Interesting article, I've got a few thoughts on this space.
Endless West (https://endlesswest.com/) has a "molecular whisky" (they aren't legally allowed to call it whisky because it wasn't distilled from a certain mash, aged in oak for a minimum number of years, etc. etc.) that's the same idea, minus the machine learning (which probably isn't that helpful, IMO [1]). More on the process in [2].
To my knowledge, it hasn't sold particularly well, and most reviews (granted, likely biased by the origin of the spirit) tend to say "it's fine, but it's not the same as 'real whisky'."
The issue with the "luxury spirits" market is that (to paraphrase the Scotch distillery Bruichladdich), "terrior matters". Like fine art, one's enjoyment of such a beverage comes from both the tangible (taste, smell, bottle presentation, etc.) and the intangible ("having good taste", "buying a bottle of whisky older than you are"; generally signaling value). Like most (all?) luxury goods, the tangible costs account for a small percentage of the overall cost, with the intangibles and associated signaling value.
There's a reason that "The Macallan" which is marketed as such costs significantly more than vs "the macallan" that's been private labeled by Costco or Trader Joe's. Same juice, different intangibles.
All of this is to say that:
- I think the technology is super cool and I want to see it come to fruition
- I don't think "luxury goods" is the right segment to target because nobody buys a birkin bag to carry their laptop to work
- Create a novelty for mass affluent consumers; not super high margin but make up for it in volume (what Glyph was attempting)
- Target a niche consumer group who cares about a different signaling metric, e.g. eco conscious consumers who want the same "end resuly" but are unhappy with traditional processes (which is what Endless West seems to be doing with e.g. [3])
[1]: Cognitive Cooking with Chef Watson (https://ice.edu/partner-with-ice/IBM) is a great cookbook because chefs fed IBM Watson a bunch of recipes and then asked it to create new recipes, which it did, with some _very_ wacky results that chefs then tweaked. Definitely possible to create new/unique/interesting things, but I think it's hard to get people to buy into the end result, especially if the majority of folks would initially reject it as disgusting/too weird.
Short answer is likely "yes" though I think there's a surprising amount of variation even there.
Longer answer is that I'm not sure the direct comparison ever really happens because in a spirits tasting competition where there would be double blind testings, it's never pitted against the whiskies it's being "marketed against" (e.g. a "real" bourbon or scotch). Sip 2021 puts it in "other whiskies" in which it gets the lowest awarded medal: https://sipawards.com/content/results/sipawards2021results.p... (though interestingly in 2022, Spice, their "scotch" blend, won double gold in the same category: https://sipawards.com/content/results/sipawards2022results.p...).
You can't sell to people buying Macallan 12, you have to sell to people who _don't_ currently buy Macallan 12 because $REASONS (significant price difference, ESG angles like lower carbon footprint, they can't get it in their location, etc.).
Same. I keep a bottle of Blue Label that I refill with Green/Gold/Platinum (depending on how generous I'm feeling) that gets served to guests who visit my home bar and ask for Blue Label because they know nothing about scotch except that it's expensive. I actually think those colors are better than Blue, but that's neither here nor there...
My personal trend over the past few years has been to buy from independent bottlers, of which Costco/TJ usually carry (e.g. Alexander Murray). I've also switched to other beverages: armagnac, mezcal, rum; all of which have lower brand recognition and interest here. Overall it means I can get more variety (and value) at a better price, which is a win.
As a German I have to emphasize that this has no support at all in Germany. The uproar was huge today and its seen as a misuse of power by the politician. Especially as he is not acting as a politician but as representative of the public office of interior. The search warrant needs to be issued by a judge and I'm sure there will be formal investigations how this happened. I would not be surprised if he will be forced to resign. There are also elections happening and misuse of power is seen very badly throughout the people.
It's still a fact that in Germany you have to be careful how you express yourself. It was a total shock to me to arrive in the States and hear my cab driver unload on the US President at the time. He really wasn't choosing his words very carefully, to the point that I had to wonder if this was some kind of a test by the INS. I still chuckle today about how my views have changed since then, and how much more comfortable I am today with criticizing people, especially those in power.
> It's still a fact that in Germany you have to be careful how you express yourself.
Is that a fact? That's news to me. You might not hear as much "unloading" in Germany simply because it's not yet as polarized as it is in the US but certainly there wouldn't be any repercussions as far as I'm aware. What exactly are you talking about?
They exist but primarily protect private people. If the court determines that you are a “public figure” (I forget the legal term; IANAL) — such as CEOs of publicly traded companies, or politicians, etc. — then the bar for winning a case for defamation goes up significantly.
