Employee performance evaluation - quantity
Maps of Memeing
2017.02.15 18:43 Downvote_the_Facts Maps of Memeing
Welcome to the official subreddit for Jordan Peterson memes.
2008.09.03 21:37 Flying
This community is for discussion among pilots, students, instructors and aviation professionals.
2012.03.27 01:17 Aradon Anime Gifs
Gifs for Anime
2024.05.02 23:23 MensaMom How do I figure out how many stickers? (This feels like an SAT question!)
I run a summer reading program at the rural library system where I work. We have six library branches in different communities that see different levels of participation in the summer reading program each year. Some branches have as few as 30 participants while others have 200 - 400 participants.
This year, we purchased six mosaic posters, one for each branch. Each poster has 3,996 squares and 3,996 colored stickers to fill the squares to create the mosaic image. Readers earn prizes for reaching progress goals (10 goals total). I want to give readers at each branch stickers as a reward for reaching progress goals, but I can't figure out how to equitably distribute the stickers to readers within the individual branches so that each branch is able to complete their poster during the two months of our summer reading program.
My logic brain tells me that each reader should earn X stickers for each goal, with X being a variable quantity proportional to the number of readers in that branch, but I cannot figure out the formula for determining how many stickers readers at each branch should get. The other variable in the formula is that only a fraction of the readers who register for our program actually participate, and only a fraction of participants complete all 10 goals.
I need someone with higher math skills than my BA in English can support, or a very bored computer programmer, to figure this out!
submitted by MensaMom to askmath [link] [comments]
This year, we purchased six mosaic posters, one for each branch. Each poster has 3,996 squares and 3,996 colored stickers to fill the squares to create the mosaic image. Readers earn prizes for reaching progress goals (10 goals total). I want to give readers at each branch stickers as a reward for reaching progress goals, but I can't figure out how to equitably distribute the stickers to readers within the individual branches so that each branch is able to complete their poster during the two months of our summer reading program.
My logic brain tells me that each reader should earn X stickers for each goal, with X being a variable quantity proportional to the number of readers in that branch, but I cannot figure out the formula for determining how many stickers readers at each branch should get. The other variable in the formula is that only a fraction of the readers who register for our program actually participate, and only a fraction of participants complete all 10 goals.
I need someone with higher math skills than my BA in English can support, or a very bored computer programmer, to figure this out!
2024.05.02 22:53 somewhere_somehow1 Exploring retirement planning for a sole owner of an LLC filing as S-Corp: between SEP IRA benefits and Roth IRA MAGI limits.
I'm a solo business owner running an LLC that files as an S-Corp. As both the owner and a W2 employee, I handle multiple financial aspects of my business, including compensation and retirement planning.
submitted by somewhere_somehow1 to TheMoneyGuy [link] [comments]
Compensation Structure
- Salary: I draw a $60k annual salary to cover living expenses.
- Additional Income: Depending on the financials for the year, I may take additional money as distributions or bonuses, choosing one of the other to maintain a favorable salary to distribution ratio to satisfy the "reasonable salary" requirements for my S Corp.
Retirement Planning Challenges
- Current Status: I have yet to open a retirement account tailored to my business and personal financial goals. I do have a Roth IRA that a contribute to, however:
- Income Variability: While my net income reliably exceeds $90k (between my salary and business income), during a good year (which is unpredictable) my MAGI could exceed the limit set by the IRS for Roth IRA contributions ($146k - $161k for 2024 as per Charles Schwab). This is what happened to me in the 2022 tax year. So, I feel uncertain about making regular contributions to a Roth IRA knowing there's a chance my MAGI might exceed the limit.
Potential Hiring
- Hiring Considerations: I plan to build my business and hire employees, but there's a possibility I could hire someone and need to lay them off. So, I want to avoid a retirement account that I cannot use if and when I hire an employee.
- SEP IRA Benefits: I like the SEP IRA option because I wouldn't be required to change my SEP IRA or contribute on behalf of any employees until they have worked for me for 3 of the last 5 years. This gives me a little flexibility and breathing room between having a retirement option that works when I'm the solo business owner, and getting another retirement option set up when I'm confident the business has a strong enough foundation to sustain salaries for employees.
Retirement Strategy Options
Considering my business model and financial goals, I am evaluating two main strategies:- Strategy A: Maximize SEP IRA and Roth IRA Contributions
- Primary Goal: Set up a SEP IRA, and use these contributions to lower my MAGI, so I can also remain eligible for Roth IRA contributions.
- Secondary Focus: If MAGI will still exceed Roth limits after SEP IRA contributions, prioritize maximizing SEP IRA contributions through careful management of bonuses and distributions to maintain the right salary to distribution ratio for my S-Corp and the fact that SEP IRA contributions must be 25% or less of my total salary.
- Strategy B: Leverage SEP IRA for Backdoor Roth Contributions
- Simplification: Open a SEP IRA and keep it empty; utilize it once a year backdoor Roth conversions into my Roth IRA.
- Avoidance of Complications: This strategy helps circumvent the pro-rata rule, and simplifies the paperwork involved.
Feedback?
I've been researching this for over a year and this is the best I've come up with so far. I'm leaning toward Option A, but realize there could be benefits of having all my retirement investments in a Roth account. Curious if anyone has any insight on this, or notices something I'm missing?2024.05.02 22:50 KohariIcath time series forecasting help
Can you please help? I have limited coding skills and i have to be sure my codes are correct or not?I have time series dataset as below. I want to forecast nex year quantity monthly basis,so 2024. I want to use statforecast library. My mape and rmse result is high Date Quantity 2020-01-31 5190 2020-02-28 5110 2020-03-31 7154 2020-04-30 2644 2020-05-31 6482 2020-06-30 12223 2020-07-31 11535 2020-08-31 10250 2020-09-30 13831 2020-10-31 13831 2020-11-30 6162 2020-12-31 13448 2021-01-31 5040 2021-02-28 9699 2021-03-31 11562 2021-04-30 5196 2021-05-31 6358 2021-06-30 3189 2021-07-31 2795 2021-08-31 3300 2021-09-30 599 2021-10-31 4090 2021-11-30 9965 2021-12-31 3935 2022-01-31 559 2022-02-28 400 2022-03-31 1959 2022-04-30 4430 2022-05-31 5833 2022-06-30 8113 2022-07-31 400 2022-08-31 6283 2022-09-30 3640 2022-10-31 400 2022-11-30 2795 2022-12-31 13831 2023-01-31 4025 2023-02-28 1994 2023-03-31 792 2023-04-30 1154 2023-05-31 497 2023-06-30 2344 2023-07-31 2239 2023-08-31 2800 2023-09-30 4492 2023-10-31 4534 2023-11-30 4386 2023-12-31 502
And my python codes as below.
