The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 was supposed to bring women back into medical research. The reality was that women were always included, HOWEVER in 1977,(1) because of the outcomes from thalidomide (causing birth defects), "women of childbearing potential" were excluded from the phase 1, and early phase 2 trials (the highest risk trials). They're still generally generally excluded, even after the passage of the act. This was/is to protect the women, and potential children.
According to Edward E. Bartlett in his meta data analysis from 2001, men have been routinely under-represented in NIH data (even before adjusting for men's mortality rates) between 1966-1990. (2)
There's also routinely twice as much spent every year on women's health studies vs men's by the NIH. (3)
It makes sense to me, but I'm biased. Logically, since men lead in 9 of the top 10 causes for death, that shows there's something missing in the equation of research. (4 - It's not a straight forward table, you can view the total deaths, and causes and compare the two for men, and women)
With that being said, it doesn't tell us about the quality of the funding or research topics, maybe the money is going towards pointless goals, or unproductive researchers.
Are there gaps in research? Most definitely, like women who are pregnant. This is put in place to avoid harm but that doesn't help them when they fall into them. Are there more? Definitely. I'm not educated enough in the nuances to go into them.
If you have information that counters what I've posted, please share it, I would love know where these folks are blind so I can take a look at my bias.
Hey Patrick, this is rare, it does happen, but usually (almost always) it's that something was missed in the takeoff, the updated plan wasn't submitted to the yard, or the drawings were missing elements.
I agree with your point, having a second, impartial source is important to confirm the ballpark.
We do supplying to contractors, and do takeoffs for single family homes. Not tracked, one off's for framing material. You mentioned your co-founder has built tract homes so my words might not apply to your target customer.
Here are things to consider:
Experienced builders don't care about the takeoffs on a big picture basis, the takeoffs are usually wrong, even if perfectly done. In our experience half of drawings we receive, are heavily revised by the order is approved (heavily revised meaning over 10% has changed). EWP, structural metal need to be accurate but framing lumber, and sheet good can be off on counts at the lift quantity (+-1 lift for an average house).
Suppliers aren't responsible for the takeoff so the amount the quote is negligible (see drawing revisions, and trades can misallocate the materials - This can't be reasonably traced). Over? The customer ends up paying less, under? The customer pays more. This has been universal where I am (Ontario, Canada).
A large minority of plans are missing key elements (like sheer walls), pointing out, and showing these differences would be a big value add for the consumer (contractors using the materials) by the supplier.
Good customers understand that lumber is a commodity, a lower price this week can flip next week, and they'll contact their preferred vendor about the differences.
There's always a preferred vendor.
Not great customers will shoot drawing off to multiple suppliers, causing them all to do the same takeoff, wasting time, and money, only to deal with the same issues above. They'll still go back to their preferred vendor to get the lowest price.
Summary of the above is: EWP, and structural metal are key items because they rarely change, framing lumber, and sheathing requirements change all the time. What you're looking at is helping suppliers capture the bad customers (which are often the biggest, to be clear), but saving suppliers the time handling them is great. Also, accuracy, and pricing isn't that important (with caveats).
This isn't a statistically significant sample size, consider it anecdotal.
We use Books, it's okay, if you're relatively small, it will do the job.
Their biggest issue is that they focus on too many products, and interoperability between them. Necessary features take forever to be implemented years after they should have been.
From the values of each, you can tell that multi-family units are a larger portion of residential construction. How much larger would require more research as on a per unit basis, multi-family units are cheaper per family than a single-family unit.
Essentially, manufactured home in this case, even if they were 50% of single-family home construction, would be less than 25% of total family units constructed (single-family units + (singe units being construction in multi-family buildings).
I haven't watched the video (it may be fascinating), I armchair researched this, and the reason why you don't get a Hass avocado tree is the same reason why you are not clones of your parents. Avocado seeds are largely mono-embryonic, they are a blend of the pollen from the flower, and the genetics from the parent tree. While the fruit develops from the tree's genetics, the seed is a blend.
Mono-embryonic seeds are not true to type, which means their seeds will not grow fruit like their parent tree. Techniques like grafting, air layering, and cloning were developed to quickly scale editable fruiting types. They reduce the risk of having a plant that is non-productive, and accelerates the anticipated fruiting period vs from seed (most tree types will be 8-15 years before fruiting, while a clone can produce in as little as 3 years, but generally no longer than 5).
Information for avocado's seems to be lacking, I have a quick reference for which citrus can/will grow true to type, however with avocado's, there is some research, but few points of use for home growers. If there's anyone that can point me to a good resource, I would appreciate it!
> they are a blend of the pollen from the flower, and the genetics from the parent tree.
Pollen carries genetics. Avocado seeds are a blend of
genetics from both parent trees, instead of being clones of the mother tree.
In (many) polyembryotic plants, the mother inserts multiple clone alongside the (usually single) sexual embryo. (Interestingly, the mother can't produce seeds asexually, but can insert asexual embryos into the sexual seed.)
