From a user experience perspective it's interesting that it may be a worse experience to get a set of links and have to pick from them and use cognitive effort to discern which sources are reliable, than to simply use ChatGPT and get an answer. But this step is precisely where verification happens.
I didn't suggest that people are good at making that effort. They arent. But the irony is that it's precisely in that difficulty that the act of verification lies. The fact that it's so difficult that it's not at all an efficient method for discernment suggests that it's either done on purpose or Google's UI is just not good for that purpose, or both.
Theres probably lots of cheese that you could say the same about that is well enjoyed. That said, I don't know if the whale skin I had could be called "good" to my taste. It was beluga I think, from the Canadian arctic. What was striking though was how sour it was and the strong taste of ascorbic acid. With a very chewy texture.
Not that replace standard brushing, but I worked with a company in Denmark called Novozymes. They produce enzymes for a variety of applications including dental care. They have a set of enzymes that they license to Unilever for a toothpaste called Zendium, which has some market share in Northern Europe. The enzymes break down microfilm that develops on teeth, making brushing more effective. There was RCT done on it I believe, I read the paper years ago, can't seem to find it now though.
Seeing as they pass through the acid in your stomach (and will denature there, which is the point of your stomach) you must be primarily worried about any of the bits before that. These enzymes are made to go in your mouth. If they dissolved the tissues in there they wouldn't be appropriate for that, so this is not a concern.
Good observation. This already happens within certain hospital systems, based on "protecting the numbers". So for instance a surgeon not wanting to take on a patient because it is a likely mortality on their record.
Wrong. A democracy, at least a functioning and legitimate one, is not judged by enacting the will of the majority, but by protecting the rights of the minority.
Interesting, why is Nestjs used by so many online casinos? Is that random or is there some specific feature or approach used that is particularly valuable for that use case?
Online casinos have usually been very aggressively sponsoring anything and anyone willing to take their money (and the usual reputation hit that can come with the perceived shadiness of gambling). That's especially true for newcomers who just burn as much money as they can, trying to establish a foothold. I'd say, being on the front page of a popular, credible project like that is probably sought after, hence the unusual amount of casino sponsorships
Is a blockchain strictly necessary for decentralization at all? If the issue with decentralization is control and governance rather than technology, why not have a cooperative model that still functions on a centralized database?
I'm guessing your question is rhetorical, but in case it isn't:
Repeat after me: "blockchain is only required if you want to solve a problem that deals with permissionless, trustless and distributed consensus".
- permissionless: no previous vetting/authentication/authorization of any participant. If you can a priori authenticate users, you can have a decentralized system with Paxos, and you can run a "decentralized" governance system based on simple "web of trust".
- trustless: no participant is assumed to be reliable/honest
- distributed: the network can suffer disconnections and partitions, but the overall system can still work.
If you can choose who will be allowed to define "consensus", you can use other BFT consensus solutions, so no blockchain is needed.
If you have a "cooperative" model, this assumes that you can trust the participants, so no blockchain is needed.
If your system can withstand network disconnections/partitions, no blockchain is needed.
They're equivalent. If at least 1 participant is unreliable/dishonest and I don't know which one, the only logical reaction is to treat them all the same until I can determine the culpable one.
Perhaps, but it feels a bit like the Monty Hall paradox/game. If you know which ones are more truthful, then the odds aren't as bad as "everyone must be guilty until proven innocent."
"Innocent until proven guilty," the modus operandi of the US judicial system, at least in theory, is the design of a system that assumes trust and removes offenders.
The cooperative model requires people to coordinate on choosing the same human authority figure.
Blockchain only requires people to coordinate on choosing the same programmatic criteria for block validity (and then choosing the longest valid chain).
Which practically ends up the same - see the Etherium fork/rollback.
One potential use maybe would be a blockchain that is openly run by a company (80+% of nodes or something) but if you also run a note it could continue after the company ceases to be.
There are other ways to do that but it might almost be a reasonable use case.
I'll ignore everyone else here, but the comment on Dewey from that quote is absurd and a total mischaracterization (no doubt to discredit him because of ideological bias). Ironically, Dewey was the champion and creator of child centered, project based, and competency oriented education. Nothing could be further from either destroying people's reasoning capabilities, or deliberately undermining a person's potential, creativity and intelligence in service of the State. Dewey's rolling over in his grave!
