Monday, June 30, 2014

I am shocked, shocked that Facebook is manipulating my newsfeed



A new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims to lend support to the popular but controversial notion of “emotional contagion” ...

Working with Facebook, the study's authors grabbed two big groups of the site's users. For one of them, they dialed down the frequency with which positive posts written by their friends appeared on their news feeds; for the other, they did the same thing but with negative posts (as always, users could still see all of their friends' posts by clicking on their profiles). Users in the fewer-happy-posts group subsequently posted in a more negative manner, the researchers write, while users in the fewer-sad-posts group did the opposite, suggesting that good and bad moods were effectively transmitted through the Facebook network. ...

...some folks are freaking out that they were served up manipulated versions of their news feeds, possibly making them (ever so slightly) happier or sadder. ...

...when you actually look at how Facebook's news feed works, the anger is a bit of a strange response, to be honest. Facebook is always manipulating you — every time you log in. Your news feed is not some objective record of what your friends are posting that gives all of them equal "air time"; rather, it is shaped by Facebook’s algorithm in very specific ways to get you to click more so Facebook can make more money...

So the folks who are outraged about Facebook’s complicity in this experiment seem to basically be arguing that it’s okay when Facebook manipulates their emotions to get them to click on stuff more, or for the sake of in-house experiments about how to make content “more engaging” (that is, to find out how to get them to click on stuff more), but not when that manipulation is done in service of a psychological experiment. And it's not like Facebook was serving up users horribly graphic content in an attempt to drive them to the brink of insanity — it just tweaked which of their friends' content (that is, people they had chosen to follow) was shown. ...

Many of the folks most outraged by this seem to be Facebook users (I can tell because they are venting their outrage on Facebook), so if they find this sort of behavior to be unconscionable, they should think twice about using the site.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

John Roberts's smackdown for privacy

In a major statement on privacy rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the vast amount of data contained on modern cellphones must be protected from routine inspection....

The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said cellphones are not materially different from wallets, purses and address books. Chief Justice Roberts disagreed.

“That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,” he wrote.
--Adam Liptak, NYT, on false equivalences

World Cup fake injuries rankings

With this in mind, the Count loaded 32 World Cup matches on the DVR and set out to perform a comprehensive empirical study aimed at determining one thing: Which World Cup participant nation is the world's floppiest? ...

To be fair, it is actually possible to get hurt playing soccer. ... There were nine injuries in total that forced players to be substituted from the game and to miss, or potentially miss, a match. These were discarded. ...

The study showed one thing emphatically: The amount of histrionics your players display during a match correlates strongly to what the scoreboard says. Players on teams that were losing their games accounted for 40 "injuries" and nearly 12.5 minutes of writhing time. But players on teams that were winning—the ones who have the most incentive to run out the clock—accounted for 103 "injuries" and almost four times as much writhing. ...

The Team Most Commonly Seen in Anguish: Brazil. There were 17 incidents in two games when a member of the Seleção was seen on the ground in pain—the most of any country. World Cup poster boy Neymar had five such "injuries," the most on his team. In every case he was back on his feet within 15 seconds.

The Overall Writhing-Time Champions: Honduras. Los Catrachos spent the most time on the ground or being tended to by trainers: seven minutes and 40 seconds to be exact. Naturally, five minutes and 10 seconds of that came in the first half against France when the match was tied (which would have been good enough for them).

The Team Most Likely to Grin and Bear it: Bosnia and Herzegovina. These World Cup newbies obviously don't get how this works. They only had two "injuries" in two games for a total of 24 seconds of writhing time.

The Team With the Most Carnage in One Game: Chile. While they protected an early lead against Spain, the Chileans tallied 11 "injuries," more than 24 other teams had in two games.

The Fastest "Injury" Yet: Enner Valencia, Ecuador. Against Honduras, Valencia was on the ground, clutching his leg after four seconds.

Worst Use of a Stretcher: 5 players (tie) Of the nine players carried off in these matches, five returned—all in less than 90 seconds, including American DaMarcus Beasley.