''' p1.reset_index(inplace=True) p1 = p1[[‘Date’, ‘Quantity’]] p1[‘unique_id’] = “1” p1.columns = [‘ds’, ‘y’ ,‘unique_id’] train_p1 = p1[p1.ds <= ‘2022-12-31’] test_p1 = p1[p1.ds >= ‘2023-01-31’] models_p1 = [ AutoARIMA(), AutoETS(), Naive(), ] # Period we are predicting forward horizon = len(test_p1) # 12 sf_p1 = StatsForecast( df=train_p1, models=models_p1, freq=‘M’, n_jobs=-1 ) p1_preds = sf_p1.forecast(horizon) p1_preds = p1_preds.merge(test_p1, how=‘inner’, on=[‘unique_id’, ‘ds’]) plot_p1 = pd.concat([train_p1, p1_preds]).set_index(‘ds’) fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1, figsize = (12, 4)) plot_p1[[‘y’, ‘AutoARIMA’, ‘AutoETS’ ]].plot(ax=ax, linewidth=2) ax.set_title('(p1) ', fontsize=10) ax.set_ylabel(‘Quantity’, fontsize=10) ax.set_xlabel(‘Date’, fontsize=10) ax.legend(prop={‘size’: 10}) ax.grid()
def MAPE(true, preds): absolute_percentage_errors = np.abs((true - preds) / true) absolute_percentage_errors[np.isnan(absolute_percentage_errors)] = 0 mape = np.mean(absolute_percentage_errors) * 100 return mape
m_autoarima= MAPE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoARIMA’]) m_autoets= MAPE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoETS’]) m_naive= MAPE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘Naive’])
print(‘MAPE and RMSE result for p1’) print(f"MAPE for AutoARIMA: {m_autoarima:.2f}%“) print(f"MAPE for AutoETS: {m_autoets:.2f}%”) print(f"MAPE for Naive: {m_naive:.2f}%")
def RMSE(true, preds): squared_errors = (true - preds) ** 2 rmse = np.sqrt(np.mean(squared_errors)) return rmse
rm_autoarima= RMSE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoARIMA’]) rm_autoets= RMSE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoETS’]) rm_naive= RMSE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘Naive’])
print(f"RMSE for AutoARIMA: {rm_autoarima:.2f}“) print(f"RMSE for AutoETS: {rm_autoets:.2f}”) print(f"RMSE for Naive: {rm_naive:.2f}")
MAPE for AutoARIMA: 314.98% MAPE for AutoETS: 382.85% MAPE for Naive: 912.52%
RMSE for AutoARIMA: 3626.45 RMSE for AutoETS: 4382.10 RMSE for Naive: 11450.33
forecasting for 2024
sf_p1_f = StatsForecast( models=models_p1, freq=‘M’ ) sf_p1_f.fit(p1)
forecast_p1 = sf_p1_f.predict(h=12, level=[95]) '''
submitted by KohariIcath to learnpython [link] [comments]
And my python codes as below.
''' p1.reset_index(inplace=True) p1 = p1[[‘Date’, ‘Quantity’]] p1[‘unique_id’] = “1” p1.columns = [‘ds’, ‘y’ ,‘unique_id’] train_p1 = p1[p1.ds <= ‘2022-12-31’] test_p1 = p1[p1.ds >= ‘2023-01-31’] models_p1 = [ AutoARIMA(), AutoETS(), Naive(), ] # Period we are predicting forward horizon = len(test_p1) # 12 sf_p1 = StatsForecast( df=train_p1, models=models_p1, freq=‘M’, n_jobs=-1 ) p1_preds = sf_p1.forecast(horizon) p1_preds = p1_preds.merge(test_p1, how=‘inner’, on=[‘unique_id’, ‘ds’]) plot_p1 = pd.concat([train_p1, p1_preds]).set_index(‘ds’) fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1, figsize = (12, 4)) plot_p1[[‘y’, ‘AutoARIMA’, ‘AutoETS’ ]].plot(ax=ax, linewidth=2) ax.set_title('(p1) ', fontsize=10) ax.set_ylabel(‘Quantity’, fontsize=10) ax.set_xlabel(‘Date’, fontsize=10) ax.legend(prop={‘size’: 10}) ax.grid()
def MAPE(true, preds): absolute_percentage_errors = np.abs((true - preds) / true) absolute_percentage_errors[np.isnan(absolute_percentage_errors)] = 0 mape = np.mean(absolute_percentage_errors) * 100 return mape
m_autoarima= MAPE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoARIMA’]) m_autoets= MAPE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoETS’]) m_naive= MAPE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘Naive’])
print(‘MAPE and RMSE result for p1’) print(f"MAPE for AutoARIMA: {m_autoarima:.2f}%“) print(f"MAPE for AutoETS: {m_autoets:.2f}%”) print(f"MAPE for Naive: {m_naive:.2f}%")
def RMSE(true, preds): squared_errors = (true - preds) ** 2 rmse = np.sqrt(np.mean(squared_errors)) return rmse
rm_autoarima= RMSE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoARIMA’]) rm_autoets= RMSE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘AutoETS’]) rm_naive= RMSE(p1_preds[‘y’], p1_preds[‘Naive’])
print(f"RMSE for AutoARIMA: {rm_autoarima:.2f}“) print(f"RMSE for AutoETS: {rm_autoets:.2f}”) print(f"RMSE for Naive: {rm_naive:.2f}")
MAPE for AutoARIMA: 314.98% MAPE for AutoETS: 382.85% MAPE for Naive: 912.52%
RMSE for AutoARIMA: 3626.45 RMSE for AutoETS: 4382.10 RMSE for Naive: 11450.33
forecasting for 2024
sf_p1_f = StatsForecast( models=models_p1, freq=‘M’ ) sf_p1_f.fit(p1)
forecast_p1 = sf_p1_f.predict(h=12, level=[95]) '''
2024.05.02 22:49 AdCompetitive1322 Is taking 15 days off (in total) 6months into the yr too much?
Exactly the title. I’m in the UK and i’m an entry level employee working with the c suite (start up life). Wondering if this is too much and can affect my performance review?
For clarity’s sake, this is mostly taken in may - june, breakdown: 6 days in may, 3 days in June
What do you guys think?
submitted by AdCompetitive1322 to careerguidance [link] [comments]
For clarity’s sake, this is mostly taken in may - june, breakdown: 6 days in may, 3 days in June
What do you guys think?
