Fun fact! Cuba has a vaccine for lung cancer - yes, it works and has been independently verified. No, you can’t have it because embargo.
EDIT: vaccine here isn’t actually what I thought. In this case it is a treatment to be used for certain kinds of lung cancer, not a preventative measure as we are used to thinking of Vaccine. Thanks to the comment below for going through it and pushing me to do proper research.
While my initial take was a glib link to a wikipedia page and not thoroughly researched, I do sill believe that the embargo has directly caused this treatment to come to market in the west as the levels of cooperation are non-existent. It has been used for 7 years in Cuba but is only now entering Stage 3 trials in the US.
Vaccine does not mean cure. We did not have a Covid cure either. And much like the covid vaccine isn’t 100% effective, neither is this. However, it is proving effective, especially in combination with other drugs and at certain stages of treatment.
Stage 4 clinical trials were concluded in Cuba in 2017. Stage 2 trials were concluded in the US in 2023. I believe, strongly, that the embargo has increased the amount of time the research has taken - cooperation is impossible during an embargo.
Even if they lift the embargo tomorrow the drug wouldn’t come on the market, however it is because of the embargo that the use in treatment has taken far, far longer than it would have otherwise.
Edit: I admit I knew less about the vaccine than I thought I did (edited my comment to reflect what I have learnt)
If a treatment is developed in the EMA, there’s a level of cooperation that means drugs can come to market quickly if proven safe and even somewhat effective (Covid vaccine is an extreme example). This treatment would likely be US ready without the embargo in place.
it seems you knew that
My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above.
While Europe does not have an embargo, up until 2016 the EU and Cuba basically had 0 relationship. The EU created “The Common Position” in 1996 which was “to encourage a process of transition to a pluralist democracy” in Cuba which the Cuba government rejected as meddling in their internal affairs.
Then in the 2000s there was a bigger spat where Cuba even started rejecting EU aid.
I agree, I did not make that claim! And I do find it a bit weird that people are using that line of attack. But c’est la vie. I was wrong about what the treatment did, I was wrong about the level of verification it had, however we are singing from the same hymn sheet
“My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above”
To which you replied:
“Your last sentence here would change the sentiment of your original comment in a positive way. I encourage an edit.”
I was going to reply with “what, I should edit my comment again to say I have edited my comment” but decided it wasn’t as funny typed as in my head.
Sorry, mate, you are wrong. But over the most stupidly ridiculously small thing on the internet (and that’s saying something)
I just want us to be clear: your satisfaction/demands mean literally nothing to me so please don’t take credit for the other poster helping me do my research 🤷♂️
I’m not flailing, I’m pointing out you are trying to rewrite history.
On top of that the other commenter didn’t “destroy” my claim nor was it “bullshit”. They added context based on an assumption I didn’t make (i.e. vaccine = cure) which led me to do more research and add context that changed the level of enthusiasm I had.
What was bullshit was you deciding it was disingenuous AND you saying I had made changes you had requested. Neither of those statements are true.
“I believe your edit came either at the same time” - you do see the irony of asserting your belief like it’s fact in a thread where I added my belief to a fact and mangled it as a result? You do see it, right?
I find it kinda funny that I admitted where I was wrong but you are literally unable to.
Anyway, just clarifying: the OTHER poster got me to edit based on their HELPFUL comments. You didn’t do anything apart from state obvious facts about FDA approval and try to take credit for being so wise and insightful
When Marisa Fernández lost her husband to cancer a few years ago, her employers at the Eroski hypermarket went, she says, “above and beyond to help me through the dark days afterwards, rejigging my timetable and giving me time off when I couldn’t face coming in.”...
The rise of the worker co-op is definitely something to watch! I’m currently exploring a worker co-op for a tech start up. Biggest problem? Funding. No investors want to touch a co-op.
That’s nice and all, but only works for people that already have money. Food isn’t free. Housing isn’t free. Heck, water isn’t free
EDIT: want to go through the maths to extrapolate this privilege.
Let’s say you need one small team to deliver a novel product, say 5 people. Let’s assume they all live in Europe and just need enough to survive - say, 20,000 euros a year. A lot of ground work has been done, so it’ll only take two years to go from concept to R&D to something to show a potential buyer.
So you have about 100,000 euro per year cost to just keep everyone fed, housed, and clothed not including any equipment, software, licensing etc costs. Assuming there are no costs but just keeping everyone fed and alive the co-op needs 200,000 euros in the bank or alternative funding to get the product in a sellable (note: not finished) state.
In project management in tech (my background) a good rule of thumb is staff cost = 1/3 of costs. However, let’s say we’re being super lean and can self-source the more expensive equipment and just have to think about licenses for core software so let’s make that number 1/2 of cost.
So for the two years of operation to get the product into a position where it can be taken to potential customers, the business would need approx 400,000 euros before a product hits a shelf.
What we’re currently exploring is an angel loan from someone sympathetic that has historically lived higher up the corporate ladder and we’re applying for some government grants, but Credit Union may be a good idea!
