The NYTimes article says "the company built multiple topological qubits inside a new kind of computer chip" but the Nature paper says they're only making "substantial progress towards the realization of a topological qubit", i.e., not even a singular qubit.
This phenomenon is called "bus bunching". My friends, two profs from Georgia Tech and UChicago, came up with one solution for it. They wrote a paper about their solution[1], and then built a startup that has successfully implemented it at a bunch of places[2].
Looking at the second link, it seems they implement it by having the buses pause at certain points. Does it do that with riders onboard? That seems like it could be a deterioration in experience for those riders that are on the bus pausing.
I guess the reality is, as a passenger, you either wait several minutes on the bus at a stop mid-route. Or you wait much longer at a bus stop in a crowd waiting for four buses to show up.
When possible, they pick "control points" at places where there are usually no passengers on board — for example, the ends of a linear route, or the bus depot.
But otherwise, they have a bunch of optimizations to spread the pauses out so they aren't too jarring. They also display the timer prominently so that riders are aware of what's going on.
In practice, riders seem happy with the tradeoff, since it has resulted in overall lower times to get from point A to point B.
I very much wanted to believe this, but the study you linked to lists "Percent of national health expenditures for physician and clinical services: 19.8% (2015)".
What do you think accounts for the discrepancy between 3.12% and 19.8%?
Covers all services provided by hospitals to patients. These include room and board, ancillary
charges, services of resident physicians, inpatient pharmacy, hospital-based nursing home and
home health care, and any other services billed by hospitals in the United States. The value of
hospital services is measured by total net revenue, which equals gross patient revenues (charges)
less contractual adjustments, bad debts, and charity care. It also includes government tax
appropriations as well as non-patient and non-operating revenues. Hospitals fall into NAICS 622 –
Hospitals.
Physician and Clinical Services:
Covers services provided in establishments operated by Doctors of Medicine (M.D.) and Doctors of
Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), outpatient care centers, plus the portion of medical laboratories
services that are billed independently by the laboratories. This category also includes services
rendered by a doctor of medicine (M.D.) or doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) in hospitals, if
the physician bills independently for those services. Clinical services provided in freestanding
outpatient clinics operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the U.S. Coast Guard
Academy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Indian Health Service are also included.
The establishments included in Physician and Clinical Services are classified in NAICS 6211-Offices
of Physicians, NAICS 6214-Outpatient Care Centers, and a portion of NAICS 6215-Medical and
Diagnostic Laboratories.
So as a quick summary, physician pay isn't the same as physician and clinical services. Both categories includes salaries of doctors. The statistic people are looking for isn't readily available in the numbers they are quoting. 3.12 and 19.8 are unrelated numbers.
EDIT: You can calculate expenditure relatively easily. Some assumptions: The link lists median pay at 295k, but Bureau of Labor statistics actually has it at 208k, and google's auto-suggest puts it at 187k in 2015. I'm just going to run with 250k.
250k median salary^ * 950k active physicians / 3.2 trillion US healthcare costs = 7.4%. 100b is a commonly cited number, but I can't find the source. My calculations put compensation at around 237b. Here's a corroborating source as well:
Disclaimer: My father is a doctor, my mother is a nurse. I get really annoyed when this crap comes up on HN. Tomorrow we'll have an article that leads to a discussion about how the engineers on this site are making 150k-200k and complaining about being underpaid, all while criticizing other careers that necessitate higher educational attainment and greater career risk.
The facts that almost half of Senators are sponsors and that they represent whole states would make a spatial visualization less helpful, I think.
I figured this particular format would be more effective to highlight the small minority (32/435) of House members sponsoring SOPA. So I started there.
You're absolutely right that PROTECT IP deserves just as much attention, though. I will get to work as soon as I can on compiling a table of the PROTECT IP sponsors' contact info.
I wanted people to see at a glance whether there's a chance their own representative is supporting the Act.
Also, the reason I started looking at it was to see if there really was a concentration of support in any particular region. It seems as though there is.
But your point is well taken... I probably should make it smaller so it's clear there's more information below.
I put this together because I was curious who the actual sponsors of SOPA were.
I welcome feedback on how to make the site more informative. In particular I would like to include links to some of the best articles discussing the issue. Any suggestions?
I like the map; makes it obvious at a glance that the LA/Hollywood-region is dominated by supporters, with not a single supporter from the Bay Area/Silicon Valley. No surprise there, but even more stark of a contrast than I expected.
Also happy to see that my adopted state (Colorado) has no supporters at all. Which is a mixed blessing, of course...no one to protest to who will pay any attention to me.
Thanks for putting this together, though. Maybe others will discover nearby supporters who they can protest to -- or who maybe have friends who they can convince to write a letter. If anyone knows someone in greater LA, for example, odds are good that they have a rep who's supporting SOPA.
— Milan Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting