You think Sony Computer Entertainment didn't wait until the supply chain was ready before launching the PS5?
It's not about being ready or not, it's about supply and demand.
An example from Valve themselves from early this year regarding Index, an interview with Gabe:
“We actually have components that are manufactured in Wuhan and when you’re setting up your manufacturing lines it doesn’t occur to you that you’re suddenly going to be dependent on this peculiar transistor that’s sitting on one board that you can’t get,” Newell said.
“Everybody ended up running into the same problem simultaneously — you go from, ‘Oh, we’re in great shape,’ to, ‘What do you mean Apple or Microsoft just bought the next two years’ supply of this just so they could make sure they aren’t going to run out?’ You went from a situation where everything was getting done just in time to people buying up all the available supplies.”
Newell says these constraints are also why the headset still doesn’t ship to some markets like New Zealand or Australia. “The only thing keeping us from shipping in New Zealand at this point is just getting enough of them made — we’re very much manufacturing constrained.”
My observation of this substance was that it was similar to a low grade opiate and seemed to be quite habit forming among several people I knew that tried it.
Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence than anyone else. Especially when it comes to population epidemiology.
Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're much better off listening to a data scientist because they have actual training in interpretative statistics.
> Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence
It's about understanding and processing this evidence in the broader context of their medical training. You're trying to generalize the results of a study with many shortcomings to say everyone may be better off dealing with increasing their odds of developing malignant melanoma and dealing with its associated mortality risks.
My issues with using this study to give the above advice:
1. The study was Conducted in Sweden, a place with "limited sunshine and a low UV index" which would naturally preclude its population having lower vitamin D levels.
2. The study was also lacking in the ability to "distinguish between the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle and of avoidance of sun exposure"
3. The study had no data on vitamin D supplementation/levels
Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
> Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
One very consistent pattern with vitamin D research is that association studies will find a major relationship between serum vitamin D and some health outcome.[1] But an RCT using vitamin D supplementation will find no effect.[2]
That strongly suggests that serum vitamin D, at least as we measure it, is merely proxying for something else. The map is not the territory. There's an X-factor that's related to serum vitamin D, but is not just serum vitamin D. Artificial supplementation doesn't work. Since the vast majority of population vitamin D variance is related to sun exposure, that would strongly suggest that sun exposure is the X-factor that improves health.
The only reasonable conclusion you can draw from the two studies linked is that vitamin D supplementation to increase serum levels does not significantly prevent CVD. I could just as easily hypothesize that the physical activity required to go outside both increases serum vitamin D and lowers CVD risk.
Just to be clear, I agree with your thought that sun exposure probably carries benefits beyond an increase in serum vitamin D based on anecdotal experience... I supplement vitamin D rigorously, but being in the sun just makes me feel better
They linked a study from a medical journal. Are you asking for additional qualifications? Should there be restrictions on who is allowed to share scholarly articles?
