They always could! Diagnostics are a bit different than therapeutics, which need that big Phase 3 trial before you can start selling a new therapy.
There are two regulatory regimes for diagnostics in the US:
1) Lab developed tests (LDTs) licensed under the CLIA legislation (I think from the 1980s). These are verified by a Lab Director with a professional license in diagnostics, that allows them to sign out clinical results from the test. There are professional organizations that perform regular inspections of the lab, its condition, its paperwork, its tests, the SOPs, and the internal validations that have been performed at the lab director's direction to assess performance of the tests. These are limited to a single site, the kits for the test can not be sold except for Research Use Only, and if a second site wants to start doing a similar test the lab director at the other site needs to do all the same validation all over again as at the first site.
2) FDA approval for diagnostic medical devices. These can be simple and straightforward for Class 1/2 devices, which do not directly provide medical advice but mere physical readouts (to greatly bastardize the distinction between Class 1/2 and 3). Or the device approval can be quite complex for Class 3 devices, and would require a huge trial like the one described here. If you want to sell the device for others to use, rather than just testing as service, you want to go this route. Though there are still single-site "devices" especially for DNA sequencing tests, that want the FDA label.
Neither of these will result in getting reimbursement for a test. For that, you need to pursue coverage determinations from all the payers, basically one on one. For complex sequencing tests like this that mostly affects older populations, getting CMS coverage (Medicare) can pave the path for others. For other conditions... well... get all your trials and papers together and hope that your patient population is super sympathetic or you can show the insurance company some savings.
A large clinical trial like this one can help with getting coverage for the test, but it has to either show a big medical benefit, or show economic benefits within five years for the payor. Or ideally both. Early cancer detection has potential for this, but I have not heard optimistic things up until now at Galleri's chance for reimbursement any time soon.
Typically one Jupyter install system wide, and then multiple kernels with each environment.
Personally, I really like the juv model where dependencies are taken from the first cell of the notebook and a new kernel is created to launch the interface, but I haven't seen others using it much yet:
The idea is good, but juv is a one-jupyter-per-notebook model which isn't very practical for how my team uses jupyter. My attempt at "juv, but systemwide-jupyter-plus-one-kernel-per-notebook model" is this: https://github.com/tobinjones/uvkernel
Cities are artificially expensive becuase we ban them in nearly every location in the US, and ban new housing in cities.
It would have been an easy fix 10+ years ago, but as the housing crisis got worse and the working class was priced out, building got a lot more expensive and we have a huge labor crisis in addition to the regulatory crisis.
All solvable, but the political establishment and the political power base (homeowners and landlords) are dead set against solving it.
The value of the dollar has already plummeted, 10% or so this year. It's expected that 2026 will have an equal dollar devaluation. This is the best-possible interpretation of the goals of this administration, the so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord that is somehow supposed to help some part of the economy. It's unclear who or how, to me.
The BRL or CNY is probably one of the most apt comparison given the BRICKS alliance. That's where you are seeing the roughly 10% swing since Jan. (if you go back to last Oct the swing is less pronounced. IDK exactly what was happening last Oct, but there appears to have been an upswing in dollar value from Oct to Jan and a steady decrease of the dollar value since.)
In October of last year, people were betting on Trumps election leading to tariffs leading to a stronger dollar. This trend continued post-election pre-inaguration. Since the tariffs did not materialize to the level expected, the dollar weakened to its levels prior to his election.
Your explanation makes no sense. First, nobody thought that Trump would actually go through with the tariffs because it's an insane plan and that wiser people in the administration would restrain Trump. So the dollar started to devalue when people realized that "holy shit these tariffs might actually happen." The tariffs are way way bigger than anybody expected.
The entire goal of the tariffs were to weaken the dollar:
> The Mar-a-Lago Accord is a proposed economic and trade initiative of the Donald Trump administration during his second term. Named after Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, the Accord is a blueprint for restructuring global trade and monetary relations. Its core goal is to devalue the dollar while preserving its role as the world reserve currency, a careful balancing act intended to avoid the contradictions described in the Triffin paradox.
> would actually go through with the tariffs because it's an insane plan and that wiser people in the administration would restrain Trump.
What is insane is to assume republicans picked by Trump will restrain Trump. The adults in the room theory was disproven long before that election.