2024.05.02 22:49 Cheekyblinders92 AND NOT ISBLANK MATCH for 2 criteria
I currently run a spreadsheet that formats based on new orders that were added to our backlog.
Right now, I have it formatted to highlight the row red if the sales order number is not in our current plan (if it was just booked recently and we do not have it on our sheet).
Ran into an issue - there are two products under the same sales order #......... so even though one is on our sheet (top circled), the other (bottom circled) isn't highlighting.
How can I change my formula to base it on two criteria in the row - the sales order number AND the SKU?
Note: the ISBLANK portion ignores blank cells so they stay white and do not turn red I5 = SO X:X is the list of SO's we've captured on our other report already.
Current formula : =AND(NOT(ISBLANK($I5)),ISNA(MATCH($I5,$X:$X,0)))
submitted by Cheekyblinders92 to googlesheets [link] [comments]
Right now, I have it formatted to highlight the row red if the sales order number is not in our current plan (if it was just booked recently and we do not have it on our sheet).
Ran into an issue - there are two products under the same sales order #......... so even though one is on our sheet (top circled), the other (bottom circled) isn't highlighting.
How can I change my formula to base it on two criteria in the row - the sales order number AND the SKU?
Note: the ISBLANK portion ignores blank cells so they stay white and do not turn red I5 = SO X:X is the list of SO's we've captured on our other report already.
Current formula : =AND(NOT(ISBLANK($I5)),ISNA(MATCH($I5,$X:$X,0)))
2024.05.02 22:42 ItsAllMat FanDuel Explore Page Finds
 | I did run a no home run round robin for fun. But didn’t post it beforehand. submitted by ItsAllMat to u/ItsAllMat [link] [comments] Quantity over quality here, I wouldn’t recommended tailing all of them. Just take a look and if somthing sparks your interest, give it a shot. I didn’t make any of these. |
2024.05.02 22:29 ahead-market ILMN Q1 2024 Earnings: Mixed Results with Revenue Decline and EPS Growth
ILMN reported a slight revenue decline to $1.076 billion and a modest EPS increase to $0.09 in Q1 2024, amidst strategic shifts and segmental challenges.
Segment Performance
ILMN's reported revenue of $1.076 billion was slightly above the average analyst estimate of $1.05 billion, while the EPS of $0.09 significantly exceeded the average estimate of $0.04. However, the revenue decline and high operating expenses raise concerns.
submitted by ahead-market to ahead_market [link] [comments]
Key Metrics
| Revenue | $1076M | -1% |
| Gross Profit | $690M | |
| Operating Expenses | $788M | |
| Operating Expenses Growth | 10% | |
| Net Income | $14M | |
| Earnings Per Share | $0.09 | 12.5% |
| Cash and Cash Equivalents | $1115M |
- Core Illumina (revenue - $1056M, profit - $218M, growth - -2%) - Core Illumina revenue decreased by 2% year-over-year, primarily due to a decline in sequencing consumables revenue. However, the segment's gross margin improved by 1.9 percentage points to 67.1%, driven by a more favorable mix of sequencing consumables and cost savings initiatives.
- GRAIL (revenue - $27M, profit - $-185M, growth - 35%) - GRAIL's revenue increased by 35% year-over-year, driven by the adoption of its Galleri multi-cancer early detection test. However, the segment's operating loss widened due to increased research and development expenses.
- Released XLEAP-SBS chemistry on NextSeq™ 1000 and NextSeq 2000 Systems, our fastest, highest quality, and most robust sequencing by synthesis (SBS) chemistry to date
- Launched Illumina Complete Long Reads (ICLR) with Enrichment, a flexible, cost-effective solution to enhance coverage of known challenging-to-map regions with targeted long reads where they provide the most value
- A recent literature review, published in the Nature journal Genomic Medicine, showed that short-read genomic sequencing (GS) reduces the time it takes to diagnose and treat pediatric patients who may have a rare genetic condition
- Appointed Ankur Dhingra as Chief Financial Officer and Jakob Wedel as Chief Strategy and Corporate Development Officer
- Appointed Jenny Zheng as Head of Region, Greater China
- Presented new data at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting that demonstrated the first real-world evaluation of repeat multi-cancer early detection (MCED) / Galleri testing showing the potential value of adding repeat MCED screening
- Exhibited 4-year overall survival follow-up demonstrating the prognostic significance of detecting cancer with a methylation-based cfDNA platform like Galleri
- Illustrated data demonstrating the power of Galleri to preferentially detect high grade, clinically significant prostate cancer over indolent cases
- Announced a collaboration with AstraZeneca in which participants from Japan will have their samples tested using GRAIL's novel risk classification test on its Methylation Platform
- Revenue (full year): $Approximately flat compared to 2023M
- Revenue (next period): $N/AM
- Earnings Per Share (full year): $N/A
- Earnings Per Share (next period): $N/A
- Illumina remains on track to divest GRAIL through either a sale or a capital markets transaction, with the goal of finalizing the terms of divestiture by the end of Q2 2024.
- In the instance of a capital markets transaction, the divestment plan requires Illumina to provide GRAIL with approximately $1 billion in funding.
ILMN's reported revenue of $1.076 billion was slightly above the average analyst estimate of $1.05 billion, while the EPS of $0.09 significantly exceeded the average estimate of $0.04. However, the revenue decline and high operating expenses raise concerns.