Furthermore speech that is essentially opinion or critique is a defense against defamation that can cause the case to be dismissed before trial. 1st Amendment protections from the US Constitution.
If you’re careful to word what you’re saying as a statement of your opinion rather than an assertion of fact, then a defendant has little chance at winning a defamation lawsuit from what I understand.
Lastly, if what you’re saying is factually true then that offers an absolute defense against a defamation lawsuit; you would need to be able to prove that however.
There are some country-wide precedents that SCOTUS has ruled on; otherwise laws are set by individual states from what I understand.
Can you give an example? I’ve never heard of such a case. You might be thinking of scenarios where people are arrested and prosecuted for resisting arrest, making threats against police officer, or crimes of that nature.
There will be limits of what you can say to police before you also run afoul of laws against public nuisance. Just as you would not want a random person to shout epithets and slurs at you and follow you down the sidewalk talking trash at you, which may be a misdemeanor crime in some jurisdictions (like disturbing the peace), the same is likely true for police if you were to interact with them in that way.
I cannot imagine anyone being prosecuted for publishing criticism about the performance/behavior of individual officers during a police encounter after the fact, or publishing criticism of the police department in their city generally.
While interacting with police, if you are being detained, beyond providing any information you are required to provide by law, which differs by state and circumstance (such as if driving a motor vehicle) - know your rights and obligations - it is wise to say “I invoke my fifth amendment right to remain silent” in response to any questions; as a suspect there are only downsides to having a conversation with police as anything you say can be used against you in court. During an interaction with police is not a wise time for criticism of police in general, the department in particular, or the specific officers at the scene.
Keep in mind that the list above is not 100% relevant for these examples. You can also just find articles if you google 'beleidigung' and 'verurteilt'.
Ask any Strafrechtsanwalt in your area and they'll confirm this. This is not even a controversial thing at all.
You still are not allowed to insult not just the German Leader (which Germany hasn't had in 84 years), but anyone at all.
Insults are a misdemeanor crime and you can and will be fined several thousand dollars for calling your local cop an asshole or whoreson, for instance. (Which is better than the US where you will likely get molested, possibly arrested, and might get shot for the unwritten crime of 'contempt of cop'.)
Yes, it is. Insults and defamation are pretty common law-problems in Germany, because of which most people are rather careful in what they say about specific people. Basically, if they have power or money, don't trigger them, because the one paying will likely be you at the end. Though, Online this again a bit different, as many people have not much awareness about legal situation there, and law enforcement was a bit lax. This changed with new laws recently.
A while ago a Berlin court decided that online posts saying "Drecksfotze"/"Schlampe"/"Knatter sie doch mal einer so richtig durch, bis sie wieder normal wird." (filthy cunt/bitch/someone fuck her hard until she becomes normal again) are still below the threshold that top politicians have to endure before they can sue for insult, so the ability to "unload" on top politicians doesn't seem to be in any danger in Germany.
Although this ruling was widely criticized, because there is some societal understanding that politicians are also humans who need some level of protection, and that unrestricted hate speech always has the potential to transform into physical violence sooner or later.
I'm not German, but I have noticed quite the opposite just yesterday actually:
Some non-german person posted a picture of Angela Merkel and highlighted how incredible she is and humble and all the good work she did and how she should be an example for their own (the posters) country and other politicians in the world.
The result: Lots of people agreed with the overall sentiment and applauded her achievements... well, besides German LinkedIn users, many went full "Reddit" (on LinkedIn)... Many "not nice words were written" by people using their professional profile - it was surreal to see.
‘Be careful how to express yourself’ is needlessly conspicuous. Never in my life have I seen anyone hold back to criticize politicians or people in power, most certainly not in some cab.
As I wrote somewhere else, if you think the first amendment gives you the possibility to say what you want to whom you want, without any consequences, go to the nearest policeman, start insulting him and his family. I am sure there will not be a problem, and he’ll sit through it for hours, if you just make clear you’re exercising your first amendment rights.
To expand on this: the politician is defending himself by saying that it is standard procedure for a case like this but I can assure you it is not.
The police is not taking insults seriously, especially not being called "dick". On Twitter some semi-famous people stated that they routinely go to the police because people threaten their lives but the police won't do anything.
One interesting fact that the politician is not mentioning is that he as a Senator des Innern (senator of interior of the state of Hamburg) can actually order the attorney general of their state to investigate something. This has been criticized by law experts multiple times in the past because it makes the judiciary branch not strictly independent from the legislative branch in Germany. No attorney general will deny a request of their boss and will instead push hard for a judge (who are independent) to sign a search warrant. Plus the Landgericht Hamburg (lowest court in Hamburg) has made some very, very questionable rulings in the past related to technology.