--Geoff Foster, WSJ, on the worst part about soccer

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Student debt is not a bigger problem than before



The misperceptions matter because they distract us from the real trouble with our higher education system. It’s not the graduates of expensive colleges who are struggling to get started on a career. Such graduates make for good stories (and they tend to involve the peer group of journalists), but history suggests that most of them will do just fine.

The vastly bigger problem is the hundreds of thousands people who emerge from college with a modest amount of debt yet no degree. For them, college is akin to a house that they had to make the down payment on but can’t live in. In a cost-benefit calculation, they get only the cost. And they are far, far more numerous than bachelor’s degree holders with huge debt burdens.
--David Leonhardt, NYT, on the myth of exploding student debt

Monday, June 23, 2014

Why you look more attractive in sunglasses

Why does nearly everyone instantly look more attractive with sunglasses on? ...

Because they really do make your misshapen face look better. Put on a pair of sunglasses, and voilà – instant symmetry! The dark lenses cover up any asymmetrical oddities around your eyes, and research on facial attractiveness shows a clear link between symmetry and our perception of beauty.

As an added bonus, [senior lecturer or art and design at Nottingham Trent University Vanessa] Brown pointed out, sunglasses provide a kind of scaffolding effect, imposing the appearance of an external, extra-chiseled bone structure on top of your relatively softer-featured face.

Because mystery. Many of the snap judgments we form about people come from looking them in the eyes; shade yours, and you’re instantly a more intriguing presence. ...

It's colloquial wisdom that an air of mystery increases sexual desire, and research bears that notion out. ...

Because of their historical link with edginess and glamour. We take their ubiquity for granted today, but sunglasses are a relatively modern everyday accessory, Brown said. Sales started to pick up in the 1920s, but they didn’t become commonplace until about two decades after that. The way sunglasses were most often used prior to their commercialization helps explain some of their inherent coolness, Brown said, because in their early days sunglasses were primarily used during risky water and snow sports, and were also associated with new technologies like airplane travel, which made them seem “daring and thoroughly modern.”

Soon after that, Hollywood stars of the 1950s and 1960s started wearing sunglasses to defend themselves from being recognized by the public or harassed by paparazzi, whose flashbulbs would often explode violently, sometimes literally in their faces, Brown said. But regardless of practicality, movie stars’ adoption of the accessory cemented the link between sunglasses and glamour.
--Melissa Dahl, New York, on answers to a profound mystery

The government's hidden tax of time

In particular, people who hold offshore mutual funds must file IRS Form 8621 for each investment, even if several different funds are held in a single account. The IRS estimates that each form will take more than 35 hours to complete—after the taxpayer spends 11 hours to learn the requirements.
--Laura Sanders, WSJ, on the leviathan

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Drunken behavior depends on cultural norms

A basic anthropological insight about drugs and alcohol is that the effect of a drug is a result not just of biology, but also of culture. The classic argument on this is “Drunken Comportment,” a 1969 book in which Craig MacAndrew and Robert B. Edgerton said that the effects of alcohol depended on local expectations. They wrote that when Americans drank, they fought, argued and were much more relaxed about sex.

When American undergraduates get drunk, they throw sofas out of the frat house and wake up next to people they didn’t think they knew. That’s because we Americans think that alcohol is disinhibiting and that we can’t really control what we do.

That’s not necessarily the case in other cultures. Mr. MacAndrew and Mr. Edgerton gave example after example of people in other cultures who drank plenty of strong alcohol but didn’t behave as Americans did when drunk. In these societies drunks became silent, “thick-lipped,” or they grew talkative, but not violent. ...

How people act when drunk, these anthropologists argue, is a learned behavior. People learn what it is to be drunk and what drunkenness permits.

Since then, anthropologists have demonstrated that this principle applies — to some degree — to the experience of many different drugs. As Eugene Raikhel of the University of Chicago summarizes the literature, drug experience is determined not only by the body’s chemistry but also by local ideas about what those drugs should do.

Right now, for many people, marijuana conjures up the mellow calm of the Rocky Mountain high. But that mellowness is associated with a set of cultural cues that may not be shared by all who buy legal cannabis. Alcohol is a factor in about 40 percent of violent crimes, according to surveys of perpetrators. Let’s hope that the meaning of being high doesn’t migrate.

