Only 10% of people who use computers have a job with any professional requirements. All of those expert tools are faking their usage statistics and market share research.
You're going to need to cite your statistics about the specific Windows-only professional requirements and how many people need them instead of continuing the snark chain.
> 15% of adults in the U.S. only use mobile devices to access the internet.
You're down to 85% already who even have the possibility of using your unicorn Windows-only software.
Yes, CNC machinists, mechanical engineers, and graphics designers exist. No, they're actually not the majority of the population. Also keep in mind this thread was talking about personal computers and not just work computers; just because some cashier's required to use a proprietary Windows XP program on their cash register doesn't mean they need to use Windows at home. Your argument is restricted to the small proportion of people who're either required or desire to do day job stuff on their personal PCs (of which not all of them actually need that highly specialized software you're referring to).
Have computer prices gotten considerably cheaper since the days when companies had human support employees? Some components have gotten considerably more expensive, so it seems like they haven't, at least on average.
Relatively speaking yes. My Macintosh Quadra 605 was around $1000 in 1994 and was a low end model at the time. Today that $1000 would be around $2100 or so. I can get an entry level MacMini for $499.
Yeah; a better comparison would be with a current generation AI workstation. I’ll randomly go with Razer, since they look pretty and are shipping 5090’s with high-end AMD processors.
The story specifically says Sam's friend Charlie contacted campus security after Sam stopped responding to Charlie and Kayla (Sam's girlfriend). Campus security wouldn't have known to check in within a day if Sam's friends weren't on top of keeping in touch with him. (Put another way, I certainly would've rotted longer than that if this had happened to me in college-- lucked into having my own dorm room & had acquaintances but not any friends who would've gone out of their way like that.)
Figure out what was going on, very obviously. Failing that, be open to observing longer instead of kicking him back out when he was still showing obvious symptoms.
His point in talking about being woken up all night was not that he didn't want to be tested, it was why would you even kick someone out onto the street at the crack of dawn who you know hasn't slept all night because you kept waking them up, let alone doing that if they're also sick? (I know the answer, not enough beds, but your "I don't see a problem here" attitude really doesn't contribute to anything.)
Beyond the case itself, I'd hazard a sad guess that the only reason this made news is because the victim's father was a lawyer who wasn't forced to simply take the hospital president's platitude at face value (and who had the time, money, and energy to put his normal career on pause and enroll in a master's program just to investigate the issue). If that were my family, it would be "that's terrible" but no actual action, because my parents wouldn't be able to do anything about it, nor would I if something like this ever happened to my own future kids.
What action would you like? In this case everyone says it was likely a rare disease and not sepsis. Like, I'm sorry that this is and will be the reality of healthcare for the rest of our lives, if you have a rare thing pop up that can kill you in a matter of days you're going to need an absurd amount of luck for a doctor to notice.
> What action would you like? In this case everyone says it was likely a rare disease and not sepsis.
I'd like them to follow the legally required prompt instructing them to test for/treat as sepsis, rather than ignoring it but falsely asserting they followed it, so they can rule that out instead of guessing about what "likely" happened.
You can hand-wave all you want about how medicine is complicated, but a doctor checking a box for something they didn't do is objectively incorrect in my eyes, regardless of what "might have happened" had they done their job correctly. All of the discussion in this thread blaming the design of the checklist that the doctors didn't follow anyway is insane to me.
What I meant by "legally required prompt" was that others in the thread have tried to explain the "poor UX of the pop-up" by saying that it's probably required to display for legal reasons (whether directly, or to avoid liability). Regardless of that, checking an item off that you didn't perform is still logically incorrect whether it's illegal or not.
There are legions of medical malpractice lawyers who would hear out your case. Personal injury attorneys advertise every place possible and they will gladly refer you to the correct place. You wouldn’t get a NYT writeup but a settlement? Litigation is as American as apple pie
I was thinking similar-- a generic law firm could probably get a small payout, but wouldn't necessarily uncover as many details about the situation since they're not personally involved (and, as you said, would probably have less publicity as well).
I think your worries are misplaced. This is bread and butter for lawyers. The problem with this case is it’s very fuzzy. We are seeing one side of the story as a lawsuit is certainly coming. Doctors are human and deal with high stress, life or death situations. They have medical malpractice insurance exactly for this. Even if you have a 99.9% perfect doctor, they will see many thousands of patients over their career, and that still means 1/1000 will die. People play the lottery on far worse odds.
I found the article interesting less as a damning of the medical system and more of a spiritual situation. None of us know when a freak random event will end us. It is a sobering reality
> I found the article interesting less as a damning of the medical system and more of a spiritual situation. None of us know when a freak random event will end us. It is a sobering reality
Should we say the same about potentially life-threatening defects in our food supply? "Mistakes happen, so it's not about fixing or preventing them, it's about spiritually accepting that you might get a bad can of meat and die." Obviously not.
> that still means 1/1000 will die. People play the lottery on far worse odds.
I don't play the lottery, though. But I can't choose whether or not I might need emergency care one day. So comparing odds to the lottery isn't useful. Make the odds as good as possible.
> They try, but they're not in a position to do anything about it.
Well, somebody's got to be, and the doctors seem like the ones with the most leverage to get those people to do something about it, right? Customer/patient pressure obviously isn't working.
> when your account is blocked you've been flagged for fraud. Nobody's going to talk to you due to legal reasons.
Devil's advocate, what are the "legal reasons" a human can't talk to someone whose account their company has blocked? Especially when the violation was apparently minor enough that it's only a 2-day temporary block?
There aren’t any “legal reasons”. There is a risk/reward calculation where a gigantic corp concludes the reward of 1 extra customer is less than the risk of 1 potentially problematic customer, so they perform the equivalent of exile.
Re-using the motor half of an electric toothbrush after a return doesn't seem egregious, but the fact that they didn't notice the tips were missing means they didn't even open them up to check their cosmetic condition, let alone clean them at all. I think that's the part that makes it bad, rather than reselling them itself.
While protein buildup is somewhat natural with aging, my understanding is that e.g. looking into the sun too much (which exposes your eyes to UV light, among other things) exacerbates it.
reply