Even from a realpolitik standpoint, there is benefit on showing consistent adherence to an ethical code. It encourages other actors to follow that same code as well. When we violate our own morals and values, we can't expect others to respect them.
How does one nation following an ethical code encourage others to follow it as well?
Following an ethical code in international affairs constrains the nation following it. It provides an asymmetric advantage to others who choose not to follow that code.
This is partly why China has become so powerful over the past three decades. They chose to ignore western ethical codes around intellectual property rights, fair trade, environmental protections, and human rights. They are powerful today in no small part to their willingness to disregard these things.
This is difficult for people to understand because in interpersonal relationships following an ethical code is 100% the path to healthy and meaningful relationships, and most modern history education attempts to anthropomorphize past interactions between nations. But the cold fact is that international politics is nothing like interpersonal relationships.
A nation can encourage other nations to follow their ethical code by threatening to use force if they don't. They can create incentives to encourage nations to change their behavior through trade or treaty. But I can't think of a single time in history when a nation was such a shining star of morality that they inspired other nations to change their ways and adopt their ethics.
You can't expect other nations to respect your nation's moral and ethical values when they don't care about them in the first place and in fact hope that you choose to follow them to the fullest extent so that you're easier to compete against.
I agree with you that the Fundamental Attribution Error typically wins the day. If people are making a mistake, find the systemic solution. But, it's critical to include Education as one of the potential components. If false readings are always a possibility, the alternative to expecting people to double check results is that we don't allow devices like this on the market.
>the alternative to expecting people to double check results is that we don't allow devices like this on the market.
Excellent, to avoid killing a few people a year, you've killed thousands.
If you're not a diabetic or if you have no medical experience around this kind of device, kindly butt out and mind your own business. Low blood sugar in the middle of the night is an immediately deadly condition that needs treatment or the patient can end up with brain swelling. It's also not a condition that will wake the person experiencing it up. Having a CGM blare and alarm has saved countless people and given them a far better life from better sleep, less anxiety, and not randomly dying while resting.
Every CGM comes with directions telling you to calibrate the unit often and do blood stick tests to ensure the unit is working properly. Any diabetic should also be under the care of an endocrinologist as it's a complicated and deadly disease with lots of terrible ramifications.
Agree. The linked FDA recall said the 7 deaths are "associated", which could just mean contemporaneous. This article is written by a new diabetic who doesn't seem to understand the disease very well yet, and is sensationalist in its reporting (perhaps unintentionally). They are probably opening themselves up to a defamation lawsuit here and are certainly disseminating misinformation, sowing FUD in service of an agenda, however well intentioned.
I rarely do this, but I'm flagging the article in hopes of limiting its exposure to new readers.
The OP is hardly anywhere near as sensational as the latest AI generated github something-or-another typically posted here. I found the article extremely useful and would not be aware that it effected MORE THAN ONE product line. Please don't let @dang bury this IMO. If you have an alternative URL please post it!
He's not intentionally sensationalist, he's just flat out wrong. An uninformed piece like this does not belong here IMO without heavy context provided front and center.
Cancer isn't caused by proteins in the way you might think. Its definitely not infectious at the protein level. You could ask if this disruption spreads out cancer cells themselves and that would be fair to ask. But then the cancer cells were already in your body and were likely trying to migrate to other sites anyway.
The success of surgery to remove solid tumors usually hinges on whether there are "clean margins," meaning they were able to remove all the bad tissue and a little good surrounding tissue just to be sure. It's likely that the same principle applies using this new procedure: if you blast the whole thing and trust the body to clean up the mess, hopefully there won't be anything left to worry about.
> Histotripsy generally seems to stimulate an immune response, helping the body attack cancer cells that weren’t targeted directly by ultrasound. The mechanical destruction of tumors likely leaves behind recognizable traces of cancer proteins that help the immune system learn to identify and destroy similar cells elsewhere in the body, explains Wood. Researchers are now exploring ways to pair histotripsy with immunotherapy to amplify that effect.
the article talks about this, the (too vaguely explained) tldr is that pulverization allows neoantigens to be exposed to the immune system rather than hidden within a tumor. i saw elsewhere (weeks ago) an article that this worked excellently, but this article seems to not reference it.
Does anyone else agree with this the premise of this article? Is it sensible to put off building things now because it will get even cheaper and faster later?
Maybe the time value of time is only increasing as we go.
