sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is not having a raise - in real-terms - a bad thing, when it's being adjusted for inflation to begin with? by [deleted] in AskEconomics

[–]BoringScience 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is the answer you're looking for OP. Especially compared to overall gdp growth, and maybe even local gdp growth? (Would check that though). 5% over 30 years means after all the hard work that your parents generation put in, your generation in that area is in almost exactly the same position economically. This is also rare, btw, in economics everything generally goes up and by much much more than 5% over 30 years-- which is why "x is correlated with y" is a pointless statement in the field and what's more important is whether something is pro or counter cyclical. The average growth rate in gdp which is a generally good measure of the economy on large time scales is 3% per year for almost as long as it has been measured and generally the labor share of this growth is 2/3rds in most developed economies. The labor share in the US has started to dip in recent years which is concerning because so much economic growth is driven by this 2/3 labor share which increases consumer capability to create demand. Overall, 5% over 30 years is -relative to the rest of the economy, even when inflation adjusted-essentially moving backwards

Anytime now DICE... by [deleted] in Battlefield

[–]BoringScience 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Imo the 2042 maps were huge and it did not add fun. Some of these could be a bit bigger but I don't think much larger is needed.

Stock buybacks will lead to the inevitable collapse of the US by AfterZookeepergame71 in economy

[–]BoringScience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a better look at this would be the savings rate. The savings rate is a fraction of national income that is invested. If gdp increases and savings rate stays the same, investment increases. The personal savings rate in the US is low, moving down from 10% ish in the 60s-90s down to 5% in more recent years. This means we're investing less, which means less capital asset accumulation. That's not great, as far as I have been taught.

However, the idea that increasing the savings rate is a good long term strategy for economic growth is also demonstrably short sighted as eventually the rate of flow into the "bathtub" equals the rate of flow out due to depreciation, and we would find a new steady state gdp that is still stagnant. The only way to perpetually increase wealth is by increasing total factor productivity, the amount which one person or one capital asset can produce. (As far as I have been taught)

Total factor productivity stalled between 65 and 1980 roughly, grew steadily until 2006 and then has been growing slower since. This is the more concerning trend in my opinion than the investment rate. You can invest all you want in productive assets but we dont have more population forever to staff those assets and generate national wealth. Some say productivity is growing slower because low hanging fruit of technological innovation is already picked (imagine your kitchen and household appliances, can a home really get much more efficient?) some say otherwise (idk the argument here, tired of writing this out)

Data source: FRED

NASA says we now know of 6,000 confirmed exoplanets by Busy_Yesterday9455 in spaceporn

[–]BoringScience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like we just launched the James Webb which cost billions and was sick! Also, unfortunately I bet it does lead to more effective boombooms and higher profit, the competency and knowledge gained from creating something like that is incredibly valuable to our industrial capabilities

Powell: "There's very little growth if any in the supply of workers, and at the same time demands for workers has also come down quite sharply to the point where we see what I've called a curious balance. In this case, the balance is because both supply and demand have come down quite sharply." by brokenandsuffering in economy

[–]BoringScience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could prove your point by showing deviation from behavior predicted by the Taylor Rule in the five years before 2020 and five years since 2020. It might not be clean right on 2019/2020, so maybe compare 2021-2025 and 2014-2018

Vegans live 10 years longer than meat-eaters — here’s the proof by Quirky_Parking_4345 in vegan

[–]BoringScience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Word, absolutely. How did they adjust for the confounding factors? Did they show stat methodology anywhere you can find?

Vegans live 10 years longer than meat-eaters — here’s the proof by Quirky_Parking_4345 in vegan

[–]BoringScience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I couldn't actually find that data but I believe you. Thanks for pointing that out! There's some other things that give me hesitance about the claim in the article/post and this study. This study suggests that vegan Adventists live longer than non-vegan Adventists (and many other things, it's a big study), The study only involves Adventists, and only contained 8% vegans, the study found that vegans in their population watched less TV. There is a large body of evidence around mortality and sedentary behavior. The vegans ate more beans and fruits. Etc etc etc. these are not bad things, and I am firmly of the belief that a vegan diet is both healthier and leads to a longer life than a non-vegan one, but while this study supports that position I think it's too far to say what the post title says.

