You also have to assume advances in sensors and robotics (e.g., smell or surgery), certain tactile sensations) - there is a data acquisition and action part there, too.
In this study, I think there was an MD before the AI to enrich data.
The PX is subsidized by the taxpayers, and it's a benefit provided to members of the military and their families. A military base is a socialist paradise, which only works because taxpayers pay for it.
My dad grew up a socialist. He was cured of that affliction after living on military bases for years. For example, the economy on a base on the surface looks like a money based economy. But it isn't. The actual economy is based on rank and a currency of mutual favors. For example, the guy who allocates base housing to you obliges you to return a favor if you get better quarters.
Having a higher rank means you can grant more favors, and so get more favors in return.
The USSR economy ran like that, too, on a massive scale.
P.S. The USSR's actual prices on things included the time spent waiting in line. People would pay others to wait in line for them. Talk about inefficiency!
Personal favors do play a role in the private economy, but money is still the dominant currency. Under socialism, the dominant currency is favors. Favors are a form of barter, and barter economies are inefficient. I can explain why if you like.
Because aggregate statistics completely fail to recognise the massive philosophical differences in the system. It is like saying someone who buys Ferrari is getting ripped off because they aren't choosing to ride a bike.
The US pays more because it provides significantly greater coverage outside of aggregate statistics. All of the innovation in rare diseases is because of the US, in public healthcare systems some diseases are simply not treated because it isn't regarded as economic to do so. How do you even quantify that difference? It is like making a GDP comparison between 1800 and today, what price would someone in 1800 not to die of TB? Life expectancy of 20 years old in many countries? Anyone who compares the two things in terms of cost is a lunatic.
In short though, it is not obvious that a high-cost healthcare system is worse. The US system is inefficient, almost all of this relates to their decision not to use universal healthcare which leads to problems pricing insurance. However, this is not related to the system, there are many countries in Europe and worldwide which have effective private healthcare systems.
Not saying a high cost system is worse rather that seeing the benefits in data isn't so easy. Not clear what the "right" costs for a system should be, I reckon.
As to drug discovery etc.: I think, not easy to say how the world would look like if the US weren't offering the opportunities. What would be new equilibrium RoIs needed if the world were quite different (and, yes, I am aware of studies there).
Think in terms of a dynamic system. Or in terms of "selfish gene", as I've observed it to be easier to talk about.
Any single person or group in a corporation is expendable. You can swap out the sales department or a CEO, and the corporation will continue on its course without a pause or major change of direction. No single person or group of people is in total control of the direction - what directs the corporation is the sum total of ideas, vibes, internal influences, bylaws, operating practices, assets, and external environment of competitors and markets and regulatory landscape. The people that make up a corporation may be diverse and have conflicting goals, but if there's one thing they're all aligned on, is that they all want to keep their jobs and increase their pay or influence. I.e. they want the corporation to go on, to survive at least to their next paycheck.
The end result is, a corporation can be seen as an independent entity - kinda like an animal (or a super-colony for more accurate comparison) with a survival drive independent of the people that form it.
If there is a single owner, could shut down the place, for example.
As I said, in my experience, the humans - interchangible or not, as customers, competitors, owners etc - determine what happens, not the corporation itself.
Can look at a corporate as "living thing" itself, but I think that underestimates the human side.
Then again, there are 100 billion highly interconnected neurons without a CEO, a CFO, a CTO, a COO, etc. Thinking that from 50, 500 or even 5000 barely connected people with exterior motivation some higher intelligence can emerge is naive. Do not anthropomorphize.
5000 barely connected people isn't a corporation, it's a mob. A corporation has more to it.
In fact people aren't much more important that the software that runs on them. Because that's what all the bureaucracy is - all those rules and bylaws and contractual obligations and checklists and playbooks and regulation - software running on a runtime made of meat, one form letter or internal memo at a time.
Most of the time, losing people is to corporation what clipping a toe nail is to an adult, or a bit flip to a modern computer - a non-event you barely notice and carry on.
> higher intelligence can emerge
Nobody said "higher intelligence". I mentioned animals, ant supercolonies, but the same patterns of behavior is visible in even most basic multi-cellular and single-cellular organisms.
> Do not anthropomorphize.
Nobody says you need to.
(Except with LLMs, where refusing to do so means you'll just remain confused about what can or cannot, should or should not, be done with them.)
I meant that in the sense that a typical SaaS company has no reason to be formally thinking about risk adjusted returns and therefore has no need of a CRO. If anyone cares product can do a guesstimate or something. Most companies shouldn't have a CRO.
If you’re a B2B SaaS with no CRO, good luck with vendor assessments. B2C you can skip it before reaching a critical mass where regulatory pressures will mandate it.
If it were to get closer to war (i.e., Spannungsfall, let alone the Verteidigungsfall) a set of laws would unlock that allow control of various areas of life and the economy anyway.
Germany participated in the NATO military campaign/occupation of Afghanistan, including ground forces, naval activities and special operations units. Its seems a total of 150,000 German soldiers (and police officers?) were deployed overall (not at the same time of course); of them, 62 were killed and 249 wounded:
In this study, I think there was an MD before the AI to enrich data.
reply