Everything here has written abuse of power all over it. It's a systemic failure that is being exploited and Andy Grote tries way too hard to deny it.
While it does happen, "all the time" seems to suggest it happens every week. I believe instead police raids on private homes for e.g. smaller drug related charges happen occasionally. This is the first case I hear of which is such an abuse of power about an insult online.
A spokesperson for the Hamburg Police said that they've carried out a ~50 raids of homes of people for insults/hate speech. And that's just one city. So more than once a week in a single city.
They're talking about both and what's your source for the fact that this claim is disputed? Who would even have such data if not the police. Please link your source as well as I've linked mine, which supports what I said.
Your own link is saying it's disputed. And the Police claiming something, doesn't mean it must be true. Especially if we are talking about someone from public relation, which are notorious for 'miscommunication happening' with such details.
No it doesn't. There's absolutely nothing in there that even hints at the fact that the numbers are disputed.
> And the Police claiming something, doesn't mean it must be true. Especially if we are talking about someone from public relation, which are notorious for 'miscommunication happening' with such details.
Sure. If you have better data that disputes what she's saying you're free to share it.
> I'm sure there will be formal investigations how this happened
It happened because you allowed your politicians to pass laws that regulate allowable speech, as many other countries have done. I’m sure it was controversial, but most likely also had a considerable amount of support from people who didn’t like the kinds of speech they thought this would criminalize. A distinctive feature of this case is that it has created a public controversy, but if this has happened you can be sure many people have already fallen victim to this injustice without drawing any sympathy from the general public. Even if there is no prosecution, the police have already succeeded in intimidating the victim, their children, and disrupting their life. This type of speech criminalization will always lead to this type of outcome. It is not a mistake, or an outlier, it is an unavoidable consequence of these policies.
It doesn't seem like you are very familiar with German politics or culture, but this is definitely an outlier. Freedom of speech is a central part of our constitution. Defamation is one of the very few ways and enforcement and interpretation is mostly restricted to defamation of policemen. This is the reason why this has resulted in an outcry as the proportionality does not respond to the interpretation how defamation is treated legally.
This is 100% completely wrong. There's §185 and that applies to all citizens. That's the law, there's no such thing as Beamtenbeleidigung or other stuff that gets quotes often. We have to work on educating people that insulting the police is no different than insulting your neighbor. Such a law just doesn't exist and it never did.
I’m sure as a member of that culture, your opinions are opinions are not at all influenced by any number of different political, nationalistic or cultural biases. But from the perspective of an outsider, you have all of the same criminal statutes against speech that most other western democracies have been gradually implementing. The only thing that’s slightly different about Germany, is that you also have defamation laws that are more typical of 3rd world country, like say Thailand.
I’m sure the values of free speech are important to Germans, but much like in the UK or any number of other of places, those values haven’t been preserved in legislation, and you’ve let yourself slowly compromise them away over a number of decades.
You argue that the Germans have let the lawmakers erode the law of free speech over time. This does not make sense, since the laws and the system allowing for the abuse of power by this minister are very old. The fact that this could have been abused for the last 50 years and happened only now seems to strongly suggest that your argument does not hold true.
Whether this particular case would have been enforceable 50 years ago or not doesn’t undermine my point at all. Germany (like almost every other western democracy) has been slowly eroding freedom of expression liberties. However restrictive the country was 50 years ago, it’s more restrictive now, both as existing laws as applied to novel new speech suppression scenarios, and as new laws are created. As recently as 2017 (as far as I’m aware) Germany has been legislating new speech criminalizations (with the Network Enforcement Act), which was rather widely criticized for suppressing freedom of expression and the press.
This has no support at all in Germany. The uproar was huge today and its seen as a misuse of power by the politician. Especially as he is not acting as a politician but as representative of the public office of interior. The search warrant needs to be issued by a judge and I'm sure there will be formal investigations how this happened. I would not be surprised if he will be forced to resign. There are also elections happening and misuse of power is seen very badly throughout the people.
Co-ops address only one aspect of a three-element triad: supply, stability (co-ops here), and subsidy.
In his book, and the chapter exerpt I've linked in an earlier comment, Phillips explains why all three elements are key.
Co-ops (or similar co-housing or community-housing arrangements) cannot of and by themselves address the greater supply problem, or provide subsidies for at-risk, disabled (temporarily or permanently) individuals, children, or retirees. They're useful, but insufficient.
I agree, the headline is definetly not what the research shows. See my other comment on non-neutralizing antibodies. Please change the title to the original one.
