What I mean is that there are different needs and constraints on different users. Some homeless folks need a smartphone more than, say, retirees.
It also affects what would normally be considered "inferior goods" in economics. If someone is camp-in-the-bushes homeless, they can't really "save money" by having an old laptop instead. Being able to carry it with you is more of a requirement than a convenience.
Waiting may not be “unwise” but acting now may be optimal. Even though tooling may be much better in 12 months, if it can improve quality or time now, that’s a net benefit.
Bikers in the Tour de France used to not wear helmets. They were seen as uncouth (“why jump on the bandwagon?”). Helmets today are way better than they were then. But if the utility provided is greater than the cost, of course it makes sense to act sooner.
I’m not explicitly arguing for investing in AI or other newfangled tech, I’m arguing that the premise of waiting may be “sounded” but also “leaves money on the table”, or in some cases, lives.
The author talks about vaccines as a counter example but doesn’t really address the cost/benefit in any detail.
Very interesting. I am keenly interested in this space and coincidentally had my blood drawn this morning.
That said, have you considered that “Measure 100+ biomarkers with a single blood draw” combined with "heart health is a solved problem” reads a lot like Theranos?
FWIW, the single blood draw is 6-8 vials -- so we're not claiming to get 100 biomarkers from a single drop. The point of that is mostly that it just takes one appointment / is convenient.
Montreal is the exception to the rule about Canada not being differentiated enough from the US to encourage tourism. It really is quite different than anywhere in the US, it’s more like going to a funny speaking part of France without having to travel so far. They also mostly speak English, which makes it a bit less exotic but more convenient.
reply