Friday, June 20, 2014

When consulting case interviews don't work

It is a glorious spring Sunday, the day before commencement at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Among the many alumni returning to the campus is billionaire Chinese financier Zhang Lei, 41, who is a familiar figure here. In 2010 he announced a gift of the propitious amount of $8,888,888 to Yale School of Management, the largest donation made to the business school from one of its graduates. ...

I ask how he came to be a student at Yale. Born in 1972 in Zhumadian, a village in Henan province, central China, Zhang doesn’t come from a wealthy background. He scored the highest marks in the province on his college entrance exams and so won a scholarship to Renmin University in Beijing, where he studied finance.

He wanted to go on to graduate school abroad but didn’t have the money. “The reason I just applied to graduate schools in the US was simple – they were the only ones I knew that gave scholarships,” he explains in lightly accented US English. “I received a scholarship from Yale. Unfortunately, when I first came to Yale I did not even realise that the scholarship I got was for only one year [of the three-year course]. I urgently needed to find work. So I got a job at the investment office.” ...

He tells me that at one point, desperate for an internship, he had an interview with one of the management consultancies in Boston. It was an ill-fated encounter. Short of funds, Zhang had asked the firm to pay for his train ticket in advance rather than being reimbursed later, as is the norm. “They asked me about a case study about how many gas stations should a certain company ideally have within a certain region. I asked, ‘Why do people need gas stations?’

“When you think about it, it is not a foolish question. What is the function and can it change? Is it, for example, a good place to do grocery shopping? Can it be replaced? Become obsolete, say, because of electric cars? But this person looked at me pityingly and said, ‘Perhaps you don’t have the intellect to be a consultant.’ I had many first round interviews but I rarely was invited for the second round.”
--Henny Sender, FT, on culturally biased interview questions. Kind of like the time I was asked to estimate how many loaves of bread were sold each year in Indiana, and the interviewer couldn't hide his contempt for my evidently ridiculous guess of how many loaves of bread a white family eats in a week.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Quantifying the bamboo ceiling in Silicon Valley

Asians make up 57 percent of Yahoo’s tech workers, compared with the 35 percent of the tech work force that is white. Yet when it came to leading technology teams, nearly four out of five of the bosses were white and less than a fifth were Asian.
--Vindu Goel, NYT, on stalling careers. Statistical discrimination or taste-based discrimination?

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Soccer is actually a British term

In May, Stefan Szymanski, a sports economist at the University of Michigan, published a paper debunking the notion that "soccer" is a semantically bizarre American invention. In fact, it's a British import. And the Brits used it often—until, that is, it became too much of an Americanism for British English to bear. ...

If the word "soccer" originated in England, why did it fall into disuse there and become dominant in the States? To answer that question, Szymanski counted the frequency with which the words "football" and soccer" appeared in American and British news outlets as far back as 1900.

What he found is fascinating: "Soccer" was a recognized term in Britain in the first half of the twentieth century, but it wasn't widely used until after World War II, when it was in vogue (and interchangeable with "football" and other phrases like "soccer football") for a couple decades, perhaps because of the influence of American troops stationed in Britain during the war and the allure of American culture in its aftermath. In the 1980s, however, Brits began rejecting the term, as soccer became a more popular sport in the United States.

In recent decades, "The penetration of the game into American culture, measured by the use of the name 'soccer,' has led to backlash against the use of the word in Britain, where it was once considered an innocuous alternative to the word 'football,'" Szymanski explains.
--Uri Friedman, The Atlantic, on linguistic backlash

Monday, June 16, 2014

Behavioral economics comes to Chili's

Chili's recently made a big change to its in-store ordering system. The chain partnered with Ziosk, the restaurant-targeted tablet-maker, to develop a series of tabletop devices that allow customers to order their meals without the pesky interference of a human. ...

And here's the intriguing thing: Chili's is doing all that because de-humanizing the restaurant is, it turns out, good business. In 2013, in a pilot program, Chili's installed tablets at nearly 200 of its stores. And the chain found, Bloomberg Businessweek reported, that the presence of the tablets could "reliably increase the size of the average check." By, often, a fairly large margin.