That being said, you can probably use a smaller amount of instant yeast, it definitely shouldn't be replaced as a 1:1 with regular yeast as the fermentation time is an integral part of the flavour profile.
I go through regular bouts of depression and burnout due to lifestyle, at this point they're more like colds as I handle them quickly with a system(due to how the business is doing/what's happening in life).
Others can feel free to agree or disagree with me, this is what works for me:
Read - A minor level of isolation is okay as long as it's not with your thoughts, read something uplifting or insightful (I recently read the Rosie Result, and Meditations post breakup).
Active - Physically, join a gym or running group, something social to at least be around people, you don't necessarily have to engage, but in climbing gyms for example, people tend to.
Active - Socially, like many have said: keep the job, join a group where you can help others, there are plenty of chances to volunteer, or join groups where you can help in Toronto, it's useful for distracting from what was, and thinking more about what can be. Talk to friends about your issues, maybe they're been through something like it and can help unlock an important facet as to why you're feeling the way you are.
Consistency - a pattern will help you to keep moving along, I can't stress enough that as long as there's no serious underlying psychological issue, only time and mental distractions will help.
Mental - Professional - Get help (I see that you are which is amazing, this is only to cover my suggestions). A good professional can help guide you along if you're willing to help them.
Mental - Personal - Meditation helps, I've recently been doing transcendental meditation, and honestly, it's pretty rad. It's not life changing, but it tones down the thoughts by a notch, at first the 20 minutes seems like forever, but after a couple of weeks, it's over in no time.
Time - Sometimes no matter how good your systems are, mental/emotional depression and burnout are no different that a cut, or broken bone. They need time, and no modern technology will accelerate it past the bodies maximum rate of healing.
Be patient, don't beat yourself up about not being productive, or positive, it's okay to feel like shit, or nothing at all, you win by not giving up, no matter how long it takes.
It's important to consider that most businesses that start in new areas/ try re-defining the market don't have business models, as they are too small to build a model from. Sure they can bootstrap from one idea to the next until something takes hold, but unless it's a new paradigm that is on the cusp, you're many years (think 5+) from attaining a scalable model.
The funding is to be able to hire people, and iterate quickly to expand the business, and find a scalable business model. Trying to build a business model with out a pre-existing business is like trying to solve for x when the right side of the equation is missing. You'll come up with answers, but they're probably wrong once tested.
That's sad and I disagree - category creation is amazing. Though indeed, I've observed that almost all VC's are indeed against this until it's been handed to them on a silver platter, despite what they may believe about themselves and their firms. So the tricky part is how to fund it over time :)
They're people as well, the good ones use it as a way to test the conviction of the founding team. If they can't take a few verbal licks, why would they be able to acquire enough customers to gain traction? Not a perfect test, but it has proven to be a workable process where the ones with the most conviction always get _something_. Sometimes it's too late, and sometimes it doesn't work out. That's life.
Yes, I agree -- many like to believe they are into deep tech and category creation, but even of those, most punt until a lot has been derisked. For deep tech / category creation, by the time the risk is gone, you are into growth phase. Someone like Lux Capital is on a very short list of exceptions.
Part of retail sales is people not caring enough to spend the energy to return / get a refund. Even if this story resulted in a refund, there are probably 100 other who didn't bother because it wasn't worth their time.
The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 was supposed to bring women back into medical research. The reality was that women were always included, HOWEVER in 1977,(1) because of the outcomes from thalidomide (causing birth defects), "women of childbearing potential" were excluded from the phase 1, and early phase 2 trials (the highest risk trials). They're still generally generally excluded, even after the passage of the act. This was/is to protect the women, and potential children.
According to Edward E. Bartlett in his meta data analysis from 2001, men have been routinely under-represented in NIH data (even before adjusting for men's mortality rates) between 1966-1990. (2)
There's also routinely twice as much spent every year on women's health studies vs men's by the NIH. (3)
It makes sense to me, but I'm biased. Logically, since men lead in 9 of the top 10 causes for death, that shows there's something missing in the equation of research. (4 - It's not a straight forward table, you can view the total deaths, and causes and compare the two for men, and women)
With that being said, it doesn't tell us about the quality of the funding or research topics, maybe the money is going towards pointless goals, or unproductive researchers.
Are there gaps in research? Most definitely, like women who are pregnant. This is put in place to avoid harm but that doesn't help them when they fall into them. Are there more? Definitely. I'm not educated enough in the nuances to go into them.
If you have information that counters what I've posted, please share it, I would love know where these folks are blind so I can take a look at my bias.
(1) https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2021/04/16/pregnant-clini... (2) https://journals.lww.com/epidem/fulltext/2001/09000/did_medi... (3) https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/nih-funding-of-mens-and-w... < I spot checked a couple of the figures, and those lined up. I'm assuming the rest is accurate (4) https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/lcod/index.html#:~:text=Ov...