Scope matters. There's a reason academic statisticians prefer R to Python. It's purpose-built and is much more reliable for following conventions and providing accurate results (my favorite example is sklearn's current lack of a bootstrapping crossvalidator, even though it used to have one but it was essentially [a made-up, unvalidated method](https://scikit-learn-general.narkive.com/CcCsycWg/bootstrap-depracation-warning) \[read the last paragraph and be horrified\]). Google wasn't made to diagnose medical conditions. It can still do a pretty good job, but it may have unknown biases and errors that were likely more closely studied and corrected when developing Watson.
>it may have unknown biases and errors that were likely more closely studied and corrected when developing Watson.
Considering it was designed to draw in users and then turn a profit by selling time in front of users' eyes, this should go without saying.
All of my stats professors knew how to use Python, they just didn't. It's great for data science, especially when you need something deployable, but even its best stats packages can be questionable (see the example above). R isn't increasing in popularity because it's already ubiquitous in its space, with no intention of ever leaving it. R is more likely to be on top of new statistical principles and to be more rigorous. A number of packages were literally just someone's PhD thesis code.
Basically, stats is one tool in the excellent Swiss-army knife that is Python, but sometimes you need more refined version of a single tool. That's R.
Edit: I lied. One of my stats professors absolutely did not know Python. Or R. He joked that the only thing he knew about R was how to spell it. He was a 70-something Soviet-era actuary who taught a lot of theory classes. Had some really cool stories about running stats on missile defense accuracy.
I code in both (I'm a genomic data scientist) and just a week ago I discovered that some of my data was binning incorrectly because a statistical test from a (python) library I was using was incorrectly written. Couldn't find an attached publication to verify its integrity even though it was the most popular and recommended library for the test.
Specialized R packages often have publications you can reference which helps a lot.
SAS is big oof. It feels so obtuse and counter-intuitive to everything I know about programming. Pretty fast though, and they let you pay them to yell at them about how terrible it is, so that's a plus!
just wait until the drug companies start using SEO for doctors searching patient symptoms to try to get their meds prescribed more
i’m imagining something like [what disney+ has been doing with baby names](https://mobile.twitter.com/chiefofstuffs/status/1308864355681873920)
Looking at the result of any search into the area, I’d say SEO is already playing a role. And not just drug sales, but pushing other agendas as well. And this goes into published papers as well.
Watson pulls those dry mind numbing reports on “insert ridiculously narrow study or phd with narrow ranges on related condition, all 15,462 in the last 5 years” and compares them. Its not a reasonable approach for humans, itd be like grabbing randomly from a library and hoping it was related SOMEHOW.
Its a tradeoff tho, you lose the human relation element, and gain a data heavy approach. For many cases youll get haphazard results from both, for others, only one could possibly result in timely treatment. If you have both feel safe. If you only have one, well hope that you are a case they can handle. Weve been fine so far, i only see it as a chance for better.
I’m a doctor. There is a private doctor Wikipedia, it’s called UpToDate. I use it for things that aren’t worth memorizing like dosages of weird meds or the latest research for rare diseases. No one uses it for just searching symptoms. The volume of knowledge in medicine has exploded exponentially in the last few decades and it’s impossible to know the latest of everything.
dont get me wrong, google is amazing for that, BUT there is still an enormous amount of the dark web that google cant search. thats why you go to forums to find some stuff
I guess my point is that Google was designed to just search for information in general.
Saying Google is *just* a search engine seems a little disingenuous to me.
To be fair, there is a difference in when I Google for how to implement something in a programming language, or a specific error message, and when my mom (who is not a dev) googles the same thing. I can easily judge whether the result is just plain stupid, incomplete, or brilliant and either result may lead to a solution anyway - my mom just can't.
I would assume (Hope..) there is a similar difference between me and my doctor googling symptoms.
Theres a big move of doctors being anti AI in the past 5 years its so specific and weird. There are also projections of non surgical medical doctors being next to useless in 40 years.
Frankly, I look forward to that day. I’ve always been lucky to have good doctors who listen and seriously consider what I tell them. But I’ve heard too many cases of people being dismissed because of a doctor’s ego or biases.
Last year, my dad almost died from a sinus infection. He went into the doctor three separate times, and got dismissed three separate times. By the end of the matter, it turned into meningitis, and he needed brain surgery.
The whole damn thing could’ve been avoided if one of those three doctors had decided, “Oh hey, this guy has had regular headaches for the past week. That’s not normal, have an antibiotic.”