2024.05.02 22:27 twenty2John Thanks for sharing imz72...Building a case for MultiStem in pursuing approval for treating Acute Ischemic Stroke patients in the near future…
 | Thanks for sharing this, u/imz72... - Pharmacological and stem cell therapy of stroke in animal models: Do they accurately reflect the response of humans? - https://www.reddit.com/ATHX/comments/1cfbzux/pharmacological_and_stem_cell_therapy_of_stroke/ submitted by twenty2John to ATHX [link] [comments] (From the article) "Firstly, our understanding of the molecular and cellular processes involved in recovering from an ischemic stroke is severely limited." (My comment) If that is the case, does it follow that predicting a successful Primary Endpoint with the right trial protocols for a STROKE clinical trial will prove quite difficult?... (From the article) "Furthermore, one might attribute the overall failures in predicting and subsequently developing effective acute stroke therapies beyond thrombolysis to potential design deficiencies in clinical trials." (My comment) In the meantime, why not celebrate and build upon ANY positive outcome that proves health benefits for STROKE patients as seen in the TREASURE trial from Healios in Japan, and before that, from MASTERS-1 (MASTERS) by Athersys...Especially for a therapy (MultiStem), that can be applicable to many more STROKE patients versus standard of care (tPA and, or, Mechanical Thrombectomy). See this post for ref. - https://www.reddit.com/ATHX/comments/1790hyh/what_value_should_be_considered_by_the_fda_fo https://preview.redd.it/e1bifrkrl2yc1.png?width=881&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a157325749741b1dc82f5af4c9780109333a771 Source: Slide #13 (Unnumbered) - Athersys Corporate Presentation pdf (8/25/2023) - https://s23.q4cdn.com/674737627/files/doc_presentations/2023/Athersys-Corporate-Summary.pdf (Other References in support of MultiStem cell therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke) (1/16/2024) JAMA Neurology: Allogeneic Stem Cell Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke - The Phase 2/3 TREASURE Randomized Clinical Trial - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2813591 (Highlights) Results (Partial): eTable 3 in Supplement 2 presents the results of exploratory post hoc analyses of proportions of patients in the MultiStem group with global stroke recovery and a BI score of 95 or greater at day 365 with no correction for multiple comparisons, which were better than those in placebo group. For global stroke recovery, 29 patients (27.9%) in the MultiStem group and 16 (15.7%) in the placebo group had improvement (adjusted risk difference, 11.0% [95% CI, 0.8% to 21.3%]; P = .04). For BI scores of 95 or greater, 37 patients (35.6%) in the MultiStem group and 23 (22.5%) in the placebo group had higher scores (adjusted risk difference, 11.3% [95% CI, 0.2% to 22.4%], P = .05). Discussion (Partial): Although there were no significant differences in the primary and secondary end points between the MultiStem and placebo groups in this study, exploratory subgroup analyses with no correction for multiple comparisons conducted with patients with mRS scores of 0 to 2 at day 90 seemed to show better outcomes in the MultiStem group, particularly for patients with ischemic core volumes of 50 mL or greater and those aged 64 years or younger. Exploratory post hoc analyses with no correction for multiple comparisons indicated significantly higher proportions of patients with global stroke recovery and a BI of 95 or greater at day 365 in the MultiStem vs placebo groups. The occurrence of adverse events was comparable between groups. Contrary to our hypothesis, MultiStem did not improve clinical outcomes as expected. Previous post hoc analysis of early treatment (<36 hours) in phase 2 of the MASTERS trial reported substantially increased rates of excellent outcomes at day 365 in the MultiStem group.19 Additionally, another post hoc analysis of the MASTERS trial showed a higher rate of excellent outcomes in early treatment (<36 hours) excluding patients who received t-PA plus MT19; this exclusion criterion was also used in the TREASURE study.22 The disparity in results between the MASTERS and TREASURE trials may be attributable to the inclusion of older patients, which may have masked the immediate effect of MultiStem treatment. However, a trend toward better outcomes was observed in patients aged younger than 64 years. The median age of TREASURE participants was 78 to 79 years, which was substantially higher than the age in almost all clinical stroke studies, including the previous MASTERS trial on MultiStem,19 by more than 10 to 15 years. One potential reason may be Japan’s aging population, as the median age of stroke in Japan is 74 (IQR, 66-82) years.23 Interestingly, this age distribution concurred with participants in the TREASURE study. Furthermore, based on the safety results of the MASTERS trial, no upper age limit was set at the beginning of the TREASURE trial.19 The influence of the substantial number of older participants on the findings of this study remains uncertain. Exploration of the impact of MultiStem therapy on aging animals in future studies could provide valuable insights. Cell therapy aims to facilitate regeneration, repair, and plasticity of surviving neural tissues, which may require longer evaluation periods. The underlying mechanisms of MultiStem involve modulating the peripheral immune system and promoting a regenerative environment, which may contribute to long-term efficacy.5,24 Results from the MASTERS trial at 1 year support improved outcomes in the MultiStem group compared with the control group, despite intravenously administered MultiStem disappearing from the body shortly after administration.19 Our findings of a better trend in outcomes at 1 year, as determined by the exploratory post hoc analysis, aligns with the exploratory post hoc analysis of the MASTERS trial.19 In our exploratory subgroup analyses with no correction for multiple comparisons, MultiStem seemed to be effective when the cerebral infarction was 50 mL or greater. This is probably because smaller infarct volumes generally respond better to conventional therapy, and it can be challenging to detect the efficacy of cell therapy due to ceiling effects.27 For patients with large infarction volumes, thrombectomy may be less effective, leading to poor outcomes and increased intracranial hemorrhage, even after successful recanalization.28 Although recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of endovascular therapy for large infarctions, infarct volume remains a substantial factor in poor outcomes. Therefore, our finding that individuals with cerebral infarction of 50 mL or greater benefit from cell therapy holds crucial clinical implications, as these patients may not benefit from conventional treatments like thrombectomy. (3/20/2023) Healios PR: TREASURE Study subgroup analysis results - Three observations and future areas of consideration for HLCM051 (MultiStem) - https://ssl4.eir-parts.net/doc/4593/tdnet/2252975/00.pdf (Highlights)