Trump 1.0 had tarriffs. Trump talked abput tarrifs. People in fact assumed Trump will do tarriffs, they just slightly underestimated how bad the trade war will be.
> The EUR (if that is what you are going by) is unusually strong
By what standards? It’s slightly above the trend (i.e. continuous decline since 2008 with an occasional up and down here and the) but not that substantially
It's substantial for the eurozone economy, namely their exporters. The machinery sector in particular is under major pressure as a result of the stronger euro.
That operates on calendar year. That is primarily due to the rapid appreciation of the USD vs global based after Trumps election on the perception that tariffs would be far higher and more continuous than they actually were.
The truth is, the currency markets are roughly where they were about a year ago, with the exception of EUR, but thats a special case which I think is a symbol if a misstep by the ECB.
Yes, the calendar year matches what I was talking about, and more closely matches the current economic policy of the US. It wasn't until February that the real economic and foreign policy of the US became clear, and the full insanity of it all is still sinking in.
I'm not sure why your hand-picked list of currencies is revelant, or why your particular dates are relevant. The course for the future looks to be a greater devaluation of the US currency.
This is the goal of the Trump administration and what is apparent to analysts.
> I'm not sure why your hand-picked list of currencies is revelant, or why your particular dates are relevant. The course for the future looks to be a greater devaluation of the US currency.
What other currencies do you believe are important? We pulled 2-5 of the most commonly used reserve currencies and some other ones as well.
The EUR is unusually strong, in part due to fiscal tightness by ECB (see their balance sheet L2 Liabilities here https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/annual-reports-financial-sta...) compared to the US. This is having a knock-on effect that the EUR strengthens against the dollar, which actually causes a whole host of problems for an export economy.
It's why you see Lagarde calling for a reserve EUR; it's the only way to export EUR at this point. But that's a topic for another time.
I don't see any evidence that EUR is particularly strong against USD. Except maybe if you take a very short-term perspective. There is always some volatility in exchange rates, and export businesses that cannot tolerate 10% swings in either direction are not viable in the first place.
> I don't see any evidence that EUR is particularly strong against USD. Except maybe if you take a very short-term perspective.
Yes; this is a short term perspective. Europe is functionally an export market and these currency fluctuations hurt badly. For example, Mercedes-Benz had a consolidated profit margin in '22 of around 9%. These swings do either force loss of jobs (bad) or require a devaluation of the currency.4
Europe was also an export market in the past. Back in early 2002, 1 EUR was worth less than 0.9 USD. Then it started climbing rapidly and reached a peak of 1.6 USD in mid-2008.
The value of money is inherently unpredictable. The exchange rate between EUR and USD has never been stable longer than about 1.5 years. Something unexpected always happens, and then the rate goes up or down by 10% or even more. You either tolerate that or try protecting yourself with various financial instruments.
Exactly what people are saying here (the USD is weakening at an alarming pace! Americans are going Weimar Republic!) isn't borne out in the data. We aren't seeing the USD weaken against other countries in an independent manner. That's the point; not to prove that we are seeing a stalwart dollar, but that we are seeing roughly "business as usual".
Sure, but I think we are seeing the US's future more in France at the moment than a secular decline against all other developed nations. There are very real questions about how society is structured that need to be resolved, but the US is far from alone or the worst in that regard.
I don't know where this idea comes from. I had a Fiat 500e when it first came out, about a decade ago, and it was fantastic even though unloved by the manufacturer, and it had to go in for a recall for two days once which was a hassle. Still better than the BMW that I bought when the 500e lease expired, because the BMW was in the shop for a whole week for some sort of tail light recall. I only bought the BMW because I was waiting for the Model 3 to come out, and switched to that eventually, and it is far far more mature than any other car of the era.
I bought a minivan when I had kids, and it's such a huuuuuuge step backwards on every front from the Model 3. There's so much ridiculous maintenance for a gas car, it really really sucks. And Toyota's build quality is absolute shit compared to Tesla, which supposedly gets dinged for build quality. All the plastic in the Toyota is falling out, the window seals are terrible, the whole thing is terrible in comparison to Tesla's supposedly bad build quality.
I've taken EVs on thousand mile road trips with an infant, and it was fantastic.
My EV is going to outlast my ICE by a long long time. The amount of fake FUD around EVs is mystifying to me. I can not understand why anyone would want a gas car wheee you have so much maintenance and always have to stop to fill up. So much wasted time and money on that BS.
you know what they say, the plural of anecdotes is not data. The poor quality of Tesla's cars is well known. The high quality of Toyotas is well known as well.