"There isn’t good evidence that people overuse the ER"
Have any of the people quoted been in an ER? Even accepting the premise that hospital prices are outrageous for ER visits, walk into any hospital and it should be clear that a lot of the patient population is not there for an "emergency". In the US, the ER acts as a catch all for what often should be handled by social services (some of which don't exist). Drug seeking patients, homeless patients, and patients with mental health issues very often end up in the ER.
> Drug seeking patients, homeless patients, and patients with mental health issues very often end up in the ER.
A lot of these people end up in the ER because they don’t have any health insurance at all. But that’s well outside the scope of the “issue” the health insurance company describes in the article. I have had friends and family who had to be dragged to the ER because they didn’t think their situation was enough of an “emergency” but it absolutely was: chest pains were a heart attack in progress and a fever with a stiff neck was a pretty serious infection, for example.
How many legitimate emergencies vs “non-emergencies” will be discouraged from receiving ER treatment? I suspect legitimate emergency treatment foregone will be larger (and represent a significantly larger cost savings to the health plan) at the expense of our collective long-term health and well-being.
Indeed, I think the whole "ER overuse" thing is a smoke screen. Yes an ER has certain facilities that are needed for truly critical situations. Been there. But if someone walks in with a stubbed toe, that person is questioned at the front desk, and is directed to a waiting room and an experience that is pretty much just like regular urgent care.
Simple non-technical solution: Build a regular urgent care facility next to the ER and shunt the non-emergency people to it.
Was doing dinner with the owner of the company I work for, some of his family stopped by to join us. They said we don’t need universal health care for everybody, because the homeless people can just use the ER
aside from the homeless, what about all the people making minimum wage who neither qualify for medicaid, nor work enough to get employer supplied insurance?
sometimes the head in the sand attitude here is fucking sickening
Not by much, and frankly they will get lifesaving treatment regardless whether or not they pay the bill. What is the negative for not paying? Destroying the credit of someone who has effectively no credit anyway? Empty threat.
People making a minimum wage or who are minimally employed can qualify for lower cost affordable healthcare insurance through the ACA. It’s available, whether people take advantage is up to them. I know someone who pays less for their ACA plan than they do for their mobile and Internet services.
Where the ACA fails is more at the middle class family level. That is where the income vs. family plan costs tend to be out of balance.
yes! I'd probably argue that a majority (or at least significant plurality) of acute care (hospital care) in the US is the direct result of the failure of social services. I include in this mental health issues directly resulting in poor health, inability to access primary care (so minor/treatable issues become severe), housing issues, drug issues, lack of elder care options, etc.
Or get fucking GERD/other minor issues that masquerade as heart attacks (tight chest, numb left arm, heart racing, lightheaded), wonder if you should go, really don't want to pay yet another $1000+ to find out it's nothing again, hear the "better be safe than sorry" voice in your head that doctors keep telling you, and then maybe go versus waiting it out.
I swear I won't really know when I've actually had a heart attack because I've been faked out too many times by GERD reactions.
I've gone about 6 times to ER for it over the past five years, and probably stayed home another ~20 times. Each time I decided to go it's been nothing.
I've driven myself to the ER each time, though, even if maybe I shouldn't, so that saved a little money. Helps that a hospital is only 5 minutes away.
I am finally getting an endoscopy soon, maybe it'll discover something treatable.
I can't help think that also ties up to some mental health issues. Anecdotal, but I know a hypochondriac, a bad one, and I think a lot of her issues stem from anxiety of leaving her daughter behind if she dies or of losing her daughter (she's raised her kid to be one too). It became really clear this past year when taking to her how she thought every little thing she had waa Covid, even when it never matched the symptoms, and was always worried about how it'd affect her daughter.
She's also very much an overprotective parent in a lot of other ways, and I can't help but think the hypochondriac part stems from that.
Could someone with more knowledge explain to me "urgent care" and if there could be a case made to expand it?
I got injured (not too bad) and went to urgent care - my wait time was about 10 minutes. It costs me nothing, seems like a good system that would catch a lot of these borderline ER cases we hear about.
In my case, my insurer runs the hospital so it seems like they have an incentive to keep costs reasonable. But maybe, if you're a hospital and you are running numbers on adding ER or Urgent Care you default more to ER since you know you can just bill the insurance 10% over cost (or whatever) no matter what.