It’s a matter of scale. For co-op where we are, you can get “investor loans” but they tend to have a fixed return. Capital wants to gamble more than they want a 5% APR for 10 years.
I think this is a common misconception based on survivorship bias and the high cost to entry. Taking your hypothesis as true: you have to have a product that can be sold to ten users as easily as 1000 users (this in and of itself is not a given in SaaS). That’s where the cost is: the starting up of the business where you have no customers and won’t have any for several years.
The idea that a government can instruct the courts to ignore human rights legislation shows how fundamentally broken the liberal “democracy” system is.
This from the government that just made saying “I am intolerant towards the idea of liberal parliamentary democracy” an example of extremism but saying “foreigners don’t deserve human rights” is not extremism.
I don’t think the judges would like it, but what recourse would they have if the government passed an act such as this in Canada? I could see a judge saying this act breaches X treaties, but then just withdraw from the treaties (edit: which this act is likely a precursor to).
The system of parliamentary liberal democracy is an inherently flawed system.
Germany, from my understanding, is a really different beast from most countries in how it works thanks to the East-West reunification.
That said, it sounds similar to the US Supreme Court, is that right? What are the checks and balances on this court? What’s to stop the bad actor work as seen in America?
Just reading it - the constitution of Canada is mostly about land and parliament setup more than anything else (though Constitution Act, 1960 & 1965 are kick-ass).
The rest is “unwritten” and “interpreted by courts” - exactly like the UK.
You’re conflating liberal parliamentary representative democracy with all types of democracy - I was very specific in my post as to which I had the problem with (and it is equally as specific in the UK’s new definition of “extremism”).
I have no problem with democracy and do think it’s the best system. I have a problem with the idea that electing our overlords from a curated list with little to no fundamental difference (i.e. liberal parliamentary democracy) to then dictate to groups tens or hundreds of millions of people strong is democracy.
This is such bullshit. As a Brit abroad, our problem is weak language education. We are taught to such a poor degree and we are not taught how to learn a language. It’s been the biggest struggle of my adult life trying to get conversational and after a year I am still way behind my cohorts - it’s not some genetic predisposition to being bad at language learning, but a lack of language infrastructure in childhood.
Not entirely sure what you’re saying, sorry if I got it wrong, but it seems like you’re implying I said the opposite of what I actually posted.
My point was there is no genetic predisposition to being bad at language learning but that the language education in the UK is woefully bad. I’ve spent more time learning how to learn Spanish than actually learning it because we’re not taught the skill of language acquisition from childhood.
The reason the government hasn’t invested in language skills is because it’s the lingua franca (the irony of that phrase isn’t lost on me), but the argument of “weak aptitude for language learning” used in the article is patently false.
I read them recently - mostly it’s the same stuff as in the canon gospels tbh. Some have more of a Buhdist slant (Jesus isn’t God but we’re all god style) but nothing out there.
Shovel Knight was kickstarted and they have a total flat hierarchy, fair payment system, and evenly distributed wages and bonuses.
I work for a major games studio and if I started my own studio, I would 100% use crowdfunding. Financing in games is broken.
You tend to need someone with deep pockets willing to eat costs for 2-5 years for 10-100 people (depending on project size) in the gamble it’ll pay off. Because it’s a gamble, the financer (in most cases China’s tencent) are constantly breathing over your shoulder and demanding the impossible (oh all the devs say this’ll take three years? You have six months) and the motive changes from “make enough money for the studio to survive” to “make enough money so your financial backers can get a new boat”.
Then with F2P and live service (where I work) you get the constant demand for growth and perpetual play. Forget that churn is inevitable as people’s moods and desires change. Forget that there’s a maximum number of people in the world that are interested in your game. You have to grow at all costs all the time. That’s what leads to the predatory F2P system.
We also have to remember F2P was born out of Shareware, perhaps my favourite distribution model. In non-corporate hands, it can be a fantastic thing.
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, known for brutal crackdowns against political opposition, dies at 63 (www.nbcnews.com)
Slovakia's prime minister injured in shooting (apnews.com)
https://i.imgur.com/5mJe9WY.mp4...
Congress voted against funding a cure for cancer just to block a win for Biden (www.usatoday.com)
‘In the US they think we’re communists!’ The 70,000 workers showing the world another way to earn a living (www.theguardian.com)
When Marisa Fernández lost her husband to cancer a few years ago, her employers at the Eroski hypermarket went, she says, “above and beyond to help me through the dark days afterwards, rejigging my timetable and giving me time off when I couldn’t face coming in.”...
UK passes bill to send asylum seekers to Rwanda (www.theguardian.com)
Lawyers prepare for legal battles on behalf of individual asylum seekers challenging removal to east Africa...
UK quit Erasmus because of Brits’ poor language skills (www.politico.eu)
Britain turned down the offer to remain a member of the cultural exchange program after Brexit....
Donald Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato countries who don’t pay ‘bills’ (www.theguardian.com)
What are the legal implications of this? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Kickstarter Stormgate From StarCraft II and Warcraft III developers, a new RTS (www.kickstarter.com)