Organ transplants are "ooh, shiny" headline grabbing medicine. Better healthcare to try to keep your original equipment is boring and gets dismissed as "just lucky." It's hard to prove a connection between x, y z and not needing a transplant.
Any criticism or critique of this paradigm gets hated on without anyone really listening or wondering what might motivate someone to be not crazy about our "we are borg" trends in medical care.
Everyone I've ever talked to dealing with conditions that often end in transplant knows and shares that they're big-deal, serious-business, forever-life-altering treatments that are ultimate last resorts. But for some things we simply don't have any alternatives.
And for some of those - for instance one of the super-obvious ones is alchoholism-induced cirrhosis - "don't drink so much that you kill your liver" is VERY discussed, not just considered "lucky." You might even get yourself disqualified from a transplant if you can't get it under control. Everyone would MUCH rather you not need it.
Where are you seeing "get a transplant" pushed as a shiny panacea? They aren't even new anymore... lots of newer-shinies out there.
Sure, reducing the conditions that lead people to need transplants is a great idea, and should be done more. But I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.
Sometimes furniture speaks far more volumes than anyone would like.
Mae West was once profiled by some show that went and showed the interiors of homes of celebrities. There was a large mirror or mirrored ceiling or something in her bedroom and the interviewer asked about it, why it was there. And she said "So I can see how I'm doing."
The episode never aired. That was very TMI for the era.
Yeah, I think it would take something like bankruptcy of a Fortune 500 company because a critical open source piece shut down.
And I'm not holding my breath that even that would sink in. People are amazingly talented at hearing only what they want to hear to justify doing it like they've always done it.
unless they're using some sort of hosted service for free, this cannot be critical. After all, software doens't rot, and they could continue to use the existing release until a (new) solution is found.
Look at how crowdstrike triggered outage didn't cause bankruptcy - that is more critical than most OSS would be.
It doesn't rot? I mean if it stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something, it can become effectively obsolete.
Though I will note I'm agreeing that it's highly unlikely you can put a gun to the heads of corporations and get them to cough up, so I'm not sure what the point is here.
> stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something
which doesn't happen instantly. For example, the end of life of the old java versions (1.5, 7 and 8 etc) - plenty of companies simply just paid a support fee and get support, while others paid to upgrade (or even change stack).
Most open source software, even with lack of updates, does not immediately start failing. The huge amount of time and leeway, even with security issues, is what prevents it from being critical, and prevents OSS from causing a bankruptcy.
Well, there's plenty of mission-critical FOSS used by plenty of companies. But you are right in that it doesn't just fail one day, and companies have plenty of time and options for dealing with abandoned FOSS.
(Which is one of the major benefits of FOSS. It's more likely with proprietary software that it can just disappear one day, with little recourse for users.)
> For example, the end of life of the old java versions (1.5, 7 and 8 etc) - plenty of companies simply just paid a support fee and get support, while others paid to upgrade (or even change stack)
And plenty others simply keep using the old 1.8 version because there's no budget to upgrade and there's no budget to 'pay a support fee'. And there's no budget to 'change stack'. Because... there's no budget.
Convincing people you need to upgrade or switch to keep current is often a hard problem, and sometimes has to be done with "you'll get all these new features!". But often "hey, we need some money to upgrade system X" is met with "hrm... it's software! It doesn't rot!".
I cannot prove it, but I am convinced this is an important revenue stream for Redhat. They will patch an ancient Linux kernel forever if you pay them. I have worked at multiple companies where we were running ancient Linux kernels than received regular security updates, courtesy of our Redhat subscription!
Me: "I think you cannot get corporations to cough up without some ridiculous extreme event like a behemoth dying. And I'm not holding my breath that would really do it."
You: "Your extreme ridiculous scenario is extremely ridiculous and here's why..."
> if it stops being maintained and the lack of updates makes it fatally insecure or something, it can become effectively obsolete.