I don't know that "well known" is any better than anecdotes. If there's data, I'd like to see it.
But what is indisputable is that the maintenance load for a gas car is super high and involved so many trips into a mechanic or changing your own oil, etc. With EVs you just rotate the tires and that's it. Maybe some wiper blades. I'll never be buying another gas car if I can avoid it. They do not seem ready in comparison to the ease of an EV.
What do you recommend for configuration management? I've had a fairly good experience with Ansible, but that was a long time ago... anything new in that pace?
I think you are very right, and to be specific, IAM roles, connecting security groups, terraform plan/apply cycles, running Atlantis through GitHub, all that takes tremendous amounts of time and requires understanding a very large set of technologies on top of the basic networking/security/PostGRES knowledge.
And attract them away from what? What are these skilled people doing? Does a photolithography skill set enable you to moonlight at some other gig such that they're here and keeping their skills fresh and we're just not noticing?
Software. Talk to anybody in the hardware space, and compare their experience to software.
Hell, the only two people I see in this thread that claim hardware experience are saying that it's a better career move to switch to software.
Software is easier, pays better, and has far better employers. Until hardware companies realize the situation they've created, they will lose their workforce to greener pastures.
Software has also benefitted from a massive tax subsidy relative to hardware, as the latter requires a massive capital investment. Hardware requires expensive real estate, and benefits from saving the spending, whereas software can exist on debt and small footprints.
That may have been the case prior to section 174, when you could invest massively in something, write it off as a loss, and then pivot to reusing it profitably, but now I think that all R&D efforts are equally discouraged.
Seems like everyone forgets that the USA literally invented all these things. In fact some of the Americans who invented these technologies and processes are probably still alive, if not a bit older and retired. Photolithographic semiconductor fabrication was invented in the United States. Americans invented the transistor. Americans invented the integrated circuit.
I’m pretty sure the USA would do fine in the semiconductor industry in a short while if it was economical (i.e it stops being profitable to undermine American workers with cheap overseas labor).
I was a fab tool owner. My last paycheck in a semiconductor position was in the mid-200s. I went into software and make double that in the same metro. Same level of responsibility. I don’t even work in machine learning.
To take your photolithography example though, I know someone who went litho tool owner -> camera team at Apple -> Meta reality labs. FAANGs want semiconductor process engineers just so they can spend all day yelling at underpaid Asian vendor semiconductor process engineers who are doing the actual work.
A lot of highly skilled people are perfectly happy to stay at their job earing 60% of what they "could" be making because they have other priorities that don't involve increasing shareholder value.
There are two regulatory regimes for diagnostics in the US:
1) Lab developed tests (LDTs) licensed under the CLIA legislation (I think from the 1980s). These are verified by a Lab Director with a professional license in diagnostics, that allows them to sign out clinical results from the test. There are professional organizations that perform regular inspections of the lab, its condition, its paperwork, its tests, the SOPs, and the internal validations that have been performed at the lab director's direction to assess performance of the tests. These are limited to a single site, the kits for the test can not be sold except for Research Use Only, and if a second site wants to start doing a similar test the lab director at the other site needs to do all the same validation all over again as at the first site.
2) FDA approval for diagnostic medical devices. These can be simple and straightforward for Class 1/2 devices, which do not directly provide medical advice but mere physical readouts (to greatly bastardize the distinction between Class 1/2 and 3). Or the device approval can be quite complex for Class 3 devices, and would require a huge trial like the one described here. If you want to sell the device for others to use, rather than just testing as service, you want to go this route. Though there are still single-site "devices" especially for DNA sequencing tests, that want the FDA label.
Neither of these will result in getting reimbursement for a test. For that, you need to pursue coverage determinations from all the payers, basically one on one. For complex sequencing tests like this that mostly affects older populations, getting CMS coverage (Medicare) can pave the path for others. For other conditions... well... get all your trials and papers together and hope that your patient population is super sympathetic or you can show the insurance company some savings.
A large clinical trial like this one can help with getting coverage for the test, but it has to either show a big medical benefit, or show economic benefits within five years for the payor. Or ideally both. Early cancer detection has potential for this, but I have not heard optimistic things up until now at Galleri's chance for reimbursement any time soon.
reply