Conflict of interests on one side, sociopaths isolating a few words out of their context to have a rant on the other side; both are more dangerous than bad science, to be fair, but this is the spirit of the times.
Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
71–80 of 170 posts
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were sued in the US by some woman who scalded herself when she spilled McDonalds coffee on herself. She was given millions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock he…
To add context, the original awarded amount was calculated to be the revenue of a single day of coffee sales for McDonald's. Stella Liebeck had originally sued for ~$50,000, to cover the cost of her medical bills, which McDonald's refused to do. Additionally, the award was calculated at that amount as a punitive measure, because McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints from customers of the coffee being too hot, which it summarily ignored. The coffee had been a problem; McDonald's just didn't care.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit, and the seemingly 'ridiculous-at-first-glance' nature of the headlines surrounding it, was used by several companies to push for specific tort reforms, which were mostly to the detriment of the average public.
There's more to this than "Dumbass sues company because hot coffee was hot".
Hot Coffee https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against. When those ludicrous ca…
Considering the many YouTube videos of exploding bottles, the warning is for the 10000 people a day learning something for the first time. What's wrong with using literacy to help people learn from the miatskes of others?
Users don't read. We have warnings in my state next to elevators that read "Ensure elevator is at this floor before entering". This is literally accurate but practically ludicrous.
The solution to problems of this nature is almost always redesign.
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are socialized medicine systems less evil?
Who do you expect to sell more? A salesperson on commission or a salesperson on salary?
A salaried person still has room for perverse incentives. The wine-ing and dining by drug companies is famous, and not counted on any salary form. It makes no difference.
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#75After just finishing "Bad Blood", the book by John Carreyrou on the Theranos fraud, this particular passage in the article had me incensed: > This week a lawyer for Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery, which is backed by private equity and is the largest dermatology practice in the United States, called the general counsel at the University of Florida, where two of the authors are employed, demanding specific c…
>> I'm disgusted by these high-powered law firms...
It's not the lawyers so much as the private equity folks who hired them. Asking lawyers to forego business on [subjective] moral grounds is similar to doing so for engineers - like recent refusals to work on government projects. Some will, some won't.
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a deflector shield, but "Protects you from getting fired" is, itself, a powerful tool. Especially at public universities with potentially hostile legislatures/boards of regents.
In many other countries you can not fire someone by default (it's illegal) so calling it a powerful tool sounds wrong.
In what country can you not fire your own employees?
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were sued in the US by some woman who scalded herself when she spilled McDonalds coffee on herself. She was given millions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock he…
Nobody like to remember that folks went there because the coffee was extra hot.
She didn't get burned because McD's served hot coffee - she'd been drinking that for years? She got burned because just as she took the top off to put in sugar, her grandson gunned the motor and spilled it.
So who's 'fault' is all this? In law you can sue for money from anybody even remotely connected with an injury. So she chose McD's instead of her grandson - no surprise. But was it right?
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If anything, situations like this should actually help your career—what better signal you’ve found a good vein of research? How'd it go for Charles Murray?
He had a long and successful career under the patronage of eugenicists and scientific racists who hung on to obsolete ideas after their time had past.
I'm not sure that knee-jerkingly smearing him (by association) as a racist eugenicist quite disproves the point that tenure is not protection from misguided attacks.
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do you expect to sell more? A salesperson on commission or a salesperson on salary?
A salaried person still has room for perverse incentives. The wine-ing and dining by drug companies is famous, and not counted on any salary form. It makes no difference.
if it makes no difference tgen you must think that commissioned persons are less susceptible to wining and dining incentives
Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
All tenure does is largely protect you from getting fired. They can still do a fair amount of damage though you still have employment. Lab space can be reduced, it can get harder to get approvals for research, decreased funding etc.
"At the University of Florida, our professors do fearless research" -- title to a piece by the UoF PR department, milking an easy win for all it's worth.
“Even when they have no skin in the game”