The FDA's policy for the last couple of decades is that mixtures of mirror images will not get FDA approval unless there is a strong rationale for it.
Racemic mixture of ketamine was approved decades ago. If you want a new indication for ketamine, you will need to get approval for a single mirror image, as the FDA won't approve the old drug.
They did this because there are numerous examples of racemic mixture drugs having increased side effects from the less active mirror image, so the FDA decided no more racemic approvals.
My guess is your insurer would be happy to pay for the old version, but your doctor is heavily incentivized to use the new version as the markup on the drug is much, much higher.
>but your doctor is heavily incentivized to use the new version as the markup on the drug is much, much higher.
I don't think it is normal/usual for doctors to receive any benefits or profits from which drugs they prescribe. Other than golf outings with the drug company reps? Is there something I'm missing?
It's basically high through put screening plus an AI engine to map out the "variable space".
Back in 1990 when robotics became more reliable we did the same thing. The only difference is a trained chemist would determine what variables would be altered.
It's not that hard to do, it doesn't take that much brain power, just an understanding of what variables may impact the yield. Claiming AI can now do this isn't all that impressive.
You're making a choice to be resilient - doesn't mean you can't pursue the other course down the line but it's self preservation at this point. I don't think it makes sense to give it a moral valence.
>As an attorney, I feel like vetting AI output takes longer than just doing it from scratch, let alone versus just using a traditional form.
This is my issue with AI.
In the type of work i do the work needs to be precise down to the context of how individual words are used.
Having AI pump out 20 pages of content but then me having to go through the 20 pages word by word, cross checking references and prior statements is going to take a long time.
Not to mention I didn’t write it, so my brain doesn’t already know what’s been written so it takes several passes to confirm its complete and that it all fits together.
I find it easy to just write it myself use AI for the more menial tasks like logic check, completeness checks, etc.
One task AI was very useful in was where we wanted to understand the gaps in a submission relative to a process requirement document. We didn’t care if the output was 100% complete or perfect, we just wanted a few examples.
Being able to input a couple 300 pages documents and have AI spit out a dozen examples in 30 seconds was a huge time saver.
While true, pilots aren’t trained to just “respond to the alarm” they are trained to fly the plane.
Once there were multiple alarms that made no sense at all (petty early in the event), the pilots should have ignored them as per the checklist.
But the most damning thing is the one pilot pulling the stick back and holding it back for almost the entire event. There aren’t any flying conditions where that’s an appropriate input. Not to mention being told to give up control and ignoring that request.
I agree Airbus has some blame in terms of the computer system not adequately communicating when it drops out of normal mode.
Yeah the computer is never flying the plane it is always the pilots who have final decision. Which is ofcourse also why the computer will let you fly into a mountain if you want.
I stand corrected. But suffice to say it’s not an appropriate input when you lose airspeed at 35,000 ft.
I read the Admiral Cloudberg article again and saw that it was procedure for other scenarios as well.
It seem like the normal mode (protected flight envelope) is just encouraging bad habits? “Just go full stick back and hold it, don’t worry the computer won’t let you stall the plane…most of the time”
> It seem like the normal mode (protected flight envelope) is just encouraging bad habits?
Maybe, but at the same time it helps avoiding crashes like Sriwijaya 182 or Flydubai 981. Airbus has shown that planes with fly-by-wire and any kind of flight envelope protection (A320 and newer, A220, B777 and 787, etc.) experience less fatal accidents and less hull losses than planes with traditional controls (A300, A310, B737, etc.), even today: https://accidentstats.airbus.com/fatal-accidents/
Unfortunately, these safety improvements mean that we only hear about cases where automation fail to help, like in the case of AF447, but not cases where it prevented an accident.
reply