That's in part because the tablets set defaults for tip amounts. The machines automatically suggest a tip of 20 percent; you can go lower than that (or higher), but you'll need to actively decide to make that change. Chili's is finding the same thing that New York City taxis have: Default settings are, behavioral economics-wise, powerful. ...

But the most intriguing finding takes us back to the whim thing. Ziosk has found that eliminating the wait for a human server can boost impulse orders of appetizers at the beginning of a meal—orders that seem to be encouraged by the digital menus' large images. If you come hungry and you don't have to wait for a server and you're looking at an enormous picture of gooey nachos... there's a good chance you will order those nachos. Ziosk claims to have found a 20-percent increase in appetizer sales, as compared with standard, server-based ordering strategies.

And the bump translates to post-dinner offerings, as well. The Chili's version of the Ziosk menus is programmed to have images of dessert (a molten chocolate cake, say) pop up while customers are still eating their main courses. This has led, Chili's says, to a 20-percent increase in dessert sales. (Ziosk claims a 30-percent dessert-sale bump for its clients overall.) Coffee sales are apparently up, too. The digital menus are constantly present at the table—constantly reminding, constantly beckoning. And constantly promising, even and especially if you order that molten chocolate cake, not to judge.
--Megan Garber, The Atlantic, on defaults and cues for profit

At what income does one become "rich"?

I asked survey respondents to tell me how much money the people in their household would have to earn in a year for them to consider themselves rich. I evaluated answers that began at $10,000 and went through $4 million. In households in the lowest quartile of income, those earning less than $25,000 a year, people thought they needed about $293,000, on average, to consider themselves rich. And in households earning between $30,000 and $60,000 of annual income, the magic number was closer to $394,000. As people earn more, the multiplier on current income goes down, but the absolute number goes up in a somewhat linear fashion.

In households with annual income between $60,001 and $120,000, the dream of becoming rich comes true at $426,000, on average; and, for the top 15 percent of incomes ($120,000 and up), the average number was $501,000.

Most of us, it turns out, are chasing the elusive dream of multiplying our income to become rich, and, like Joe the Plumber, would be surprised if someone told us we were already rich. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama was trying to tell voters that he would raise taxes on other people, “rich people.” This works because most voters don’t think they are rich. ...

The next time you hear candidates talking about “the rich,” ask yourself what they mean by that. Better yet, ask them. And remember some basic facts about American household income: According to the Census Bureau’s 2012 Current Population Survey, roughly 4 percent of households earn $200,000 a year or more. Median household income is about a quarter of that — near $51,000 a year. And 25 percent of the households in America are getting by on less than $25,000 a year.

Still, about a quarter of the population thinks they could be rich one day — something both Democrats and Republicans agree on — and the pattern is clear: The more you make, the more you think it takes to be rich.
--Lynn Vavreck, The Upshot, on the ever-receding green light

The Anglo-American reluctance to dive in soccer

For better or worse, gamesmanship and embellishment — or, depending on your sensibilities, cheating — are part of high-level soccer. Players exaggerate contact. They amplify the mundane. They turn niggling knocks into something closer to grim death.

They do all this to force the referee to make decisions, with the hope that if he is confronted by imagined bloodshed often enough, he will ultimately determine he has seen some. Applying this sort of pressure on the official is a skill that, by their own admission, United States players generally perform poorly, if they perform it at all. ...

That idea, though, runs contrary to the ethos of idealized American sports. As Ramos said, American athletes are typically honest on the field, no doubt influenced by years of being told to be strong, battle through contact and finish the play. The tendency of American soccer players to eschew diving, Martino said, is directly related to the fact that diving is one of the things that soccer critics in the United States rail against so passionately.

“That cultural perception already handicaps the American player,” Martino said. ...

The best attackers in the world, including Cristiano Ronaldo and Luis Suárez, regularly fall to the ground, particularly if they feel that they are going to lose possession. And why not? If it works, they get a free kick. If it doesn’t, they were going to give up the ball anyway.

Call it cheating if you want, but having scruples can be costly. In England, for example, players have traditionally stayed upright, too, even though it has sometimes been to their detriment.

