According to my friend who is a geneticist, 30% of cases of autism can be found in DNA. Clearly not all cases are.

It's important to note our understanding is far from complete. There may be more genes associated with autism than we currently know. So 30% of cases may have a known genetic factor but that doesn't mean 70% don't have a genetic component.

True. But we’ve also seen environmental correlations as well, as well as things like age of the father, etc.

This is also explained as a genetic factor as chromosomal abnormalities and replication errors are more frequent although cumulative environmental exposures may also play a role.

That's what our genetic councilor said as well. It's important to note autism is a spectrum and quite varied, some of it genetic and some of it related to other factors.

I've read some studies which suggest there's a variety of genes which are linked to autism as well as link to both autism and ADHD. I believe those genes are linked to how different brain circuits interact.

It makes a lot of sense given with I've seen talked a lot about in autism and adhd groups, with some symptoms overlapping.

Well diagnosing autism is incredibly subjective anyway. It’s not like a broken arm.

Avoid nano zinc and yes, it sits on the surface. The chemical ones absorb into your skin.

You’re making the assumption (from what I understand) that most of the inefficiency is in the administration side. I’m sure there is, but it’s also woefully complicated with insurance, laws, parties who may or may not be financially and cognitively sound, etc.

But let’s say you can make the administration side way more efficient. How much did that save? 20%? That’s not the kinds of returns being sought. So where does the 2x, 3x, or more returns expected come from? Cutting services.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mention the complexities of the business being the cause for the inefficiencies. Private Equity has figured out that they can buy into businesses with high legal, regulatory, and 'friction'-related barriers to entries, and squeeze the clients (either by increasing prices or decreasing service level/quality). The solution would be to make entry into these businesses easier by reducing legal and regulatory barriers, but that seems vanishingly unlikely.

Forget efficiency. I want someone to pick up my phone call and pay my bill online. These guys leave a ton of money on the table. They can also better compete when the other guys are clowns

If it's so much money being left on the table, have you thought about picking some of it up?

What would that look like?

Feels like a lot of overreactions here amongst people who haven’t seen the pop up. The put the opt out front and center — it’s not buried at all. They make it very clear in the language, including commitments to data transparency. I’m not surprised they need to do this, and this is probably the best possible way to achieve it while balancing privacy.

Everyone is so cynical these days.

Just unclick the box to opt out. They put it front and center.

Cheaper but worse unfortunately will win in most cases.

At least it’ll eventually become easier to distinguish oneself with something better. You’ll just always be slower.

The drag and drop is what makes it good.

Interface builder had that on macOS; that’s basically dead now. I feel like Visual Basic had that too? I don’t know if that still exists.

"Dead" is a bit strong, no? More like de-emphasised for newcomers, and in maintenance mode?

They sell being the default, but you can change it.

If most people changed the default, it wouldn't be worth billions.

If most people changed the default they would add steps to make it harder to change. Saying something an option is just a fig leaf if the company is allowed to tip the scales.

That's why a regulator can be effective. You can have a regulation that A has to be as easy to do as B and enforce it. Think of browser choice in on PCs in Europe or (briefly) the rule that it should be as easy to unsubscribe in the US as it is to subscribe. People have different feelings about regulations, but I think in places where everyone converges on a single platform pregulation that is protective of the individual makes sense.

Most people did change the default. Google became the number #1 search because it was better. It didnt't start as the default. Same for Chrome. Chrome is still not the default on Windows but is still #1 because people choose it.

The point of the article is if you use the more modern private API, then it does sandbox the experience and pulls in user privacy preferences while still being an in app browser. There are just older APIs that respect your privacy less.

Use another email client, such as Apple Mail if you’re on an iPhone. I believe it defaults to plaintext.