New diabetic wonder drugs come from two ugly predators: Angler fish and Gila monsters. (NYT)

Tyler Cowen on the lab leak. (Should we hope it’s true?)

Dr. Marty Makary: Ten reasons why we know Covid-19 leaked from the Wuhan lab.

%d bloggers like this:

The most cost-effective green policy would be to phase out anti-green government spending. One obvious example: $200 billion a year to encourage people to build ever-larger houses with longer commutes, once the TCJA expires. Strangely only the non-green Republicans have ever tried to limit said spending, with Democrats opposing at every opportunity.

Even stranger, environmentally extremist California has the same anti-green tax policy, and refused to follow the TCJA’s lead in limiting mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Even though this would have raised revenue to support their other green boondoggle projects.

“In the US, BMI is determined by dividing a person’s weight in pounds by the person’s height in inches, then multiplying that number by 703.”

–Yes, that would put most of us well over a BMI of 25.

You have quotation marks around PDP the formula, but your source is incorrect. The correct formula divides weight by height squared.

The CDC says “calculate BMI by dividing weight in pounds (lb) by height in inches (in) squared and multiplying by a conversion factor of 703”

I’m 6’4” and weigh 200 pounds. My BMI is 24.3 = 200 / (76 x 76) x 703

(If the measurements are in metric system, the conversion factor of 703 is not used).

The quotation was copy/pasted directly from the Post article, which was obviously incorrect. The real formula seems to be a pragmatic one, as volume and mass normally varies with the cube of a linear dimension, not the square. I can’t think of any reason why depth and width should vary exactly as the square root of height, so I assume this formula was merely an approximate best fit to the originator’s observations. It would make sense that there are people or groups for whom the formula is inaccurate.