Please note, that neutralization by antibodies is only one of the many possible ways how our immune system can take action. Antibody recognition is still possible with the found mutant:
"To determine whether 501Y.V2 is still recognized by non-neutralizing antibodies, the binding of polyclonal sera (from Fig.2a) to a recombinant 501Y.V2 RBD+SBD1 protein and an RBD+SBD1 from the original lineage was assessed by ELISA (Fig.2b). These data revealed that binding of polyclonal plasma to 501Y.V2 RBD+SBD1 was only substantially affected in a minority of cases (14 of 44 with ≥five-fold reduction, 32%). Most of the convalescent plasma/serum suffered less than four-fold reductions in total binding activity (as measured by area under the curve), suggesting a considerable non-neutralizing antibody component are still able to bind the 501Y.V2 spike antigen"
This is correct, but just want to add that many may interpret this as a positive sign, it is not necessarily. In many cases, binding antibodies increase cell infectivity. Also, there is some research that indicates the presence of non-neutralizing antibodies without the corresponding neutralizing antibodies and humoral response may be a factor in the development of antibody dependent enhancement. As far as we know, it is the neutralization potency that strongly correlates with disease severity.
Please note, that neutralization by antibodies is only one of the many possible ways how our immune system can take action. Antibody recognition is still possible with the found mutant:
"To determine whether 501Y.V2 is still recognized by non-neutralizing antibodies, the binding of polyclonal sera (from Fig.2a) to a recombinant 501Y.V2 RBD+SBD1 protein and an RBD+SBD1 from the original lineage was assessed by ELISA (Fig.2b). These data revealed that binding of polyclonal plasma to 501Y.V2 RBD+SBD1 was only substantially affected in a minority of cases (14 of 44 with ≥five-fold reduction, 32%). Most of the convalescent plasma/serum suffered less than four-fold reductions in total binding activity (as measured by area under the curve), suggesting a considerable non-neutralizing antibody component are still able to bind the 501Y.V2 spike antigen"
Its also worth to note that only 44 plasma samples were used from individuals out of a population where the virus probably originated.
Looks like this was posted again, so I'll post my response here as well:
This is correct, but just want to add that many may interpret this as a positive sign, it is not necessarily. In many cases, binding antibodies increase cell infectivity. Also, there is some research that indicates the presence of non-neutralizing antibodies without the corresponding neutralizing antibodies and humoral response may be a factor in the development of antibody dependent enhancement. As far as we know, it is the neutralization potency that strongly correlates with disease severity.
Everything you've written is speculation or assertion, whereas the OP's comment is a factual statement about the limitation of the work. They're showing that this mutation escapes a few particular antibodies. That's all.
At the very least, the current headline "strongly resistant to past immunity" is editorialized and completely misleading, and should be changed to the title of the paper.
> In many cases, binding antibodies increase cell infectivity.
Citation absolutely required. I am unaware of an example of this, let alone "many cases".
Was just hoping to point out for those who aren't as close to this space that the fact that non-neutralizing antibodies can bind is neither a positive nor negative signal.
Neither of these papers supports the claim you made. The first one explicitly says that antibody-dependent enhancement has not been observed for this virus:
> There is no evidence that ADE facilitates the spread of SARS-CoV in infected hosts. In fact, infection of macrophages through ADE does not result in productive viral replication and shedding
"suboptimal antibody responses" are indeed...suboptimal...but the paper here is not showing that. As the OP noted, the concerning result is limited to a few examples of monoclonal antibodies. The human immune response is much more complicated.
You edited your comment after I had responded, so hopefully I can address those concerns. I'm not sure the "claim" you think I am making.
As for increased infectivity, that is at the core of what is understood to occur in ADE. And in general, cases where the Fc mediated response is utilized to gain entry to immune cells. I believe Dengue is the typical example spoken to, but this pattern has been observed in Zika, HIV, RSV off the top of my head.
Lots of editing! Also, did not state that ADE occurs for SARS-CoV2. The fact that studies indicate it does not replicate or shed after phagocytosis is a positive signal.
This Report from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium gives a good summary of the prevalent genotypes with UK COVID-19 cases. You can see how the B.1.1.7 mutations N501Y + Δ69-70 and N501Y are very recent and mostly showed up during the last 28 days.
In this case, the B.1.1.7 variant has shown to be highly abundant in recent COVID-19 cases in the UK. Much higher compared to other mutations which are tracked too. This is pretty clear evidence of an increased infection rate or evolutionary advantage as there has to be some driving force for this process. Take a look at this Report from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium. The B.1.1.7 mutations N501Y + Δ69-70 and N501Y are very recent and mostly showed up during the last 28 days.
https://www.mpg.de/18773206/the-signature-of-taste