Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | hyperific's commentslogin

I definitely agree that medical professionals are spread too thin and automation seems like it would be a boon but, as the article points out, the introduction of automation likely won't translate to more doctor-patient time it'll translate to doctors seeing more patients.

The solution not only introduces a problem (decreased privacy) but could reinforce the existing problem it's trying to solve.


> it'll translate to doctors seeing more patients.

This is also a good thing. Even in supposedly developed parts of the world like San Francisco it can be difficult to find a PCP that is taking new patients.


Where healthcare is concerned, America is not what anyone considers "first world". Your healthcare system is more backward than most third world nations. I would rather leave the US than receive medical treatment there. I have never even considered trusting the US healthcare system. When I lived there I would rather fly home and get treated (in a third world country) than lose all my savings getting inadequate care in the US. I know people who have been through large and expensive treatment plans in the global south, who paid less for the complete treatment than Americans pay for the ambulance getting you to the hospital.

I think its two systems masquerading as one - employed-and-insured and everyone else.

If you're the former, it works great. If you're the latter, it can be mediocre to BRUTAL. Medical debt is our #1 or 2 cause of bankruptcy iirc.

Regardless of which class you are, if you can access the care, our outcomes are the best in the world for most things.


> If you're the former, it works great.

I don't think that's true at all. "Insured" doesn't mean just one thing. There are many different kinds of insurance, levels of plans, etc. Most insurance companies will do their best to deny claims or push more responsibility onto the patient.

My insurance is very good, but I see a therapist weekly and my insurance only covers about 40% of the cost. I'm fortunate that ~$500/mo isn't a problem for me, but many people in the US would find that impossible.

A few months ago I went to the ER for what turned out to be gallstones, and was still on the hook for $200 of that visit. And I took a Lyft the the hospital; I don't want to think about what my out-of-pocket cost had been if I'd needed an ambulance.

Last summer I hurt my hand in a bicycle accident, and went to PT once a week for 6 weeks. I had to pay a $35 co-pay for each visit; that's $210 for a single injury.

And this is with fairly good insurance. Many, many insured Americans just have so-so insurance. From what I hear of most healthcare systems in countries that do this right, most (if not all) of this stuff would have been completely free.

> If you're the latter, it can be mediocre to BRUTAL

Yup, and in a way that's an even worse indictment, that really puts us in worse-than-third-world territory.


Your healthcare system is more backward than most third world nations. I would rather leave the US than receive medical treatment there.

And yet the wealthiest people in the world, who can have the best healthcare anywhere they want on the planet, even with private doctors, routinely choose to be treated in Rochester, Minnesota; Boston, Massachusetts; Houston, Texas; Baltimore, Maryland; and Los Angeles, California.

The U.S. is by no means perfect, but there's a reason that there are entire medical facilities in the U.S. that cater exclusively to people from other countries. Just listen to local radio in Palm Springs and you'll hear commercials along the lines of "Tired of waiting, or simply can't get the medical care you need in Canada? Come to our hospital!"

Meanwhile, if I wanted to have my recent surgery in Canada, I'd have to wait almost a year for a slot to open up. Here I waited all of two weeks. And the newspaper headlines in the UK are full of horror stories of patients dying in hospital hallways while doctors are on strike because everything is so great.



"If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. Over-specialize and you breed in weakness. It's slow death." - Major Motoko Kusanagi, Ghost in the Shell (1995)

Interesting that he explored wax as an interstitial "image sensor" medium. Given the low melting point of wax you would risk part of your camera melting during hot days, or the wax gradually settling on the bottom from heating and cooling cycles.

Kudos to him for exploring it though! The leftover wax could supply a small candle making operation.


The live action reference material is likely the property of 20th Century Animation, Inc, now owned by Walt Disney Studios.

Get your Part 107 federal drone license and volunteer for your local fire department or search and rescue. When the FD responds to structure fires they sometimes have to go up on the roof to cut an air hole. This allows oxygen into the building which helps prevent backdrafts. A FLIR equipped drone can help direct the hole cutter around hotspots on the roof. If your local fire department has a drone, it might not have the staff to be able to use it on calls.


How involved is the license? I've flown racing quads and RC planes, so I think I have the hand-eye coordination and spatial awareness skills.

Is this something that would be saturated in the Bay Area? Does the SAR team provide the drone?


You'd need to schedule and take an exam. There are lots of resources online to help you study. I recommend the Youtube video from Tony and Chelsea Northrup.

I'm not sure how saturated it would be. My advice would be to contact the closest FD (or PD if you wanted to go the SAR route) and ask. If they say they're covered, ask if they know any other stations that could use a hand. There's bound to be a department that needs volunteers.

The FD should have an enterprise level DJI (or equivalent) with color and IR cameras but it will probably depend on how well funded the department is. SAR may be a different story as far as equipment but I don't know since that's not the route I pursued.



Maybe the Osprey's reputation is due not only to the accident rate but also to the fatality rate. A fatal accident in a standard F-16 (not the 2 seater), assuming no one outside the plane is killed, means 1 death. A fatal accident in a V-22 with the same assumptions would have a minimum of 2 deaths (pilot and copilot) at a soft maximum of 26 deaths (2 crew + 24 passengers, possibly more if overloaded).


All flying craft that cannot glide by itself should have failsafe parachutes. If one engine goes out the other engine needs to stop too to prevent flipping. Parachute is easily acceseible behind a red lever with glass to break


The osprey has both engines tied together for this exact reason. One engine can turn both props. It's part of the complexity of the thing. It's just too complex.


This is correct.


You might like "The Bomb" documentary from 2016. "[It] explores the culture surrounding nuclear weapons, the fascination they inspire and the perverse appeal they still exert."

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5596034/

https://www.thebombnow.com/


Glad they're still doing these. I really enjoyed Scan of the Month and then they just stopped doing new scans after the Moka Pot.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: