I’d be amazed if one or more of the large EMR vendors wasn’t already developing some sort of diagnostic co-pilot. They along with insurers have unique access to critical data for such applications and both have motivations… having worked for a major insurer, however, I don’t believe they have the technical competence or willingness to see longer-term value from true improvements in diagnostics vs. short-run thinking. (But I really hope I’m wrong there).
As someone who works as a service designer and design strategist, I agree, 100%. I’ve seen a general decline in rigor in the field. Many are back to making things “pretty” with poorly done research (if that) asking small-minded questions rather than thinking about context, ecosystem and systemic effects of their design decisions.
I recently took part in a panel discussion about design strategy. I kept on being dragged into discussions about project management and process. In the end, I just gave up trying to explain and they all triumphantly celebrated a "good design strategy" as being how you intend to build the thing. The question of why, or on what basis, just seemed irrelevant.
So, that kills a small part of me to hear - but also, I think it reflects this larger pattern of the UI/UX world’s seeming need to not just reinvent the wheel but large chunks of the history of the discipline of design rather than building off of thinking about systems and systems of systems by people like Jay Doblin and others.
The impact humanity has had on the planet is undeniable. Further, we really are the apex predator globally and we have caused the extinction of numerous species. By most measures it’s absolutely true that we have taken over the planet, imho.
That's a very old hat. What has Cyanobacteria done lately, as in the last billion years? Reminiscing about the glory days? We are the future (of screwing things up).
FWIW, I’ve always seen it best described as push vs. pull. You’ve expanded the idea a bit but I think it’s still a good distinction and useful for what you’re getting at.
This! Eye tracking is slow and not good - but does that just mean we need to “faster horse” it or is there another option for bridging the communication gap for people with ALS and similar diseases? I have to believe there are better answers with other tech - likely EEG (+ AI).
My family is one of the unlucky ones that has genes for ALS so I’ve watched enough family members struggle. (I’m lucky, selfishly, because I dodged the gene but I still care deeply about this).
I find it really hard to deny that platform lock-in is a powerful anti-competitive and anti-consumer force - I think you’re off base in denying its impacts and the merits of addressing it.
I largely agree with this take. But I also largely feel I'm being asked to support, who, exactly?
Note that we aren't pushing for removing the DRM. This is largely about someone wanting you to buy from another place. I can almost believe the DRM angle, but publishing houses have shown they are the far larger driver of that than Audible is. This is why libraries have to have a special license to loan out audio books. They are largely looking to force that in ebooks, even.
Perhaps a foolish question but does “simulation” necessarily imply calculation or is that just an extension of our current evolution of computing technology as an analogy for what a simulation would be? I’m not convinced the one necessitates the other.
Oh, I don’t know. I mean conceptually a simulation is just a model that changes over some axis, time being a prime candidate. I’ve seen some goofy models that use an axis other than time to create some interesting visuals. There are definitely game makers playing with some of this stuff.
Calculation may be the wrong word for what’s necessary for a simulation, but I don’t think you can have a simulation without something analogous to computing. But the computation may look foreign, think analog vs digital computers. I mean, what would it mean to simulate something if you weren’t interested in finding some measurable thing? How do you seperate the ability to observe the simulation and not be able to measure anything? I may be too steeped in engineering to be able to answer this, since the last thing I simulated was an analog circuit. But I also studied artificial life, and even there the goal was to learn something about life.
What I wonder about from your explanation is how does a simulation know where the noise is coming from. I feeling is that inside the simulation one is unable to differentiate the source of the noise.
You're not wrong. But I suspect you'd find inconsistencies if you looked hard enough. Situations where 2 things don't interact in some obvious expected way. And that's just the simple case. If you've played enough video games, you'd know that devs can easily create scenarios where there is no way to get the correct behavior between 2 objects without doing some pretty drastic changes to their game engine. (I play a lot of simulation centric games). Basically the number of ways you can poorly implement objects interacting with one another explodes pretty quickly. So that means, that the bar is pretty high, for something living in a simulation to never notice irregularities quick enough for the simulator runner to fix them, assuming the simulator runner is able to fix them at all.
I think about this a lot, and sometimes wonder if the edges of science can't be solved until some meta being comes along and implements that edge case. And then the edge cases get weirder and weirder. But really, I'm relying on my intuition of superlinearity when I think about this stuff, and I can see certain problems with simulations going to infinity faster than, say, the infinity of the infinite time argument that we must be in a simulation.
The biggest question I see is insurance coverage. I could imagine insurers moving to not cover accidents during the use of aftermarket systems like this in the same way they won’t cover incidents during track use and the like.
Perhaps you need to examine the inequities which have allowed to you amass the wealth you fear being robbed of? In short, profiting off the exploitation of others, if even indirectly, shouldn’t be viewed solely as “earning things”. Further, wealth obeys a power law distribution. Always has. Does that make it fair or right?
Lastly, would you prefer to part with some of your wealth by choice or be parted with it (and maybe your life) by force when economic inequalities pass a tipping point? Regardless of morality and notions of property ownership and personal wealth, history has plenty of examples of violent revolution when the rich few neglect the many. So, rightly or wrongly, sharing the wealth may be a survival strategy, as it were.
>Perhaps you need to examine the inequities which have allowed to you amass the wealth you fear being robbed of? In short, profiting off the exploitation of others, if even indirectly, shouldn’t be viewed solely as “earning things”.
Maybe you need to examine the inequalities in effort that cause so many people to slack of at school and work and spend all their free time watching television or the like, then the inequalities in wealth wouldn't be so surprising to you.
I went to school with the kids of business owners and executives and the biggest refrain I heard was "why do I have to do well in school when I'm just going to work at/inherit my dad's company?" as they partied their way through school and well after it. And they were right.
This argument belongs to a broader theory called "Culture of Poverty" (poor peoples' values rather than structural issues lead to poor choices which perpetuates a cycle of poverty). It was popularized by sociologists in the 50s and 60s, but has since been discredited and is not taken seriously by modern sociologists.
The funny part there is the level of intellectual laziness in that answer itself.
It’d be nice in some ways if it were that easy, wouldn’t it? Poverty would be easily ignored because it’d be chosen. Except, as noted above, even then, when economic disparities pass a tipping point, violent revolution tends to happen. So even if that idea were correct, the rich cannot afford to ignore inequality either.