“The long refusal of English players to dive may have been an admirable cultural norm,” Simon Kuper wrote in his seminal book “Soccernomics,” but “they might have won more games if they had learned from Continental Europeans how to buy the odd penalty.”
--Sam Borden, NYT, on cultural uprightness

Sunday, June 15, 2014

College application essay howlers

The Yale applicant had terrific test scores. She had fantastic grades. As one of Yale’s admissions officers, Michael Motto, leafed through her application, he found himself more and more impressed.

Then he got to her essay. As he remembers it, she mentioned a French teacher she greatly admired. She described their one-on-one conversation at the end of a school day. And then, this detail: During their talk, when an urge to go to the bathroom could no longer be denied, she decided not to interrupt the teacher or exit the room. She simply urinated on herself.

“Her point was that she was not going to pull herself away from an intellectually stimulating conversation just to meet a physical need,” said Motto, who later left Yale and founded Apply High, a firm that guides students through the admissions process. ...

[Another] that Motto remembers reading at Yale, this one from a male student.

“He wrote about his genitalia, and how he was under-endowed,” Motto told me. “He was going for something about masculinity and manhood, and how he had to get over certain things.” ...

Motto said that one Yale applicant “actually described himself as one of the world’s great Casanovas” and said that his amazing looks inspired envy in other boys and competition among girls vying for his affection. ...

The girl didn’t get into Yale, Motto said. Neither did the boy who mulled his genitalia. And neither did Casanova. There were apparently limits to the reach of his legendary sexual magnetism, and the Gothic spires and ivy-covered walls of a certain campus in New Haven lay beyond them.
--Frank Bruni, NYT, on admissions TMI

Friday, June 13, 2014

How amazing was Yoenis Cespedes's throw to the plate? A physics analysis


I need two critical pieces of information: How far did the ball travel (D), and how long was it in the air (T). To answer both questions, I replayed the video over and over again until I was satisfied that I had a good estimate of both D and T.

First, we know that the distance to the left-field foul pole in Anaheim is 340 ft. I estimate from the video that Cespedes was about 20 ft from the foul pole and just inside the LF line when he unloaded the ball. I also estimate that the ball was caught by A’s catcher Derek Norris about 2 ft from the corner of home plate. Thus I find that D=318 ft. Next, I used several different camera angles to time the throw with a stopwatch. I found amazing consistency with that process, arriving at T=3.17 sec. ...

I made certain assumptions about the drag coefficient and the amount of backspin on the ball. The specific assumptions are not terribly important, since the final result is not all that sensitive to reasonable changes in those assumptions. Based on the video, I assumed that the throw was released from a height of 6 ft and was caught at a height of 5 ft. I then simply adjusted the release speed and vertical launch angle to make the trajectory be 5 ft off the ground and 318 from release after 3.17 sec. I find that the ball was released at a speed of 97-99 mph and at a launch angle of 12-14 degrees. ...

How accurate did Cespedes have to be to nab the runner at home plate? The replay shows that there was very little margin for error. How does that translate in the accuracy of release? ...

I found that a ±1 degree change in horizontal angle would lead to a horizontal deflection of about ±6 ft at home plate, probably making it impossible to nail the runner. I found that at ±1 degree change in the vertical angle would change the height of the ball at home plate by ±5 ft, meaning the ball would have hit the ground just in front of the plate or nearly gone over the catcher’s head. So we can safely conclude that Cespedes’s margin of error was less than (but comparable to) ±1 degree in each direction.
--UIUC physics professor emeritus Alan Nathan, Baseball Prospectus, on quantifying amazing

The astounding nature of the Manhattan Project

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

As a teenager in the 1970s, I heard talk about the desirability of rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge. Now, a replacement is scheduled to open no earlier than 2017, at least — provided that concerns about an endangered sturgeon can be addressed. Kennedy Airport remains dysfunctional, and La Guardia is hardly cutting edge, hobbling air transit in and out of New York. The $800 billion stimulus bill, in response to the recession, has not changed this basic situation.
--Tyler Cowen, NYT, on the upside of war

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Larry Holmes on Mike Tyson

What I remember was [promoter] Don King knocking at my door around 9 at night. I was retired two years. Don said he wanted me to fight somebody he said he knew I could beat. I asked him who and he said, "Mike Tyson." I said, "I can't beat Mike Tyson." Don said, "What if I give you 3½ million dollars?" And I said, "Where's Mike at?"

