I mean, I don't think you need to do cutting edge programming to make something personal to you. See here from Canva's product. Check this out: https://youtu.be/LupwvXsOQqs?t=2366
I can’t find Huberman, but it does look like Peter Attia [1] was payed $300k by Dexcom for consulting services. Dexcom makes continuous glucose monitors that Attia has repeatedly mentioned on the show. It looks like there’s even an episode where he interviews the CEO, although this happened before the payment [2].
This website [3] links his NPI displayed on Open Payments (1144596339) to his CA license number (A96452) which he displays on his about page [4]. So it does look like this is the Peter Attia of podcast fame.
OpenPayments is a super cool tool. It's worth noting that some small payments can amount to things like "the drug rep came by to leave some pamphlets for the waiting room and donuts for the staff", which is how you'll occasionally find a doctor who accepted a grand total of $50 in payouts.
For the $100k+ payouts, though... hell, even the $10k+ payouts....
EDIT: Just looked up one of my doctors and it says he accepted a whole $70 last year, entirely in food and beverage lol. I hope he enjoyed the cookies or whatever it was :P
> On some of the world’s most popular health podcasts, such as Huberman Lab, hosted by Stanford professor Andrew Huberman, and The Drive with Dr. Peter Attia, CGMs have been both advertised and discussed on dedicated episodes. (Dr. Attia, in a disclaimer, notes that he is a paid advisor to Dexcom.)
It’s worth highlighting that Peter starts every podcast by stating that his conflicts of interest can be found on his disclosures page: https://peterattiamd.com/disclosures/
He’s done so since the start of his podcast.
In checking, Dexcom is clearly listed as a company he advised during the period listed on Open Payments.
I think it’s worth discussing, the absolute magnitude isn’t readily apparent otherwise and your comment helps inform a better picture. Thanks for taking the time to look into it.
What do you possibly get about trying to hairsplit the number OF DEAD CHILDREN. Oh, yes, you’re right. It wasn’t 20,000 so we shouldn’t say “tens of thousand” it was just twelve thousand three hundred children.
“Impacted” is definitely one word for it. Murdered another.
Hopefully I get you to be more accurate and specific when discussing this loaded emotional topic. Words literally kill. I think using defusing language is conductive to de-escalation.
Words are important. And you're right those are different words. The word murdered has a specific meaning, e.g. "to kill (a person) unlawfully and unjustifiably with premeditated malice". The word impacted means: "strongly or directly affected by something especially in a negative way." The word "child" also has a definition. In this context it usually refers to people under the age of 18.
I'll turn the question back at you, what are you trying to get out of claiming "tens of thousands" or "murdered"?
I think the word murdered is IMO more appropriate to the children Hamas killed in Israel on Oct 7th and civilians it has killed in Israel over the years and less appropriate for the children killed in Gaza by IDF action during a war. That said my heart breaks for every single child, whoever they are, that lost their lives. It's not their fault. This war didn't need to happen. We should try our best to protect children, here and everywhere, and I do recognize that at some level you're trying to do so, thanks for that.
I'm just really annoyed with the use of language that is meant to evoke emotions and leaves incorrect impressions. This is all bad enough without riling people up to make it worse. There's little doubt what images someone seeks to invoke by saying "10's of thousands" and "murder". Even if I interpret it as people genuinely wanting to minimize human suffering I think it ends up with the opposite result and is really not how anyone involved here makes progress. Also I know we live in a post-truth reality but I for all of us to have debates based on facts is still important. For me as someone who is generally pro-Israeli I have no problem with fact based criticism of Israel. What I have a problem with is that the anti-Israeli side is basically making stuff up. If something is factual then it is. If there are unknowns then we should openly say they're unknowns. And no, if you're pointing out something is a lie, you're not "justifying the killings of children". If you point out certain information is still not clear or comes from questionable sources you're not either.
No, they're saying 1000 bets on random foundational technology means PG is more likely to have a startup to invest in that's a winner, then necessarily giving good advice to the individual founder who doesn't have 1000 turns at the wheel.
This does make sense. I think it's also possible that most of the successes PG sees are people doing something interesting to them. So the argument would be more like: among success stories, true interest is more common than trend chasing.
Of course YC funds tons of ChatGPT wrappers so dunno.
The founder who tries to do something boring and profitable ends up doing things like making another CRM or some kind of SaaS pipeline from one thing to another. These tend to be things that get built anyway by the people with more funding. There's so many CRMs built on top of vtiger open source, and these may be better than vtiger for a while, but in the long run they fall behind.
Paradoxically, avoiding risks makes people more likely to take the riskier options.
And yet, what makes most people on average the most amount of money is working on boring problems, not sexy, new technology problems. That is what is mainly implied by the top level parent. For every Elon making rockets, many more are more likely to make a significant amount of money just building another CRM.