Sure, but that won't happen immediately when the maintainer abandons it. It might not happen at all. There's usually going to be plenty of time for a company to switch to an alternative, or even take on maintainership themselves.
I don't know how we resolve this. Some things are excellent because open source allows an individual to make what they want without answering to a boss or whatever and then if it gets popular, it comes with responsibilities but probably little or no pay.
As someone who did a lot of volunteer work, these issues resonate with me -- painfully so.
That's probably my primary motive for reading such articles when I'm not really a programmer.
What's to resolve? You either do something for the love of it or you don't. There's nothing to solve, it is what it is. If you want to get paid for writing your software get a job, start a company. OSS is neither of those things.
I'm far from the only person who feels people should get paid for their work if they add value to the lives of others or this article wouldn't exist.
Some people know how to add value and don't know how to turn that into an income and if they desperately need income and everybody wants their work but nobody pays them, it's extremely infuriating and crazy making.
Then you work on something else that the world wants to pay for or you continue doing something you love and no one wants. The world doesn't owe you anything.
Star Trek proposed a magical technical Tricorder as an ultra compact futuristic little black bag. You could whip it out and aim it at someone and have scads of useful data instantly.
Reality delivered us new tech like MRIs that require their own room at a hospital. Instead of the doctor going to your home and seeing you in the context in which you live, thereby providing substantial information without having to ask, the patient now goes to the clinic.
The result: The patient has ceased to be a whole person and product of their environment in the eyes of the physician. They are merely a specimen in a petri dish.
At one time, most humans lived in small communities where everyone knew each other and the doctor was one of the smartest and most educated people there. He was in the wisdom business.
Now doctors are expected to still deliver the results of being in the wisdom business while largely being reduced to technicians who lack the wealth of contextual information that once informed their practice of medicine.
This is compounded by larger communities and mobile cultures where we no longer know everyone for years and years.
How we fix this, I don't know.
But I am reminded that House was tentatively called "Everyone Lies" in preproduction. Figuring out the lies being told in every episode was a critical part of solving the medical mystery featured.
Modern physicians no longer know x patient is an alcoholic and hiding it and y patient is a philanderer whose sickly wife stopped sleeping with him years ago and it's both rude and ineffectual to ask about such things. You will likely be lied to.
But details like that are critical to sorting out what's really wrong medically and thus how to treat it effectively. And such issues absolutely fall in the purview of medical humanities, an aspect of the profession that desperately needs rethinking to resolve what ails modern medicine and thus improve health for modern people everywhere.
Amazing comment. Ever since beginnign to experience gut issues that only appear when I am unemployed or feel my job is under threat, I have observed the ailments of friends and loved ones in a new light. You just added another layer to my questioning. To be clear, I am not reaching conclusions but just asking more questions.
I didn't know she was so influential with regards to kitchen design and universal or inclusive design. Wonderful article with a lot of depth and much food for thought for anyone interested in trying to find solutions for this problem space.
Americans strikes me as being in crisis due to various social factors making full-time wives and moms relatively rare. Our food culture, recipes, kitchens, home design etc etc are rooted in an implicit assumption that your wife or mom is doing the grocery shopping, cooking, keeping track of your health issues and dietary needs etc when this is no longer true for most people.
There seems to be an endless stream of people complaining they either don't have time to cook or they are fat and broke from consuming takeout and an endless stream of companies trying to address the issue, such as meal delivery companies.
I like Julia Child's skepticism about the effectiveness of productizing the space as the only or prime solution. It seems likely to me we need to rethink and rework our food culture so everyone can eat adequately, even if they don't have some privileged life with a high quality kitchen and full-time wife and mom taking care of all the nutritional concerns and logistics behind that, which are substantial.
What would be the benefits? Sounds like we should prioritize family, as has been tradition for the entirety of human existence. The new approach of ‘everyone has a house/dwelling and their own independent life apart from anyone’ is the experiment.
Off the top of my head, in no particular order and probably not comprehensive:
Improved health for people not living that way.