I'm just glad he didn't kill me. He knocked me down a few times, but I didn't feel it because the first time he hit me I was numb. After the fight, Mike said he loved me and I said, "Why'd you knock out my ass?" Mike's a great guy.
--Larry Holmes, 26 years after his knockout, on upward-sloping supply curves

Monday, June 9, 2014

Should GDP include hookers and blow?

New methods of measuring economies sometimes raise eyebrows. Even more so when they involve prostitutes and mounds of cocaine.

The U.K., Ireland and Italy are among the nations now moving to include illicit doings when tallying their gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services across an economy.

The U.K. could add as much as $9 billion to the value of its GDP by including prostitution and about $7.4 billion by adding illegal drugs, by one estimate, enough to boost the size of its economy by 0.7%. Not to be outdone, Italy will include smuggling as well as drugs and prostitution. Both changes will begin later this year. ...

Some economists question the merits—and methods—of measuring the shadows. Criminals go to great lengths to hide transactions usually conducted in hard-to-trace cash. Because the activity is beyond the easy reach of tax authorities, it isn't something that can bring in revenue to help a nation pay off its debts. All of which complicates measurement. ...

The argument in favor is simple enough. If drug sales aren't counted in a place where people spend half their income on drugs, one could conclude, wrongly, that the population saved half its money. ...

Some European countries have extra incentives to inflate the size of their economies. In addition to bragging rights, a higher GDP helps keep a nation's debt and deficits within the EU's prescribed targets.

If a nation's deficit must remain below 3% of GDP, a profligate government would want the largest possible estimate of GDP. For others, a higher GDP may end up costing governments more. The 28-nation bloc uses measures of GDP to determine how much each country contributes to the EU's collective budget.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Why the good-looking prospects in your dating pool are more likely to be jerks

Suppose you’re a person who dates men. You may have noticed that, among the men in your dating pool, the handsome ones tend not to be nice, and the nice ones tend not to be handsome. Is that because having a symmetrical face makes you cruel? Does it mean that being nice to people makes you ugly? Well, it could be. But it doesn’t have to be.

Behold the Great Square of Men. ...

Now, let’s take as a working hypothesis that men are in fact equidistributed all over this square. In particular, there are nice handsome ones, nice ugly ones, mean handsome ones, and mean ugly ones, in roughly equal numbers.

But niceness and handsomeness have a common effect: They put these men in the group of people that you notice. Be honest—the mean uglies are the ones you never even consider. So inside the Great Square is a Smaller Triangle of Acceptable Men:

Now the source of the phenomenon is clear. The handsomest men in your triangle, over on the far right, run the gamut of personalities, from kindest to (almost) cruelest. On average, they are about as nice as the average person in the whole population, which, let’s face it, is not that nice. And by the same token, the nicest men are only averagely handsome. The ugly guys you like, though—they make up a tiny corner of the triangle, and they are pretty darn nice. They have to be, or they wouldn’t be visible to you at all. The negative correlation between looks and personality in your dating pool is absolutely real. But the relation isn’t causal. If you try to improve your boyfriend’s complexion by training him to act mean, you’ve fallen victim to Berkson’s fallacy.
--Jordan Ellenberg, Slate, on selection bias at work

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Growing marijuana with scrubs, air filters, and climate control

Across Connecticut, growers are cultivating marijuana for medical use in buildings with the exacting standards of pharmaceutical factories.

Employees reporting for work at some plants will be required to change into scrubs. Then, they will pass through a room that will emit blasts of air to remove contaminants brought in from the outside. Computers will control temperature and humidity in the plant-growing areas, where an air-filtration system will screen for molds and pests.

"We aren't just growing plants in a warehouse," said David Lipton, the founder of Advanced Grow Labs in West Haven. The company is spending $2.5 million to retrofit a portion of a 62,000-square-foot building where it is the primary tenant. "We really are like a startup pharmaceutical company."