🐤 It's a dog's life

🏦 Markets: There were some midweek ups and downs on Wall Street with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq finishing down yesterday. A mixed bag of economic news has prompted some volatility in recent days, but investors are hanging on to solid economic growth numbers as evidence that we might not be in for a deep recession.

Gold continues to increase, with futures nearing the August 2020 record, as 10-year Treasury yields keep falling, dropping to 4.27% on Wednesday.

A “dog year” is commonly estimated to be about seven human years based on the average lifespan of our canine comrades. But if a breakthrough new medication is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (as it is expected to be), we might have to come up with a new equation.

Big dogs vs. small dogs

You don’t have to be a self-avowed dog person to know that the bigger the pup, the shorter the life expectancy, on average. That’s why a biotech company based in San Francisco is touting its new drug’s apparent effectiveness at extending the healthy years for large dogs specifically.

Here’s how it breaks down:

• Large dogs generally don’t live longer than about 12 years.
• Breeds like the Bernese mountain dog have a life expectancy as low as 7 years.
• Small breeds like the Chihuahua can live 20 years or more.

But Loyal for Dogs thinks its drug can do something about that disparity. And the FDA seems to agree.

“The data you provided are sufficient to show that there is a reasonable expectation of effectiveness,” the agency wrote in response to recent clinical trials.

How the treatment works

Loyal for Dogs says its drug is designed to be administered by a veterinarian at intervals of 3-6 months and is recommended for large and giant breeds.

The treatment is believed to limit the amount of insulin growth factor-1, the presence of which can limit a dog’s life span. So far, more than 450 dogs representing seven dozen breeds and all ages between 2 and 18 have been included in a study — with encouraging results.

The company’s founder, Celine Halioua, believes the drug can add “at least one year of healthy life span extension” and hopes to receive full FDA approval by 2026.

It’s almost impossible to go a day without seeing some new report about the capabilities and/or threats posed by artificial intelligence. And while it’s clear that the technology has mastered some pretty impressive parlor tricks, not everyone is convinced that it’s ever going to live up to the hype.

Charlie Munger’s take

Even if you don’t recognize his name right away, few people in the investment realm have ever had more clout and influence than Charlie Munger. He worked closely with billionaire Warren Buffet and was able to see the potential in a host of companies from Costco to Apple.

He also avoided sectors like cryptocurrency, about which he expressed significant misgivings.

And before his death this week at the age of 99, one of Munger’s final pieces of advice was to take the speculation about AI with a grain of salt.

Even as startup AI firms like OpenAI were attracting attention (and cash) and mainstream tech companies were investing in their own AI initiatives, he said earlier this year that he was “personally skeptical of some of the hype that has gone into artificial intelligence.”

Only time will tell

So was Munger right to be skeptical? We probably won’t know for a while, but there are some compelling arguments that support his view.

• AI isn’t turning a profit: Big companies are piling up debt to fund their AI programs and startups have huge valuations but no discernible direct income to match.
• Venture capital runs the show: Most of the money used to launch AI programs comes from VCs, which critics say are often little more than glorified gamblers.
• Proof is in the pudding: There have been many promises about AI, but so far a lot of it has been unreliable, gimmicky, and derivative.

🪖 Training tragedy: At least one of the eight Air Force members aboard a hybrid aircraft that crashed off the coast of Japan this week has been confirmed dead. The Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but has movable propellers for faster travel in the air, reportedly went down during a training exercise on Wednesday. No details were immediately available about the other seven individuals on board and the incident remained under investigation.

🏈 Shake it off: The NFL season is winding down, and this weekend’s NFC title game will feature the same two teams as last year: the Eagles and 49ers. Each franchise has something to prove, with San Francisco losing the past two NFC championships in a row and Philadelphia coming up short against the Chiefs in the last Super Bowl. Only three teams in the league’s history have come back from a Super Bowl loss to win the next one. Philadelphia wants to be #4.

🦏 Tiny rhino: One of the rarest animal species in the world just became a little less rare. Reports from a sanctuary in Indonesia confirmed the birth of a Sumatran rhinoceros, an animal characterized by its diminutive size compared to more common rhinos. As cute as the roughly 55-pound calf is, the more important aspect of the story is that it adds to the roughly 40 others currently left in existence. Once found in multiple nations, it is now listed as critically endangered.

⛑️ Daring rescue: Dozens of construction workers in India were trapped for more than two weeks in a collapsed tunnel before they were freed on Tuesday following a joint mission by several relevant agencies. Although the effort hit a few snags along the way, it ultimately resulted in the rescue of all 41 individuals trapped under the rubble. And the grateful workers were all smiles when they were greeted by a cheering crowd and firecracker display.

Whether you’re an avid hunter or you just see it portrayed on TV, you’re probably familiar with the bright orange vests and accessories commonly used to increase visibility while shooting guns in the woods.

But is that really the best color for the job? A growing number of experts — and more than a few hunters — say no. They’re switching to hot pink instead.

The debate rages

There are plenty of hunters who have no intention of trading in their orange duds, whether just based on a personal preference or due to the cultural connotations associated with the color pink.

Since hunting is still dominated by men, there’s a sizable portion of the community that doesn’t think it’s appropriate to wear pink. But folks like Kevin Clements disagree.

He’s a Seattle-area hunter who is “tired” of all the blaze orange and is keen on expanding his wardrobe to include pink … even if it attracts some good-natured ribbing from his buddies.

“I might get a little razzing for wearing pink,” he said. “My friends will absolutely give me a lot of crap. But they give me a lot of crap anyway.”

A matter of safety

Clements’ home state is one of a growing number that are recommending pink for hunters instead of orange. There are a few key reasons it’s been growing in popularity:

• Pink is more visible to humans, reducing the risk of accidental shootings.
• Animals cannot see the color as well, which makes them easier to target.
• Embracing pink might encourage more women to take part in the pastime.

Matt Davis owns the hunting brand Final Rise and says he’s seen an increase in men gravitating toward pink gear.

“They like it because they feel it’s more visible,” he said. “Also, the pink fades less quickly than orange.”