2) Effect of observation period on efficacy To evaluate efficacy in terms of neurological measures, it is necessary to wait for the recovery and elongation of nerve tissue after suppressing secondary damage with the drug. Since neurological findings improve at 7, 30 and 90 days after administration of the drug, it is likely that the effect tends to be maximized (or maintains maximization) at 365 days, the longest observation period in this trial. 3) Effect of age on efficacy In order to detect clinical efficacy by neurological indices, the ability of the human body to recover and elongate nerve tissue is considered important in addition to the efficacy of the drug. It is possible that neural recovery capacity in the younger age group (64 years and younger) may be higher than in the older age group, resulting in a more favorable response. (11/2/2022) Healios PR: Results from the TREASURE Study for Ischemic Stroke presented at the 14th World Stroke Conference and the 40th Annual Meeting of Japan Society of Neurological Therapeutics - https://ssl4.eir-parts.net/doc/4593/tdnet/2196998/00.pdf (Highlights) • Global Recovery*7 (mRS<=2, NIHSS improvement>=75% and Barthel Index>=95): After 90-days (secondary endpoint), 20 patients (19.2%) in the HLCM051 group and 16 patients (15.7%) in the placebo group, with a p-value of 0.762. After 365-days, 29 patients (27.9%) in the HLCM051 group and 16 patients (15.7%) in the placebo group, with a p-value of 0.037. There was a statistically significant difference between the HLCM051 group and the placebo group at 365 days. • Barthel Index >=95: After 90-day (secondary endpoint), 31 patients (29.8%) in the HLCM051 group and 24 patients (23.5%) in the placebo group, with a p-value of 0.437. After 365-days, 37 patients (35.6%) in the HLCM051 group and 23 patients (22.5%) in the placebo group, with a p-value of 0.045. There was a statistically significant difference between the HLCM051 group and the placebo group at 365 days. *6 Barthel Index: The BI is a 100-point scale that is used to assess the ability of the patient to independently perform activities of daily living and to evaluate a range of different functions. These include the ability of the patient to walk, dress, feed, bathe, climb stairs, use a toilet, self-groom, and certain other metrics. The patient is evaluated for each activity to assess for independence, partial dependence, or complete dependence, and then, a score between 0 and 10 is assigned (10 points = independence, 5 points = partially dependent, and 0 points = completely dependent). The BI score ranges from 0 to 100; a score of 100 indicates no dependence on any activity, and a lower score indicates a greater need for assistance. In this study, BI was set as a secondary evaluation item. *7 Global Recovery: Functional and neurological deficit and recovery following ischemic stroke are evaluated using three standard methods: the modified Rankin scale (mRS), the NIH stroke scale (NIHSS), and the Barthel Index (BI). “Global Recovery” is defined as achieving scores ≤2 on the mRS, NIHSS improvement >=75% and a score ≥95 on the BI. A Global Recovery assessment using multivariate, correlation adjustment, was the primary endpoint in Athersys’s Phase 2 MASTERS-1 study run in the United States and Europe, and in this study, Global Recovery was set as a secondary evaluation item. (10/26/2022) World Stroke Org - Tweet https://preview.redd.it/vh6b01t582yc1.png?width=694&format=png&auto=webp&s=54eed3012af011e368f710ae0a67304c5311c18b Tweet Source: https://x.com/WorldStrokeOrg/status/1585213934281568257 (Why Did I Make This Post?): I was first inspired by the post by u/imz72 as noted at the top of this page - Pharmacological and stem cell therapy of stroke in animal models: Do they accurately reflect the response of humans?...Which included this statement from the article: "Nearly a thousand medicines have been evaluated for their ability to ameliorate the effects of cerebral ischemia. Nevertheless, none of them has been demonstrated to be successful." While this statement may be true (re "successful"), as far as demonstrating a statistical significant p-value <=0.05 for a clinical trial Primary Endpoint in STROKE, I wanted to provide this lengthy evidence that MultiStem has been successful in providing health benefits for certain STROKE patients...And, because of this accumulating positive data with MultiStem, it is my hope that eventually MultiStem will gain approval via the right clinical trials in the future...With the right consideration for trial protocols/endpoints as it could possibly relate to patient age, size of cerebral infarction, and 365 Day endpoints...That's all folks, Thank You!... PS. Looking forward to the in depth analysis from MASTERS-2, as it may provide important data that will lead to informed decisions for the right path forward for MultiStem in treating Acute Ischemic Stroke patients in future SUCCESSFUL clinical trials... |
2024.05.02 22:25 jindolover Would you get a second opinion on this service recommendation?
 | 2015 Mazda6 Touring, never had any issues besides blown tires and oil changes. The steering wheel is pretty stiff and requires some effort to turn (compared to a year ago), but doesn’t get stuck or anything. submitted by jindolover to mazda6 [link] [comments] If I go forth with this repair, would it help with the steering “smoothness”? Is this a common repair after 10 years? I appreciate any help and answer. |
2024.05.02 22:14 aisaint Thoughts on expanding field equations to incorporate quantum effects
Thoughts on the below approach please:
Step 1: Start with the Einstein field equations from general relativity:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c4)T_μν
where R_μν is the Ricci tensor, R is the scalar curvature, g_μν is the metric tensor, Λ is the cosmological constant, G is Newton's gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and T_μν is the stress-energy tensor.
Step 2: Modify the stress-energy tensor T_μν to include quantum mechanical effects. In this case, we consider the entanglement entropy as a source of energy. The entanglement entropy S_E between two regions of spacetime can be defined as:
S_E = -Tr[ρ_A log(ρ_A)]
where ρ_A is the reduced density matrix of region A, obtained by tracing out the degrees of freedom in region B.
Step 3: Relate the entanglement entropy to the energy content of spacetime by introducing an "entanglement energy tensor" T_E_μν:
T_E_μν = (ħc/L_P2) S_E g_μν
where ħ is the reduced Planck constant and L_P is the Planck length. This tensor represents the contribution of entanglement to the energy content of spacetime.
Step 4: Modify the Einstein field equations to include the entanglement energy tensor:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c4)(T_μν + T_E_μν)
This equation now incorporates both the classical stress-energy tensor and the quantum mechanical entanglement energy tensor.
Now, to solve the modified field equation
Step 1: Specify the stress-energy tensor T_μν and the entanglement entropy S_E for the system under consideration. These quantities will depend on the specific physical scenario, such as the presence of matter, radiation, or other fields.
Step 2: Substitute the expressions for T_μν and S_E into the modified Einstein field equations:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c4)(T_μν + (ħc/L_P2) S_E g_μν)
Step 3: Simplify the equation by combining terms and rearranging:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + (Λ - (8πGħ/cL_P2) S_E)g_μν = (8πG/c4)T_μν
Step 4: Solve the equation for the metric tensor g_μν using appropriate mathematical techniques, such as the use of symmetries, ansatzes, or numerical methods.
Thoughts?
submitted by aisaint to QuantumPhysics [link] [comments]
Step 1: Start with the Einstein field equations from general relativity:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c4)T_μν
where R_μν is the Ricci tensor, R is the scalar curvature, g_μν is the metric tensor, Λ is the cosmological constant, G is Newton's gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and T_μν is the stress-energy tensor.
Step 2: Modify the stress-energy tensor T_μν to include quantum mechanical effects. In this case, we consider the entanglement entropy as a source of energy. The entanglement entropy S_E between two regions of spacetime can be defined as:
S_E = -Tr[ρ_A log(ρ_A)]
where ρ_A is the reduced density matrix of region A, obtained by tracing out the degrees of freedom in region B.
Step 3: Relate the entanglement entropy to the energy content of spacetime by introducing an "entanglement energy tensor" T_E_μν:
T_E_μν = (ħc/L_P2) S_E g_μν
where ħ is the reduced Planck constant and L_P is the Planck length. This tensor represents the contribution of entanglement to the energy content of spacetime.
