Not just megacorps, I've seen long unproductive meetings in startups which means a larger percent of the workforce out of action for the duration. Often I find managers who insist on these types of meetings, frequently, are the same ones that don't really seem to be providing much value generally outside of meetings.
Unless it's some sort of C level meeting with tje board on quarterly basis, I seen no reason why any internal meeting should be more than half an hour long.
My brief time at $megacorp taught me to recognize when a meeting turns into unproductive bullshitting, at which point I just walk away and go back to work. YMMV.
I've gone down this route several times. I've moved Esc, Ctrl and Win (or whatever you call it, Meta?) to the CapsLock position. But for some reason my left pinky just doesn't like that spot. It's a slightly awkward angle, and I use Esc/Ctrl/Win so much that having any of them in that spot tires out my pinky.
One row up or down is fine. But home row far left is hell. Maybe it's simply because my hand grew into it over several decades. Instead, I use CapsLock to lock my screen.
I use Zettlr + git to keep my personal log/lab notes/daily journal. It's just a fancy markdown editor, to it should be trivial to write some shell foo to pull in data from whatever source you like.
Diclofenac is an NSAID painkiller. It comes with all the usual risks and contraindications of any other NSAID.
Migraine abortives like triptans and migraine inhibitors like these CGRP antagonists (erenumab and now ubrogepant) are not painkillers. They attempt to stop the migraine, not just numb the pain. They're both in a league of their own.
There are many, many keyboard layouts out there. Maybe it's time for an input standard that acknowledges this fact, instead of endlessly putting the onus on OS developers and users. Maybe keyboards should output UTF8 instead of messy keycodes.
If one is already going to be purchasing new hardware, one may as well get a QMK keyboard. This way you can program it with any keyboard layout you would like, and it will work on any computer without having to change the system defaults.
Clearly this doesn't help with built-in keyboards such as found on laptops; the clear workaround for this specific product is to allow it to import keyboard layouts in the various OS-specific forms they exist in.
Sadly it doesn't seem to work that way. BE/AZERTY keyboards, for instance, have a physical key that US/QWERTY keyboards do not (<>\). The OS will ignore that key unless it's set up to use a layout that includes the key. There is no way to program a QMK keyboard to fix that (unless you change the OS to run the BE layout), because QMK does not map keypresses to characters. It maps keypresses to keycodes, which depend on OS keyboard layouts, specifically US/QWERTY and sometes DVORAK. At least that's how I see it.
Drug development is incredibly costly. It's also something of a long term gamble. It can take 10-20 years to develop a new drug. A lot of that time is spent testing safety and waiting for approval. As a drug company, you need to have several new drugs in your pipeline at any given point, or you'll be seriously fucked if one (or more) of your products don't pan out. It's basically a high-risk-high-reward type of gambling situation.
Imagine having thousands of people on payroll, some working on drug design, some designing experiments to test the drugs, some doing the legal paperwork to get drugs approved etc, and suddenly the patent for your best selling drug expires and your latest drug doesn't work. You're pretty much boned.
Thanks for linking to that. I had this done a while back but didn't know what it was called or how it worked. If only all imaging techniques were as fast and pleasant this one. It was over in seconds. Although I suppose the small size of retinas likely play a part in that as well.
Don't have access to the full paper, but it seems like this study was based on asking patients whether they were taking supplements, as opposed to administering placebo/supplements and measuring the outcome. I would imagine that the worse your cancer is, the more likely you are to try things like supplements and whatnot. Did they manage to control for this?
I suspect that if you're the type to take a bunch of individual vitamin supplements then you know exactly what you're taking and how much, much more so than if you're taking a multivitamin every morning washed down with your coffee. There's also no reason to be lying about that to your doctor.
The issue isn't that the patient is lying or doesn't know; the issue is that the patient is taking supplements or not for a reason that is itself correlated with the other side of our analysis: someone who is taking vitamins might be more desperate, or might have more money (and so be living in very different conditions or have less stress), or might be more likely to be doing other random "maybe this will help?" things that are also random effects you aren't asking about, or might be better at doing anything at all on a routine (including other medical steps), or might be more able to get up and walk/drive to take/buy vitamins, or might be experiencing a different level of digestive effects from their chemotherapy. The reason why we use controlled randomized trials is because they just fully solve this correlation analysis issue.
Most oncology pts have so many meds they barely remember which ones they're taking when. Generally a spouse, family member or other caretaker organizes the med schedule and keeps track.
Working in the industry, the supplements we get the most questions about and that come up as conmeds for the main treatment is turmeric and biotin. The turmeric is getting popular as an antiinflamatory and biotin has good word of mouth to help prevent hair loss.
Biotin can really throw off lab values and for our infusion treatment patients we need to constantly monitor their labs, so that is really important to ensure they're not taking. Turmeric has some interactions as well, but not as severe as biotin.
It's a reasonable concern, but all studies are flawed in some way. From the perspective of clinical practice, this is how most clinics assess supplement use - by asking the patient. In the absence of any better data (and it surely could be better) it at least offers some guidance when patients ask if they should or shouldn't take supplements during chemotherapy. I would tell them that there's limited evidence, but it points towards avoiding supplements.
All studies are flawedin some way? That's a reasonable theory. But self-reported data is a clasic red flag. That doesn't mean we dismiss the study. But we should be highly supect until it's duplicted.
On the contrary, without legal intervention the market collapses into everyone lying all of the time. The famous economics paper on this is Akerloff's "Market For Lemons".
Free market advocates usually point out that reputation markets could arise in these situations. Of course the question is, would they, and would they provide a better force to raise quality of traded goods than regulation?
You can have private organizations certifying things, but then how do you decide which certification to trust? And what's the point, since the certification is going to be tied to the product, not independent?
Well, we can see how that worked with the big tech companies; it mostly works for Uber and AirBnB but problems still get through, and is turning into a serious reputational problem for Amazon.
> That boon was thanks in part, Microsoft said, to meetings capped at 30 minutes and an increase in remote conferences.
From my past experiences in megacorps, there are so many meetings it sometimes feels like that's all you're doing.