Another factor to keep in mind is often-rare 'orphan diseases'. In many cases drugs that have a good chance of treating those diseases are found but not brought to the market for a variety of reasons. However at least one company discovered that because drug prices were not regulated as most medical treatments, they could identify and bring those drugs to market. In one case I know of, the drug costs over $100,000 per year per patient, but saves the lives of those 100 or so people in the world who have the disease. This drug was originally found or created by a major drug company but was never marketed. A startup (founded by a person whose daughter had the disease) licensed it and brought it to market. In the 20 years since it has grown to $1Billion per year company, specializing in drugs like this. And the daughter is still alive and a productive member of society.
These numbers are closer to the point of flexion. Not many people contribute $100,000 per year of productivity to the economy, but many people would pay that to keep their child alive.
Point of interest: My great-grandfather Dr. George Henderson was for a time the director (IIRC) of the Calcutta Botanical garden as it was then called - he may have been involved in the founding - and was instrumental in saving the tree, back in the early-mid 1800s.
I have serious doubts - this looks too much like another pseudo-scientific 'breakthrough' from one of those boutique institutions invented by a quack somewhere. And the bit about H2O2 bleaching has been bandied about in the quack literature for 50 plus years.
The discovery of the 'Chia Professor' shows that the animal phase is, in fact, a complex simulant. Each chia apparently has the ability to adopt the visual characteristics of certian other animals (or other entitys?) when first born. It seems that genetically the Chia are only capable of a limited suite of possible forms, and once it adopts a form can not change. It has not been determined how this first form is selected - is it genetically programmed, or is it a case of adopting the first shape it sees? Or, even more interestingly, is it something determined by the seeds resulting from the plant phase?
Apparently none of the drivers had any significant impairment until their levels became 3 or 4 times the defined limit. If these results are indicative, then the legal limit should be 3 or 4 times higher.
There's no sense or use in setting the limit so low that a regular medical user (Abby?) who will have a small level in her blood at all times, and is not impaired at all, would be at risk of arrest whenever she drives. It would be a waste of resources as police officers waste time citing and/or arresting people based on test results where no safety risk is present (though presumably drivers would not generally be tested except in an accident or other obvious way of getting police attention.) Putting the level too low would also feed false expectations into the press hysteria surrounding any traffic incident and could give influence legal proceedings based on a false premise, that a driver was 'stoned' when they really weren't.
As I recall, one of the big issues with alchohol is that drivers tend to drive faster when drunk, while a pot user tends to drive slower (as was born out in this test until Abby got really stoned). So that implies that a minor level of impairment due to pot appears to still be safer than a similar level of impairment due to alchohol.
Technically, I think this is a calculator, not a computer. A computer is generally assumed to have branching and looping capability. But this, and the inventor's proposed difference engine to calculate arithmetical progressions and even print out the results as it goes, are truly amazing in their own right.
IIRC elephants are known to sometimes preferentially eat fermented fruits, and stumble around. If so, 'elephants cannot drink alcohol' may not be strictly true. Regardless, it's funny that they got away with this 'creative sinning' for so long.
Matriarchies are typically stable, slow-to-progress societies with little acceptance of various forms of freedom or creativity except within the narrow bounds of the 'accepted wisdom' - AKA politically correct. It's all about fitting in and not rocking the boats. See 'water monopoly empires' - they can last for thousands of years, and during the entire time there is little improvement in living conditions and little regard for intellectual curiosity.
Creativity and disruption are the key to progress.
That model is a classic example of how not to build a city. For reference, see the 'Pruitt-Igo' debacle, read almost any book such as "Human Factors in Architecture" and especially Christopher Alexander, "A Pattern Language".
Political figures always want to make cities that are symmetrical, organized-looking and 'efficient', concentrating on traffic flow and other dynamics questions, and probably an overarching design principle - buildings that 'match'. But people don't like to live in a plumber's dream or an architect's plan. Christopher Alexander's books came out of his study of what kind of spaces people like to live and work in, and found that in general the spaces we are comfortable in are vernacular structures. Architectural structures were generally not comfortable to most people.
These numbers are closer to the point of flexion. Not many people contribute $100,000 per year of productivity to the economy, but many people would pay that to keep their child alive.
There's no sense or use in setting the limit so low that a regular medical user (Abby?) who will have a small level in her blood at all times, and is not impaired at all, would be at risk of arrest whenever she drives. It would be a waste of resources as police officers waste time citing and/or arresting people based on test results where no safety risk is present (though presumably drivers would not generally be tested except in an accident or other obvious way of getting police attention.) Putting the level too low would also feed false expectations into the press hysteria surrounding any traffic incident and could give influence legal proceedings based on a false premise, that a driver was 'stoned' when they really weren't.
As I recall, one of the big issues with alchohol is that drivers tend to drive faster when drunk, while a pot user tends to drive slower (as was born out in this test until Abby got really stoned). So that implies that a minor level of impairment due to pot appears to still be safer than a similar level of impairment due to alchohol.
Creativity and disruption are the key to progress.
Political figures always want to make cities that are symmetrical, organized-looking and 'efficient', concentrating on traffic flow and other dynamics questions, and probably an overarching design principle - buildings that 'match'. But people don't like to live in a plumber's dream or an architect's plan. Christopher Alexander's books came out of his study of what kind of spaces people like to live and work in, and found that in general the spaces we are comfortable in are vernacular structures. Architectural structures were generally not comfortable to most people.