Step 4: Modify the Einstein field equations to include the entanglement energy tensor:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c4)(T_μν + T_E_μν)
This equation now incorporates both the classical stress-energy tensor and the quantum mechanical entanglement energy tensor.
Now, to solve the modified field equation
Step 1: Specify the stress-energy tensor T_μν and the entanglement entropy S_E for the system under consideration. These quantities will depend on the specific physical scenario, such as the presence of matter, radiation, or other fields.
Step 2: Substitute the expressions for T_μν and S_E into the modified Einstein field equations:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + Λg_μν = (8πG/c4)(T_μν + (ħc/L_P2) S_E g_μν)
Step 3: Simplify the equation by combining terms and rearranging:
R_μν - (1/2)Rg_μν + (Λ - (8πGħ/cL_P2) S_E)g_μν = (8πG/c4)T_μν
Step 4: Solve the equation for the metric tensor g_μν using appropriate mathematical techniques, such as the use of symmetries, ansatzes, or numerical methods.
Thoughts?
2024.05.02 22:14 DisturbedAlchemy !! SALE ALERT !! Huge Perfume Declutter! Prices will be announced this weekend!
 | https://preview.redd.it/znqfglo1m2yc1.jpg?width=6505&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3d24c1a8f86492cf6c572e0d314ff54456d28e8 submitted by DisturbedAlchemy to DesiFragranceAddicts [link] [comments] Over 30 perfumes will be up for sale! Perfumes range from sealed in the box, unboxed and opened box. Watch this space for the price list! Dropping this weekend! More details coming soon! Selling price: will be shared in the sheet Quantity remaining: 150 - 30 ml (varies) Date of purchase: will be shared in the sheet Date of expiry: proof of purchase can be provided Source of purchase: Multiple sources - online, store purchase etc Reason for selling: Annual Declutter Purchase price: will be shared in the sheet |
2024.05.02 22:12 HometownTV12 Various Drugs Seized in Drug Raid in City on Wednesday
Brockville - Quantities of methamphetamine, MDMA and cocaine were seized on Wednesday after Brockville Police's Intelligence & Drug Enforcement Unit and Emergency Response Team executed two search warrants at a multi-unit complex on Central Ave.
https://hometowntv12.ca/2024/05/02/various-drugs-seized-in-drug-raid-in-city-on-wednesday/
submitted by HometownTV12 to u/HometownTV12 [link] [comments]
https://hometowntv12.ca/2024/05/02/various-drugs-seized-in-drug-raid-in-city-on-wednesday/
2024.05.02 22:07 brmc2017 2 GA+ tickets for sale. (w/3-d magnet!)
submitted by brmc2017 to EDCTickets [link] [comments]
2024.05.02 21:50 xSolarEnergyx Amiibo order canceled
 | I ordered bayonetta (player 1) and young link. Days later i see a refund of 17 bucks turns out they refunded bayonetta and only shipped young link. Wtf nintendo didnt make enough amiibos or what!!! PSA this was when the bayonetta amiibo was instock for over 2 days!!! submitted by xSolarEnergyx to amiibo [link] [comments] |
2024.05.02 21:49 TheGainsGods Treasury Bonds
 | Hi everyone. submitted by TheGainsGods to fidelityinvestments [link] [comments] Sorry if this is a stupid question - If I buy a treasury bond that reaches maturity 5/9/24 which is next week - price $99.913 So I buy 19x with a face value of $1,000 for each but pay only $999.13 for each = $18,983.47 On 5/9/24 when the bond matures, do I then get the full face value back - $1,000 x 19x = $19,000 + the yield of 5.311% on the few remaining days like of the bond (6 days ~ $16) So essentially I’d profit ~$32.53 in those 6 days? Is this correct lol Thanks in advance |
2024.05.02 21:46 happygorls Unfair equity split?
Three people and myself cofounded a CPG company in 2021 after a previous venture failed and dissolved. Wanting to avoid the same past arguments and toxic issues and trusting we wouldn't get screwed over, we quickly divided equity with the CEO taking 84% - they were the only one committing to full time at the time. They ended up getting a full time job one year and then left to do the startup full time again - with the rest of us taking 2% each and leaving 10% up for potential advisors, investors, employees, etc.
The CEO unilaterally offered a significant equity boost to one cofounder (who was laid off from their full time job last year and now works for the startup full time) without consulting the other two of us.
When questioned, CEO dismisses our concerns, insisting we should have come to her and asked for more equity earlier. I realize we've never officially revisited the equity split/cap table over the last three years after setting it and now feel undervalued.
There's concern over a conflict of interest as the CEO controls most equity and decides allocations. Also realize we haven't been on top of normal, consistent corporate governance processes in general.
Despite CEO’s business skills, I feel our contributions and value-add aren't fully recognized and question her leadership skills and ethics. She and the other cofounder also want to begin paying themselves salaries, even though we aren’t profiting yet and don't know how our new product to be launched soon will perform yet.
Any advice or thoughts here? I have spoken with a couple local lawyers.
submitted by happygorls to Entrepreneur [link] [comments]
The CEO unilaterally offered a significant equity boost to one cofounder (who was laid off from their full time job last year and now works for the startup full time) without consulting the other two of us.
When questioned, CEO dismisses our concerns, insisting we should have come to her and asked for more equity earlier. I realize we've never officially revisited the equity split/cap table over the last three years after setting it and now feel undervalued.
There's concern over a conflict of interest as the CEO controls most equity and decides allocations. Also realize we haven't been on top of normal, consistent corporate governance processes in general.
Despite CEO’s business skills, I feel our contributions and value-add aren't fully recognized and question her leadership skills and ethics. She and the other cofounder also want to begin paying themselves salaries, even though we aren’t profiting yet and don't know how our new product to be launched soon will perform yet.
Any advice or thoughts here? I have spoken with a couple local lawyers.
2024.05.02 21:39 happygorls Feel like I’m getting screwed and gaslit about equity as a cofounder
Three people and myself cofounded a CPG company in 2021 after a previous venture failed and dissolved. Wanting to avoid the same past arguments and toxic issues and trusting we wouldn't get screwed over, we quickly divided equity with the CEO taking 84% - they were the only one committing to full time at the time. They ended up getting a full time job one year and then left to do the startup full time again - with the rest of us taking 2% each and leaving 10% up for potential advisors, investors, employees, etc.
The CEO unilaterally offered a significant equity boost to one cofounder (who was laid off from their full time job last year and now works for the startup full time) without consulting the other two of us.
When questioned, CEO dismisses our concerns, insisting we should have come to her and asked for more equity earlier. I realize we've never officially revisited the equity split/cap table over the last three years after setting it and now feel undervalued.