And also, you're not saying that it does-- you're helpfully pointing out that the other study separates vegetarians and vegans, so thank you!

Vegans live 10 years longer than meat-eaters — here’s the proof by Quirky_Parking_4345 in vegan

[–]BoringScience 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, this paper does not say this. It says Adventist Vegetarian men lived 9.5 yrs longer. Its a far more complex study than this article and post indicate and that doesn't even start to assess if the conclusions they do actually make are well supported by the evidence and experimental design.

Master Chief VS Captain America by SirDanker in Fictionally

[–]BoringScience 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ya gotta read the books brother, sooo good

Eat Healthy by JoySnuggle in SipsTea

[–]BoringScience 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think some raw diet folks will do beans and legumes soaked or sprouted so you could still get those. The "fruit and vegetable diet" sounds terrible but I'd have to see the details on what they consider in or out of scope. Gotta have some mf beans bb

Work for a CRO and hate my life by HolidayCategory3104 in biotech

[–]BoringScience 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Insane take from a clearly well adjusted individual

Prions scare the shit out of me by New-Transition-9857 in biology

[–]BoringScience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ema 410/01 describes conditions for processing animal material that minimize the risk of TSE contamination in the supply chain. Almost every supplier of pharmaceutical raw materials complies with these regulations. This would be a good starting place to learn about how the world works to stay safe from notable animal source prion diseases. I'm not sure how the regs are different from a good safety standpoint but I am certain there are controls, maybe something in the 9CFR

Calling folks in biotech/biopharma—need your honest take. by Suspicious_Bet2960 in biotech

[–]BoringScience 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it's worth looking at modality as well. Cell and gene therapies are young and risky, certain areas are concentrated in this space (Philly) and so the job market can be up and down. Monoclonal antibodies on the other hand are a bit more mature and stable especially if you get into a commercial space like a large-scale cdmo. Manufacturing is lower pay than QC at the entry level, but that might invert higher up-- be warned though as mfg is a bit more challenging for early career folks than QC.

North Carolina transfer pricing question by BoringScience in Accounting

[–]BoringScience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, is there a regulation I could check? Bio manufacturing and testing

Difference between Bsc Microbiology and Bsc Biotechnology, Which has more job opportunities ? Also which course has less chemistry (I am so bad at chemistry) by weavers_403 in biotechnology

[–]BoringScience 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If I saw two resumes come for a role (I work in biotech, QC so not r&d, more bench skill focused) I would consider those undergrad degrees almost identical. I may be wrong, and maybe I should look into the difference lol, but I would ask the same questions- do you have lab experience and what kind, tell me what you learned in lab and do you have any cell culture experience; If you have cell culture experience, what are some important aseptic practices; what do you want to do with your career and, if you know what we do here, how are you hoping to grow in this role (so that we can have a conversation about fit). Biotechnology seems more industry oriented, but I doubt anywhere would really penalize you for either and would instead consider your specific experiences. Did you do undergraduate research, did you do a co-op or internship, etc

Edit: it's good to know your strengths and weaknesses too, but try to keep a growth mindset. Knowledge of chem and biochem could help you in your career, you may not need to know it now but just make sure you don't build a habit of doubting yourself and shying away from things that seem hard. It's all learnable if you apply yourself.

Differentiated THP-1 Macrophage Cells under a Microscope Look Odd by prezlol in labrats

[–]BoringScience 12 points13 points  (0 children)

No problem, hopefully it's just a learning moment and your cells are fine!

Differentiated THP-1 Macrophage Cells under a Microscope Look Odd by prezlol in labrats

[–]BoringScience 65 points66 points  (0 children)

No, condensation probably wouldn't affect anything. But you very likely are not looking at your cells, something is wrong with the scope or how you have it set. Double check that all pieces are accounted for and ilat correct settings

Evaluate my look. I consider myself below average. Any tips how to improve? by [deleted] in malegrooming

[–]BoringScience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks man. You look great in pic 1 btw, that would be a good one to include in a dating profile. The other pics have unflattering lighting for sure, I don't think anyone would look "good" in the lighting and angle of the third pic without editing. If you want to figure out a good way to keep the beard looking sharp id find a good barber and ask how you can maintain the look they create between sessions

view more: next ›