More freedom to live as you choose. Heteronormative culture has long pressured young people to get married and have kids and told them from birth they are straight without giving them time to figure out for themselves what their sexual orientation is.
Freedom to leave a marriage that isn't working because you no longer are a prisoner of the fact that your wife knows all your health issues and the dietary restrictions they dictate and cooks better than you, so she is essentially irreplaceable because that catalog of data about you isn't readily replaced by merely marrying a good cook -- assuming you can even arrange to remarry immediately and aren't forced to feed yourself (inadequately) for months or years while looking for a wife
Fewer mental health issues from society no longer dictating to everyone "You will be straight, don't confuse us with the facts. You will fall in love with The One meant for you, never mind the overwhelming evidence this is the exception not the rule. You will fit your entire life around tasks society decided are yours at birth due to the bits between your legs."
Less homophobia, less transphobia, less misogyny, more economic stability due to more personal flexibility.
I didn't know what 'heteronormative culture' was, so I went to look it up. I found this: "Heteronormativity is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or normal sexual orientation."
It seems to me to be a pretty radical idea that culture could not be 'heteronormative' because heterosexuality IS the preferred and normal sexual orientation since 1-babies need to be born for existence to perpetuate (this is basically the purpose of life) and 2-non-heterosexual people continue to this day (even with all the radical celebration of deviance) to be a tiny minority. That said I think it is dumb to try to pressure kids to 'be straight' (lol, you don't choose who you're attracted to). If you're saying 'to live as you choose' to mean 'to live as a single person with no familial support', then yea, you're setting yourself up for a rough time and I can't imagine how you're going to 'restructure the culture' to support this, nor why you would want to aside from attempts at self gratification.
I don't even know what you're talking about with this 'Freedom to leave a marriage' part. It seems like a smorgasbord of ideas smashed together rather incoherently, my apologies but it's after lunch and maybe my brain isn't all functioning 100%.
Ok I also don't understand what you're talking about in 'Fewer mental health isues' either. It seems like you're trying really hard to imagine a fantasy reality where non-heterosexual people can live by themselves - but with a partner if they want - but they can leave - but they should be able to leave and be by themselves and be just fine - all with regard to COOKING specifically. Am I getting in the ball park there? I don't really know what you're getting at. When you deviate from 'normal' culture, life is going to be harder for you. That's how our world works. The people that have and are trying to change that... just watch for if things are getting better in their wake, or worse in their wake.
I suspect economic stability comes more from personal responsibility than 'personal flexibility'. One must make great sacrifices, in general, to develop the character to be able to progress in most areas. What I typically see from the crowd wanting more freedoms is the freedom to be more hedonistic, where I see the people more grateful to exist and actually progressing growing their discipline and losing their selfishness.
>>> "in crisis due to various social factors making full-time wives and moms relatively rare"
>>> "It seems likely to me we need to rethink and rework our food culture so everyone can eat adequately"
How could the second work without fixing the first?
I'm a former full-time wife and mom. I got divorced and got a corporate job at a Fortune 500 company where most of the women were shocked and jealous that my sons took over most of the cooking, grocery shopping and cleaning.
I've thought a lot about this problem space and the connections I have listed are clear in my mind. If it's not clear to you and you are interested in the idea, you are welcome to do your own reading and thinking and draw your own conclusions.
Given that I met exactly one woman with children who didn't feel affronted by how I was living, I imagine my opinions and such fall far outside the Overton window -- which seems to be the story of my life.
Maybe not full time but I would still say the vast majority of women still do all the duties around the house and those regarding raising children. America has become more like countries in Asia that way where women always worked but still did everything an American full time housewife did.
In households with a nuclear family or heterosexual couple, women still tend to do the lion's share of "the women's work."
But people are generally marrying later, having fewer kids, more couples are having no kids, the number of households with four or more related members has plummeted, the number of households with one to three members has skyrocketed and far fewer people have someone in their life whose primary role is doing the women's work and looking out for their welfare.
