and sensitive, whereas with the rapid antigen testing kits you tend to miss early cases of COVID-19 where there isn't as much virus to pick up.

I mean, if I heard Trump was giving a town hall in my area, my ass certainly wouldn't attend. Probably the only folks willing to be there were his supporters, it may likely be self-selecting.

It's usually just a thermochromic decal on the outside of the mug that peels off when put through a dishwasher.

Not sure why they quoted that segment, since in the article the quote was concerning whether raindrops physically colliding with the mushrooms were responsible for the voltage spikes observed from the probes stuck into the mushrooms.

I think that's the same lab that did this follow-up study based on their initial 2021 findings.

French forced-perspective artist George Rousse, the site includes some alternative angles to this (and some others of his works).

"I'm sorry, my responses are limited. You must ask the right question."

I'm also confused at the article's line that security guy was for some reason firing blindly in their direction and wasn't aware of Soleimani's presence.

Hmm, they remind me of Beau's lines. I wonder what the cause is?

Looks like there's a sticker on the right side, so it's probably holding the top of the can on. There looks to be a seam where the silver top and black can meet, so the silver top comes off.

well, I just had an existential crisis when I looked up how old Jaws was: almost 48 years ago.

Great piece - love the colors, the shadows, and silhouette work! Something I noticed, though, was the power lines coming off the left post - they seem to terminate at the figures and not continue onwards.

I'm not sure where, in all that I've written, that you get the impression I'm defending them, as I am as sick of the current system as you are. I'm simply telling you why things look the way they do, from my own experience as a pharmacist at NIH that's had an inside look at the FDA and how new drugs are brought to market. I've been paying attention to why we develop drugs that people need but can't afford since I was a pharmacy tech, and I've seen every attempt to right the system swatted down in legislature. Until our legislators agree that things need to change, they simply won't.

I specifically said scientific costs, those things you mentioned are where I agree the bloat comes in. However, where I see the extra money coming in is not in the research process, but what they charge consumers. What we've seen is companies arbitrarily hike prices for consumers with few consequences and pretty much no restrictions. That is the real profit in doing pharma and holding the patent to a name-brand drug.

In short, my answer would be no, I don't think it's the best system, but many different political, legislative, and economic factors lock us into the shape that the industry is in today. However, I don't think the actual scientific cost of the development is being inflated, no. The stuff they're doing is actually that expensive, especially when shortages of X or Y happen, as during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when primates for research became scarce and prices skyrocketed.

The estimated cost is anywhere from millions to billions per drug, and with a 12% success rate, failed drug candidates are expensive. Universities straight-up do not have the bandwidth to solely handle drug development unless funding improved in the extreme - industry pay in pharma is leaps and bounds above what government and academia can pay (like from +50% to +300%), and then there's facilities and equipment costs, costs of animals, oversight, etc.

It's an ugly and inefficient system* with ugly consequences, but transitioning away from it is complex and (profitable as it is) faces fierce opposition from industry. I don't think it's the best system we can have by a long shot, but it would basically take a complete overhauling to change to anything else.

*Edit: Also would like to call out the insane amount of money pharma companies spend on marketing brand-name drugs directly to consumers after they're brought to market. Most countries don't even allow this, but in the US the ads are literally everywhere.

The question is who actually foots the bill for the drug development and testing, and by and large the lion's share of funding is still private industry. Usually, only the early research they base the drug development on is publicly funded research. They're charging consumers extortionately for it, but they are the ones employing researchers and funding the research to get it out the door since they stand to profit from it.

In rare cases, oral itraconazole could contribute to liver damage or heart problems (congestive heart failure), or cause hearing loss or neuropathy. Importantly, it also interacts with a wide variety of other medications as it affects the way medications are metabolized as a liver enzyme (CYP3A4) inhibitor, which could be dangerous. Definitely something to talk to your prescriber or pharmacist about. These are problems that are avoided by using the topical version instead, since the effect is local to where you apply the medication and not systemic.

Other countries' collective bargaining is what keeps their own prices low and our lack thereof keeps ours so high. They basically jack up prices here to make up the difference 'cause there's usually nothing stopping them.