about halfway through it myself. I spend about 20-30 hours a week on it. It's definitely a challenging program but the value is ridiculously good.
I've learned an incredible amount of incredible things. While it's difficult to manage both the program and other life obligations, I'll be a bit sad once it's over.
> Rates of events that resulted in seeking medical advice or taking time off work were 7.9% after the first dose; 5.1% after the second dose; 3.0% after the third dose; and 3.1% after the fourth dose.
A decade of monitoring wasn't necessary to spot them; they were deemed fairly normal, and the vaccination program restarted.
I'm looking for an example of a vaccine where a year is not enough time for side effects to surface, that would justify the claimed need for a ten year study before being mandated.
> Although many individuals have expressed health concerns after receiving anthrax vaccine, a congressionally directed study by the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) concluded that this anthrax vaccine is as safe as other vaccines. The Academy considered more than a dozen studies using various scientific designs, and heard personally from many concerned US military service members.
To be fair, the suspect was 21. His tenure at the victim's company cannot have been very long.
Despite the victim "knowing" the suspect as an employee, I find it easy to imagine him not recognizing his employee who had a fairly average build, in a fairly common outfit, in an elevator with people being conditioned to keep as much distance as possible. How often do you closely look at fellow elevator riders' faces? Especially these days?
That being said, with the brief tenure assumed, it's incredible that the CEO would be willing to work so flexibly with a relatively new employee who stole what amounted to up to 100K.
> I find it easy to imagine him not recognizing his employee who had a fairly average build, in a fairly common outfit, in an elevator with people being conditioned to keep as much distance as possible
I find it hard to imagine to be honest. If they tracked him down because he bought the Taser and other items, but don't have a clear ID from the CCTV and DNA, it's possible that the assistant hired someone for the dirty job and provided him with the tools?
I find that the more specialist the guest, the more interesting the conversation, especially when Rogan just shuts his mouth and listens to someone passionate about their field.
Lex Fridman, Brian Cox, and Sean Carroll had--in my opinion--super interesting and engaging episodes.
That being said, there are currently over 1500 episodes, so there are definitely a good number of fluff episodes in the mix as well.
Edit: Just thought of a couple more who I found quite interesting. Paul Stamets and Michael Pollen both discussed in their respective episodes research they both participated in, which made them continuous episodes with a fascinating topic.
I disagree and believe some of his interviews with Sean Carroll would've been much improved if he had stopped Carroll every time Carroll had gone on for 4 minutes without saying a single thing he understood and asked Carroll to simplify.
It's a simple layout, easy to parse, with lots of interesting content.
His personal "About Me" follows the writing style found in the rest of his content, and he puts(presumably) a lot of time and energy into producing high quality and well-thought-out posts.
By definition, that stuff is things that you don't use in your job, as otherwise you WOULD have learned it eventually.
And by extension, I assume he means things that he wouldn't have learned just going to a job in the first place. Many people learn how to do laundry in collage, but that they would have to learn for any form of independence.
So what we are left with are random intellectual pursuits that at best have a marginal effect on your job.
I love learning useless stuff. I'm happy to talk about intellectual history of economcis, or mongolian history. However wouldn't I think its a good idea to force 95% of society to learn about the difference between the New and the Old German Historical school just so they learn something new.
We are talking about a system that costs society a significant amount its resource IF the best argument you can come up with to defend that system is "I was forced to learn some random stuff that I wouldn't otherwise have explored and that was fun for me", then we need to seriously question the resource allocation of society. Sound to me more like a Kindergarten for young adults, and most parents wouldn't pay 50k a semester for it.
First of all, $50k a sememster would be the top 1% most expensive colleges out there. Probably more like 0.1%.
Secondly, learning things that are not specific to ones job is the definition of well rounded and while some companies may only want socially inept specialists that can do nothing else, society is much better when it is made up of well rounded individuals.
You sound a lot like high schoolers taking math classes. We are -never- going to use this in real life. No, you probably won't, but the point is learning how to learn, organize, study and become more intelligent in general.
> First of all, $50k a sememster would be the top 1% most expensive colleges out there. Probably more like 0.1%.
Fair enough its pretty expensive either way.
> Secondly, learning things that are not specific to ones job is the definition of well rounded and while some companies may only want socially inept specialists that can do nothing else, society is much better when it is made up of well rounded individuals.
First of all that is a total straw-men. Most social education happens in live, not in school. Going to extra classes of Plato will not make you better socially educated, more so then going to play basketball or volunteer at a soup kitchen.
Second of all, if you actually look at the evidence of how people hire you will notice that the idea of 'well rounded' isn't high on the list, no matter how much people like to talk about it.
> You sound a lot like high schoolers taking math classes. We are -never- going to use this in real life. No, you probably won't, but the point is learning how to learn, organize, study and become more intelligent in general.
Maybe the high schooolers in math class have a point. Because this 'learning how to learn theory' that you are making, has been the argument for 100+ years, yet in all that time, people who have studied these question simply can't find any truth to that claim. You actually learn what you learn.
There is a whole chapter in 'The Case against Education' on how every generation of social scientists working on education want to find that effect, but nobody ever does.
I've learned an incredible amount of incredible things. While it's difficult to manage both the program and other life obligations, I'll be a bit sad once it's over.