okta is the worst. Their support is the worst (we always got someone overseas who only seemed to understand anything, probably they were trained on some corpus) and would take forever to loop in anyone that could actually help.
I've been bit by the mass marketing nonsense of "Watson" but IBM Research does some pretty good work, and their progress on Quantum Computing seems to be "real"; and certainly more reliable than Microsoft (shocked!).
yeah something major is borked and they're unwilling to admit it. The status page initially claimed "https git operations are affected" when it was clear that ssh were too (its updated to reflect that now).
Github isn't in the same reliability class as the hyperscalars or cloudflare; its comically bad now, to the point that at a previous job we invested in building a readonly cache layer specifically to prevent github outages from bringing our system down.
Im inclined to blame the US healthcare system. It looks like a gofundme was setup to pay for her cancer treatment. A sensible system a) wouldn’t need patients to pay for treatment and b) might have caught it earlier through regular screening
Do you have any evidence that the cancer is a type that would have been caught by a screening regime currently in place in other countries which is not in place in the US?
Without such evidence your post reads more like propagandizing a death for political purposes than an honest argument.
> Do you have any evidence that the cancer is a type that would have been caught by a screening regime currently in place in other countries which is not in place in the US?
Do you have any evidence that it wasn't?
I honestly don't know if earlier detection was possible, or would have helped her out or not. What I can tell you is that given the state of health care in this country, you can bet that my default assumption would be "yes" until proven otherwise.
Starting with the assumption of "no" gives our system more slack than it deserves.
Most types of cancers are not routinely screened for. The post says that the cancer was in her liver and lungs, and neither liver cancer nor lung cancer are routinely screened for (lung cancer screenings are recommended for people with a history of heavy smoking).
> What I can tell you is that given the state of health care in this country, you can bet that my default assumption would be "yes" until proven otherwise.
This is clearly a politically-motivated point rather than one grounded in science or reality. Cancer screening in the US is generally more aggressive, not less aggressive, than in other developed countries. For example, the US has historically recommended annual mammograms starting at age 40, while Europe doesn't start until age 50 and only does them every two years. US guidelines are to start screening for colon cancer at age 45 (c.f. 50 in most of Europe), and the US uses a much more invasive (and costlier) approach to colon cancer screening on top of the age gap.
If anything the US probably overinvests in cancer screening. The evidence in favor of starting mammograms at 40 is extremely dubious, as is the evidence for invasive and expensive colonoscopies (standard US practice) over fecal matter tests (standard European practice) for colon cancer screening.
> The post says that the cancer was in her liver and lungs, and neither liver cancer nor lung cancer are routinely screened for ...
If you have got cancer in your liver and lung then those are probably metastases, and most often the original cancer is in the colon.
> the evidence for invasive and expensive colonoscopies (standard US practice) over fecal matter tests (standard European practice) for colon cancer screening [is extremely dubious].
Fecal matter tests will tell if you have got a tumour and that tumour is bleeding. But not all colon tumours bleed.
Colon cancer can be a silent killer, that often goes without symptoms for years until it has metastasised and become terminal.
A colonoscopy will tell if you if you have got a polyp — an early pre-stage of cancer. And a polyp can be removed right then and there during the procedure with a tiny wire-loop or claw at the end of the instrument — and then you're safe.
I recommend everyone who is 45 y/o or older to get a colonoscopy every ten years. That is how long a polyp takes to develop into a tumour .. for normal people.
Myself, I have Lynch syndrome, so I have had to start earlier and get a colonoscopy every year. I had my fourteenth two days ago.
A COLONOSCOPY IS NO BIG DEAL. It is not invasive, it is not sexual, it is not demeaning. Everyone is professional, interested in your intestine, not your butt. It does usually not hurt, and if it does it is because of gas, as there are no other types of sensory nerves in the colon. If you are otherwise healthy, it is not dangerous. You can get it done it medicated, or even sedated if you want. I usually do it without any such drugs. The worst part is not the procedure but the prep — because laxatives taste bad. But if you are healthy and ask for it, a doctor could give you a stronger laxative that you don't have to drink as much of.
Colonoscopies, involving inserting instruments into the body, are definitely an invasive medical procedure.
> An invasive procedure is one where purposeful/deliberate access to the body is gained via an incision, percutaneous puncture, where instrumentation is used in addition to the puncture needle, or instrumentation via a natural orifice. It begins when entry to the body is gained and ends when the instrument is removed, and/or the skin is closed. Invasive procedures are performed by trained healthcare professionals using instruments, which include, but are not limited to, endoscopes, catheters, scalpels, scissors, devices and tubes.
[1], emphasis added.
> A medical procedure that invades (enters) the body, usually by cutting or puncturing the skin or by inserting instruments into the body.
[2], emphasis added
> An invasive procedure is one in which the body is "invaded", or entered by a needle, tube, device, or scope.
[3], emphasis added
Is it a big deal? Maybe not to you, maybe to other people. Is it better than a much cheaper (and not invasive) FOBT? Questionable.
NordICC [4] found an 18% reduction in colon cancer incidence after 10 years with a colonoscopy screening program, but no statistically significant reduction in mortality (either colon cancer or all-cause). Hardcastle et al. [5] found no reduction in colon cancer incidence but a 15% reduction in colon cancer mortality after 7.8 years with a FOBT screening program.
Everyone's gungho about evidence-based medicine until the evidence fails to support their preferred procedures.
Looking at corporate profit levels versus wage levels over the past twenty years, the U.S. as a capitalist country can afford a great deal more of healthcare inflation in order to raise the quality of life for its population.
Should its businesses afford that out of their profits?
Since households can’t afford eggs, much less health care costs, at the wages paid by businesses; so this decision is up to firms rather than households to decide. Founders, your input would especially be appreciated here.
Even if inappropriate, this reads like a normal expression of grief to me.
It's normal to be upset about the circumstances under which someone died, and to be angry if you believe it was avoidable. Under the five stages model, this would be bargaining and anger.
I was wondering if/when cloudflare would jump into doing “more AI”. Of all the paths they could have taken, this seems like a reasonable one. Hope that the dev team made some money/cloudflare stock from this transaction.
They can't innovate themselves, and rather than try to fix the reasons why (change in leadership, corporate structure, etc), they just buy a competitor, which they will most likely run into the ground. Perfectly reasonable!
Their area of expertise is in running large scale infra, which they have innovated a lot to get. They’re acquiring a company that has expertise in an area they're not familiar with, which needs large scale compute infra. It seems like their needs are aligned in this case.
I meant they've always had a reputation for being ruthless business people. Charging license fees based on the amount of memory in the host machine instead of the VM running Oracle, and things like that. They nickle and dime everything.
I agree with this, and I'd go even a bit further and describe them as predatory. They seem to have absolute contempt for their customers, and look for every possible opportunity to bleed them dry.
But then again, I'm probably guilty of anthropomorphizing the lawnmower. [1]
Its unfortunately all too common for Physics/Math to be taught in that way (extremely technical, memorizing or knowing equations and derivations). The best teachers would always give a ton of context as to why and how these came about.