There's concern over a conflict of interest as the CEO controls most equity and decides allocations. Also realize we haven't been on top of normal, consistent corporate governance processes in general.
Despite CEO’s business skills, I feel our contributions and value-add aren't fully recognized and question her leadership skills and ethics. She and the other cofounder also want to begin paying themselves salaries, even though we aren’t profiting yet and don't know how our new product to be launched soon will perform yet.
Any advice or thoughts here? I have spoken with a couple local lawyers.
submitted by happygorls to startups [link] [comments]
The CEO unilaterally offered a significant equity boost to one cofounder (who was laid off from their full time job last year and now works for the startup full time) without consulting the other two of us.
When questioned, CEO dismisses our concerns, insisting we should have come to her and asked for more equity earlier. I realize we've never officially revisited the equity split/cap table over the last three years after setting it and now feel undervalued.
There's concern over a conflict of interest as the CEO controls most equity and decides allocations. Also realize we haven't been on top of normal, consistent corporate governance processes in general.
Despite CEO’s business skills, I feel our contributions and value-add aren't fully recognized and question her leadership skills and ethics. She and the other cofounder also want to begin paying themselves salaries, even though we aren’t profiting yet and don't know how our new product to be launched soon will perform yet.
Any advice or thoughts here? I have spoken with a couple local lawyers.
2024.05.02 21:36 illustriousdepths I'm about to spend $128.18 CAD on four monitor risers. What is going on? This is almost TWICE last year's price!
 | How much do you think it costs to manufacture these? I'm guessing $0.71? I haven't even gone through checkout yet where tax will be applied, but they come in packs of two, so if we just divide the total by four, that's $32.05 PER MONITOR RISER. Like what? It's all plastic. submitted by illustriousdepths to mildlyinfuriating [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/0gn9xfbfd2yc1.png?width=1450&format=png&auto=webp&s=2521c86831f7b5b37baa9bba1de23c2aa2ae4299 What's even more disgusting is that I order quite a few of these for the office where I work, and I found an old order from 2023 in my e-mail: a box of two just last year was $37.79 on May 3, 2023, and today is May 2, 2024, meaning the price in the course of 1 year went up by almost DOUBLE. It's not just shipping- it can't just be the price of shipping. Something is way wrong. Thankfully I'm using work $ to pay for these; otherwise, how do people make it in life at these prices? EDIT: with GST and PST, these four monitor risers are $142.28!! WHAT!!??! EDIT 2: Look at this monitor arm from Amazon- a much more complex piece with different kinds of metal for less than the cost of ONE PLASTIC RISER: https://preview.redd.it/x1qswhlqg2yc1.png?width=299&format=png&auto=webp&s=26403026e45e5dd4ad08ae052a58f4f8ef5e3046 EDIT 3: One might say, oh Staples is having to compete against Amazon and can't afford to keep their prices low, but look at this monitor riser from Wal-Mart.ca. It's a very similar model as the one Staples is offering, and again, all plastic. Who knew that inventing a piece of adjustable plastic could get you 25 properties around the world and an early retirement on a yacht. I hope the existence of us wage earners trying to afford bread isn't ruining your vibe, Mr. or Ms. Fellowes. Hope we're not taking up too much space on the earth for you. https://preview.redd.it/zbr6igs6k2yc1.png?width=324&format=png&auto=webp&s=bc5ba8adf5c3c6ceb2ccf7fd33da46e0c332239d |
2024.05.02 21:30 higher_self_request About energy entities
Friends, good afternoon. Today’s post is about energy entities, energy parasites. We often have questions from clients about entities. How to work with them, what they are. I’ll try to tell you in detail how this topic works.
All the souls who came here, embodied in the human body, are in one way or another carriers of entities. These are creatures from different planes, worlds. Astral, mental, energetic. All sorts of different ones. There can be any number of them in a person’s structure, in any quantities, and they themselves can be of any scale and strength. It doesn’t make much sense to delve into or understand their classification. It makes sense to be able to deal with them, namely to complete contracts with them.
Why are there essences in the human structure? Because the main task of these creatures (the simplest way of looking at things) is to anesthetize what hurts in your structure and cannot be healed by you. That is, if you have some kind of negative or deficient state or feeling in your heart, then there are absolutely entities or groups of beings that serve this difficult feeling.
These creatures constantly anesthetize this feeling that comes from your depths, do not allow you to feel it fully, and help you not to see this pain. The goal is to keep you out there until you have the opportunity to meet your goals of healing your structure. So that you don't hear your pain, so that your life is bearable. So that the heaviness, the karmic experience that happens in your life, is felt weaker in your inner life, as if in the background.
And this is their main task - so that you feel less, weaker, so that you can live, do some of your material things and not go crazy from those feelings that actually lie in your heart. In exchange, you provide them with food. That is, your energy for embodiment, your vital energy and strength, including health. This is a contract.
Here the question of cleansing from entities immediately arises. In our opinion, the idea of going to a specialist who promises you cleansing of entities is not a very good one.
What will happen if you arrange such a cleaning, if you go to a specialist. He will organize military operations in your structure. He will fight and fight with your entities - with those that he can reach and with those with whom he has the strength to cope. But what happens next? The essence of all entities is a contract with you, this contract always exists. They always hold on to your pain under contract. You will remove the essence, but your pain will remain in place. When you leave the specialist and go about your business, the very first trigger on the topic of this inner pain of yours will attract another batch of exactly the same creatures who have nothing to eat to your emotional reaction. They will live in your structure in exactly the same way, performing the same task. Anesthetize you, feed on your emotions, your energy.
Therefore, without healing your parts of the heart, without healing your feelings and states, there is no point in cleaning yourself at all. That is, this is wasted money, time, and effort.
To be continued tomorrow.
submitted by higher_self_request to starseeds [link] [comments]
All the souls who came here, embodied in the human body, are in one way or another carriers of entities. These are creatures from different planes, worlds. Astral, mental, energetic. All sorts of different ones. There can be any number of them in a person’s structure, in any quantities, and they themselves can be of any scale and strength. It doesn’t make much sense to delve into or understand their classification. It makes sense to be able to deal with them, namely to complete contracts with them.
Why are there essences in the human structure? Because the main task of these creatures (the simplest way of looking at things) is to anesthetize what hurts in your structure and cannot be healed by you. That is, if you have some kind of negative or deficient state or feeling in your heart, then there are absolutely entities or groups of beings that serve this difficult feeling.