People are time stressed, fatter and less healthy, etc. We point to a lot of different causes for those very well established facts and I'm saying that one common denominator that gets largely overlooked is the decline of the number of full-time homemakers.
Thank you for the context. My reasons for thinking it was credible have nothing to do with "math I didn't understand."
I actually think the larger problem is how it spread via travelers and that some of the actions taken nominally for purposes of controlling the spread actually made things worse. People were herded together in airports to be checked or some nonsense.
We may never know the origin story and I still don't know what to suggest in practical terms for preventing something similar from happening again, but I do think it needs to be addressed someplace other than "wear face masks and use hand sanitizer" while otherwise doing the same stuff that helped spread the virus around the globe.
I hadn't read your top-level comment here before I wrote mine, but I think you're responding to a different question from the one the authors intended to answer. The paper's language is rather muddy (even vs. the preprint), I assume because Cell required the authors to weaken their claims. The authors' comments to the popular media express their intent more clearly:
> "This paper slots into many other studies over the last few years that have been building the case for this very clearly being a natural virus that spilled over, very likely at the Wuhan seafood market," Kristian Andersen, co-corresponding author and professor at Scripps Research, told Newsweek.
This paper is about that initial introduction of the virus into humans, not about subsequent human-to-human spread. The authors are arguing that SARS-CoV-2 was "very clearly" natural, and thus not a research accident. This forms the basis for arguments that additional regulation of high-risk biological research is unnecessary, since it's much harder to say that with the possibility that such research just killed ~30M people.
I didn't assume it was some kind of rebuttal of my comment. I'm generally looking for genuine, meaty discussion.
The pandemic impacted the entire globe and a lot of internet comments were driven by fear, not genuine curiosity or interest in problem solving.
While I understand why that is, it doesn't go good places.
I am perfectly happy to accept your assertion that context suggests this is basically a politically motivated piece trying to dismiss claims that it originated in a lab.
I wrote a piece elsewhere that boils down to "Christmas travel brought us the global pandemic." Regardless of where the issue originated, it spread globally and didn't remain a local crisis thanks to global travel and how that gets handled.
I don't have answers but I don't like the way the whole thing was handled and it's nigh impossible to have meaningful discussion of that with anyone anywhere on the Internet.
And given the lack of quality discussion, it's impossible to develop a good framework for how to even see the problem space.
My marriage was a case of opposites attract and we were once shopping for a bookcase and I hated the bookcase he wanted and he hated the bookcase I wanted. So I finally had the sense to ask why he liked it.
I wanted something pretty. He wanted something sturdy that wouldn't collapse under the weight of the books.
Armed with this information, it was possible to find a bookcase we both liked.
Decades later, most internet discussion seems to still be stuck in that space before I asked that question where we both thought the other person was clearly an idiot. Only I don't know how to get past it online.
"...we were once shopping for a bookcase and I hated the bookcase he wanted and he hated the bookcase I wanted. So I finally had the sense to ask why he liked it"
"Decades later, most internet discussion seems to still be stuck in that space before I asked that question where we both thought the other person was clearly an idiot. Only I don't know how to get past it online."
>This forms the basis for arguments that additional regulation of high-risk biological research is unnecessary
>such research just killed ~30M people.
It was a lab leak.. I should know.
The Chinese government has admitted it in secret and let's say they have made agreements to make affected nations whole, behind closed doors and with diplomacy. This in turn has trickled into media and social media indirectly and directly from China inducements, making sure that the lab leak theory is both underplayed and framed in a "we can't know for sure" light. Textbook water muddying where all sides have something to gain. If it's any consolation the party responsible for screwing up and killing more people than Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Stalin combined.... they have been dealt with appropriately by China
Any criticism or critique of this paradigm gets hated on without anyone really listening or wondering what might motivate someone to be not crazy about our "we are borg" trends in medical care.