Actually, this isn't true in the slightest.
The VAST majority of management consulting firms, law firms, and yes, even investment firms like hedge funds are very small and closely held. Most do not get to global size with hundreds of employees ala Renassaisance or BCG or MoFo.
They are maybe 6 people, 10 people and as a result, most people in them do find that they can, in fact, structure their own hours to be family friendly.
This does not mean they are not competitive in their niche. It just means they are small and prefer to be that way, in part because the people in them prefer to have time for their lifestyles.
It isn't low volume per say: lots of women get (medically unnecessary) 3d ultrasounds when pregnant to get "a nicer picture" at independent clinics.
A lot of is regulatory, but not completely. - other issues include
1) expensive software integrations for EMR and billing reasons
2) that most machines have multiple wands to attach
3) That billing codes tend to support the use of expensive machines rather than cheap ones if a doctor wants to make money
is probably related to billing codes/other non-embedded software
The stuff you don't read don't become part of a knowledge base. Figuring out how to circumvent that in order to learn and think is a huge issue, especially if you want common culture and/or more knowledge growth.
EG: You could read about the nuance of every computer language by every author out there - how does this help you become a better programmer? Alternatively, how do you know when you should read something, especially if it isn't about your language/issues you are dealing with right now, because it could be insightful to problems you will be about to have in general. Multiply by lots of people facing the same choices, and then what?
Why is the Epi-Pen body not approved separately from the Drug, allowing the body to be sold without epinephrine and to be filled with whatever, including generic epinephrine from a vial?
The various auto injectors work slightly differently. Rightly or wrongly the FDA expects doctors to instruct their patients in the specific auto injector they prescribe. This prevents pharmacies from subbing out other brands unless they are functionally identical.
Very true, and radically underdiscussed as an issue.
Part of me really wants to know if it is Actually Cheaper for BigPharmaCo to offset research costs to university/government/startups and then do a Merger/Acquisition to get the promising drug past a certain phase (what have you) vs costs to do research in house.
Is lawyering and banking the process to get a drug to market BEFORE final approval really that much cheaper, or is this an accounting slight of hand issue? What is the actual cost minus marketing to develop a drug and bring it to market that created this situation.
Furthermore, what is the cost of marketing on the books for drug companies that also would drive R&D into third parties. Marketing costs are really not cheap - and they have been rising, especially as more prescription drugs are advertised to consumers. How much of this cost is also driving cost cutting/offset of risk?
(especially wondering since these issues appear appears the recall + no more manufacturing of Avui-Q. The auto-injector issues that caused the recall were untraceable/not replicatable at the Sanofi factory - and seem to be based on descriptions user error driven - and lower than the user error/failure rate of EpiPen. Meanwhile, Sanofi isn't the inventor - Kaléo/pair of brother founders is/are, and they brought nearly the exact same injector technology to market by themselves for heroin overdose. Sanofi just licensed the technology - and in the wake of the recall, decided to forfeit the license. I'm wondering how much of that deal's provisions killed the Auvi-Q, since it appears the issues behind the injector are long term fixable and profitable)
I tend to think that many things that are now in college degree programs are actually things that should be in trade programs - we've turned everything into a degree, and in the process, stopped realizing what the value of a degree is and/or what the purpose of a theory driven/liberal arts education is.
(TL:DR if you don't end up reading the link - to think, to create the ability to teach yourself, to encounter new ideas and figure out which ones are hot air and which ones are not. To learn how to create good new ideas for yourself! To become a better human being and citizen in order to better participate in this world)
If we separated out the trade school aspect, well, it becomes very hard to value an education in the traditional degree/liberal arts sense - and it becomes easier to tell what's the value of that immediate trade school diploma by market forces. In that, then the government could apply a limit on loans to what is very knowable (market forces) and apply some other metric because of the public good gained by aiming towards education in general
Was there in person for that address (was that 10 years ago...). In my view if you go to college today and don't get a real liberal education (distribution requirements!) then you have waisted your time and probably your money.
you're lucky. My year didn't have nearly as entertaining a speech.
I still think his points hold (as do many of the speeches points, most of which in some ways are similar).
However, attaching liberal education to everything may or may not be a good idea - and with the trade-ism of college, liberal education is sort of conceptually odd
There technically is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" gene, only an advantageous, disadvantageous, and neutral variant of a gene. Given that some genes can be read forwards and backwards, and that simple environmental causes, aka just changing an environment, can turn a disadvantageous gene expression into neutral or positive, it's hard to say something is eugenically good in a population unless it is a 1 gene mutation with 99% penetration that always causes death. (Huntingtons would be in this group)
Genomics says what you are saying is frankly impossible. If it weren't
A) there would be no such thing as incomplete penetrance
B) or traits linked to multiple genes
C) or ways to manipulate social science statistics with simple experiments, like subsidizing iuds for high school students and seeing what happens. That's a purely environmental factors, and yet your supposed "bottom 20" stops acting like it as thier environment changes in one subtle way
Where did you get the Idea that any of what you are saying is scientifically sound?
They are maybe 6 people, 10 people and as a result, most people in them do find that they can, in fact, structure their own hours to be family friendly.
This does not mean they are not competitive in their niche. It just means they are small and prefer to be that way, in part because the people in them prefer to have time for their lifestyles.