These creatures constantly anesthetize this feeling that comes from your depths, do not allow you to feel it fully, and help you not to see this pain. The goal is to keep you out there until you have the opportunity to meet your goals of healing your structure. So that you don't hear your pain, so that your life is bearable. So that the heaviness, the karmic experience that happens in your life, is felt weaker in your inner life, as if in the background.
And this is their main task - so that you feel less, weaker, so that you can live, do some of your material things and not go crazy from those feelings that actually lie in your heart. In exchange, you provide them with food. That is, your energy for embodiment, your vital energy and strength, including health. This is a contract.
Here the question of cleansing from entities immediately arises. In our opinion, the idea of going to a specialist who promises you cleansing of entities is not a very good one.
What will happen if you arrange such a cleaning, if you go to a specialist. He will organize military operations in your structure. He will fight and fight with your entities - with those that he can reach and with those with whom he has the strength to cope. But what happens next? The essence of all entities is a contract with you, this contract always exists. They always hold on to your pain under contract. You will remove the essence, but your pain will remain in place. When you leave the specialist and go about your business, the very first trigger on the topic of this inner pain of yours will attract another batch of exactly the same creatures who have nothing to eat to your emotional reaction. They will live in your structure in exactly the same way, performing the same task. Anesthetize you, feed on your emotions, your energy.
Therefore, without healing your parts of the heart, without healing your feelings and states, there is no point in cleaning yourself at all. That is, this is wasted money, time, and effort.
To be continued tomorrow.
2024.05.02 21:18 Sadtomato99 Okay let me reword this and actually say what I want to say.
Childcare and domestic labor (stay at home mothers and teachers included) are hard, valuable jobs that directly contribute to the functionality of every day life for the people they work with and the people who employ them - you can’t say that for all jobs. Yet, they are among the most severely underpaid jobs. The reason domestic labor jobs are often underpaid is because domestic labor was traditionally performed by women, particularly women of color, and we live in a world that sadly and unfortunately massively undervalues women of color. Most domestic labor jobs were performed by slaves, indentured servants, and severely underpaid poc and immigrants up until and far after the civil rights movement. Still to this day, domestic labor is primarily performed by underpaid women of color and immigrants, worldwide.
Up until maybe the past 20 years, women of color were seen as less than a whole human in society (this was literally the law not two centuries ago). To this day they are still paid $0.60 to every dollar paid to a white man for the same quality and quantity of labor. Because that is the history and reality of the society we all are apart of, the blind assumption/bias that most people subconsciously have is that if a woc is paid 40% less for the same labor as a white man, that means any labor force woc occupy will be seen (subconsciously or not) as 40% less valuable than any labor force that a white man occupies. (Even if you are actively working to dismantle these sub-biases in yourself, you still have them.) This is why mechanics and plumbers (arguably some of the male leading domestic labor jobs) are paid at a higher and fairer wage. Plumbers get paid starting at $45/hr+. Yes, they do go to school and training, however many full time domestic workers also have degrees or certifications in childcare or otherwise, years of experience often leading back to young adulthood, and often pay for and organise their own continuing training and education.
Domestic labor, particularly that of which is performed by women, is undervalued both in society and the economy worldwide. To overcome this, which we should, we need to be actively considering in what ways we contribute to that. Being a part of the economy with such a painful and saturated past, we have a big responsibility to deeply consider what value we place on domestic work, why we give it that value, and if the financial value we give it actually matches the value of the work.
I know that I did not get this across in my first post, and for those of you following, I got mad. I’m not apologising for that. I hope you can understand. But my point is that as a part of the domestic labor sector of the economy, we have a responsibility to look at ourselves and evaluate if we are giving proper value to the work done in our sector. I really really think that we need to reevaluate the value that is placed on the work that is done in the domestic labor sector, through and through, nanny to teacher to homemaker. I am so sick of seeing “trad-wife” everywhere and that is something that has really really been hurting my heart here too. I am with you mamas, and I am sorry that I didn’t make that clear before.
submitted by Sadtomato99 to Nanny [link] [comments]
Up until maybe the past 20 years, women of color were seen as less than a whole human in society (this was literally the law not two centuries ago). To this day they are still paid $0.60 to every dollar paid to a white man for the same quality and quantity of labor. Because that is the history and reality of the society we all are apart of, the blind assumption/bias that most people subconsciously have is that if a woc is paid 40% less for the same labor as a white man, that means any labor force woc occupy will be seen (subconsciously or not) as 40% less valuable than any labor force that a white man occupies. (Even if you are actively working to dismantle these sub-biases in yourself, you still have them.) This is why mechanics and plumbers (arguably some of the male leading domestic labor jobs) are paid at a higher and fairer wage. Plumbers get paid starting at $45/hr+. Yes, they do go to school and training, however many full time domestic workers also have degrees or certifications in childcare or otherwise, years of experience often leading back to young adulthood, and often pay for and organise their own continuing training and education.
Domestic labor, particularly that of which is performed by women, is undervalued both in society and the economy worldwide. To overcome this, which we should, we need to be actively considering in what ways we contribute to that. Being a part of the economy with such a painful and saturated past, we have a big responsibility to deeply consider what value we place on domestic work, why we give it that value, and if the financial value we give it actually matches the value of the work.
I know that I did not get this across in my first post, and for those of you following, I got mad. I’m not apologising for that. I hope you can understand. But my point is that as a part of the domestic labor sector of the economy, we have a responsibility to look at ourselves and evaluate if we are giving proper value to the work done in our sector. I really really think that we need to reevaluate the value that is placed on the work that is done in the domestic labor sector, through and through, nanny to teacher to homemaker. I am so sick of seeing “trad-wife” everywhere and that is something that has really really been hurting my heart here too. I am with you mamas, and I am sorry that I didn’t make that clear before.
2024.05.02 21:09 Iammclovinnnnnnnn My seeds have shipped!!
 | submitted by Iammclovinnnnnnnn to TriploidGrow [link] [comments] |
2024.05.02 21:06 honhatlinh Holding Period Return and Time-weighted return Level 1
 | Hi everyone. Please help me to explain why the HPR fomula in CFA level 1 Curriculum for a period longer than 1 year(3 years) is computed without a cube root ( R=(1+R1)(1+R2)(1+R3) - 1). If a period of 1 year with return of 4 quaters, it wouldnt need a cube root but this is a case for 3 years (even it mentioned this is computed by compounding the three annual returns ). Shoul it be like formula of time-weighted return: Rtw=[(1+R1)(1+R2)(1+R3)1/3] - 1 submitted by honhatlinh to CFA [link] [comments] |