In general, we should focus more on what endures over what changes. Focus less on the times and more on the eternities. People very often drown in the noise of passing fads and fashions and ephemeral tech. Can you become really skilled at using some piece of tech? Sure. Is it worth becoming really skilled? It depends on the circumstances and the particular person, but in most cases, probably not. It usually is a waste of time (but given the kinds of SFVs that people publish or hobbies people have, people are generally quite good at frittering away their lives on stupid shit).
Incidentally, this is how you can distinguish between a good CS curriculum from a bad one. A good one focuses heavily on principles; the particular technical trappings are mostly just a medium, like Latin used to be in academia, now replaced by English. You pick up what you need to do to the job.
The conclusion that you should wait to build anything is an illustration of the danger of economic inflation that the author started with. I'm not sure why he thinks the economic version is toxic but the technological version is a good idea though.
The answer to should we just sit around and wait for better technology is obviously no. We gain a lot of knowledge by building with what we have; builders now inform where technology improves. (The front page has an article about Voyager being a light day away...)
I think the more interesting question is what would happen if we induced some kind of 2% "technological inflation" - every year it gets harder to make anything. Would that push more orgs to build more things? Everyone pours everything they have into making products now because their resources will go less far next year.
> I think the more interesting question is what would happen if we induced some kind of 2% "technological inflation" - every year it gets harder to make anything. Would that push more orgs to build more things? Everyone pours everything they have into making products now because their resources will go less far next year.
Government bonds already do this for absolutely everything. If I can put my money in a guaranteed bond at X%/year then your startup that's a risky investment has to make much better returns to make it worth my while. That's why the stock market is always chasing growth.
I agree. I had several projects lined up and I delayed one because it used same tech as another significantly smaller project, so I learned the tech on the smaller simpler project and then used the knowledge on the bigger project. It was beneficial to not do the bigger project first.
I think you're right. The author is quite wrong on many aspects in my view. One of the central mistake he makes is that creating a profitable startup is mostly a matter of shipping good product i.e.
> Used to be, you had to find a customer in SO much pain that they'd settle for a point solution to their most painful problem, while you slowly built the rest of the stuff. Now, you can still do that one thing really well, but you can also quickly build a bunch of the table stakes features really fast, making it more of a no-brainer to adopt your product.
Yeah, and will be done by somebody else. I think this is the main problem, and if you get rid of it, you'll have a completely sensible strategy. I mean there are many government contractors who, through corrupt connections, can guarantee that work will be awarded to them, and very often doing just that.
UUIDs take up 36 bytes as strings so store them natively as 16 bytes instead if you can.
This is still 2x the space of an auto increment number.
This is overhead for every table, every index, and every relationship.
That might be acceptable in your case though, the case where it became unacceptable in my experience was in a MSSQL Express context. But it was an idiotic decision to use MSSQL to begin with in that scenario.
Regarding random clustered indexes. Broadly speaking you want your clustered index to be made up of some incremental unique set of fields.
I mean, technically there is not a massive issue, but the largest tables in your database will be the non-indexes (indexes are just tables) and you want your big, mainly append only, tables to be nicely compact so a bunch of space isn't taken up by half full pages.
But again, I should honestly have clarified that the problem was mainly an MSSQL Express problem where databases are limited to 10GiB.
You might honestly be fine, but do look for documentation on your specific database.
It makes a ton of sense in theory. In a fair market, you would want to prevent the insurer from charging super high premiums that let them make a large profit relative to the cost of care provided.
The problem is that it doesn't stop there. There is a second order effect.
I'm not an American, I'm an Australian. Our gun deaths sit at 0.9 per 100000 people instead of 14 per 100000 and I approve of our gun laws. In that sense, I guess I'd say that roughly 6% of this gun death was okay.
In a broader sense, it is of course not okay to shoot someone, but that's taking the quote out of the context of gun control measures.
Yeah I don’t really get the 2A people who want guns to protect from a tyrannical government. To do that you’d need to make a whole lot of other things legal like tanks, anti aircraft missiles, artillery, etc, and allow civilian groups to get together and practice using those things for combat. Without that, the intent of the 2A has sailed long ago.
It isn't okay for anyone to die from gun violence, but if we're gonna have to expect people to be sacrificed on the altar of the gun nut lobby, then it makes the most sense that the gun nuts should be the ones to suffer the consequences of the policies they support. The tree of liberty and blood blah blah blah.