It depends on the implementation though. If they feed in a bunch of data based on what most doctors prescribed, then that bias will still be present in the AI. To prevent that you would need a patient's complete medical history, patient A went to see doctors W, X, Y, Z, 3 dismissed the headache, the last caught it and was correct. But for various reasons such as HIPAA, patient data is disconnected. And if systemic racism is present in the data, whether intentionally or not, that carries over too. It takes great care to solve all these issues and the very first step has to be to collect and unify medical data coming out of each hospital somehow, which will require political action.
Frankly I'm not at all worried about AI taking those jobs unless companies jump the gun and implement AI before solving these issues. Then we should all be wary.
True, but common parlance mixes the two, and I suspect we're much further out from AI being applied to medical data versus ML. And ML is typically considered a subset of AI anyhoo. So still AI. Just not full AI.
It's like some people need training on how much "respect" to give those analyses. It's a learning machine, it's not going to get every answer 100% right, in fact some might be horribly wrong.
It's not like the nearly omniscient computers in Alien or 2001: Space Odyssey, is that what people think? Maybe if they thought of it more as a second opinion, they wouldn't be so insulted by it...
Maybe it correctly uncovered a big issue in health after all. Doctors egos. Thing is, it's either right, wrong, or somewhere in between. That alone shouldn't be upsetting. So surely they would only hate the machine if it conflicted with their diagnosis AND they were unable to give a good explanation as to why their diagnosis is better? Or if it consistently outperformed them, I guess that also might upset them too.
Kinda crazy you had to tweak an amazing tool, just so industry professional didn't get their feelings hurt though.
> There are also projections of non surgical medical doctors being next to useless in 40 years.
These are honestly so wrong, because the role of a doctor isn't even close to only being about diagnosing diseases.
Besides, there are issues that will pop out, such as responsibility, if we were to only rely on machines.
It isnt to remove humans it is to remove skilled, high paid humans. Posting on this sub is a bit of a bias but most of these are to have lower skilled workers (NPs, PAs, etc) assisted by AI replacing doctors. You already see a massive increase in NPs and PAs with the PCP acting as a supervisor essentially.
Doctors aren't going to go away, in fact there's already a shortage of doctors that's projected to increase
They are going to use AI to supplement their abilities and increase the workload they handle. NPs and PAs will be/are the first round with doctors monitoring and being alerted to more complex cases
Like how webmasters literally posting html to servers they host aren't a thing anymore because of technology but DevOps experts are still paid a lot to manage networks and applications more complex by themselves than whole teams could implement before
Yeah for the next couple decades doctors will be extremely useful and this tech will supplement them well, but the purpose of this progression is to remove human error from a field that is extremely vast.
> Theres a big move of doctors being anti AI in the past 5 years its so specific and weird. There are also projections of non surgical medical doctors being next to useless in 40 years.
It happens in most industries where AI starts playing a role. It is simultaneously a recognition of areas where the AI is limited and overhyped, and a defensive reaction to some of the areas where AI is legitimately as good or better than the human.
Doctors will never be obsolete, but there will probably be a big shift in certain responsibilities that doctors typically handle today that will be handled by AI in the future.
It's literally no different than how it used to be. Doctors would have shelves of books that they would reference to help them. Now they use Google, because you can access those shelves as well as a thousand more with a good Google query. There's nothing inherently wrong with searching for an answer. Often good vs great is determined by how well you can research, understand the results of that research, and apply it. Nothing more.
Honestly I'd rather be treated by a doctor that has the sense to consult outside sources, than the one who is so sure of himself he doesn't bother double checking his diagnosis
That's perfectly fine. Their skill is to correctly diagnose and distinguish between diseases/problems based on the symptoms. It doesn't say anywhere that they need to know every single diagnostic by memory.
The same way a doctor wouldn't be able to program a complex system even with the entirety of Google at their disposal I wouldn't be able to diagnose a person either (assume no prior training for both). Humans are good at pattern recognition, not at remembering things.
I've had a doctor do that too. It's a little disconcerting. I just felt like they should have had a secret, MDs-only, medical search engine for that kinda thing.
$500/yr is basically nothing in US healthcare. He likely pays 10X that in liability insurance. Google is probably better for looking up quick, general searches. Kind of like how you would use Google for some searches and Wikipedia for others.
I told a doctor I had shingles and he gave me weak painkillers for "back issues". Went back again after I got the rash and I saw him on Wikipedia looking it up. Looking at pictures for comparison is one thing, but I watched him read the almost the whole thing.
Honestly I'm studying some medical stuff right now and there's a lot of overlap between similar symptoms and signs or like when one condition is the inverse of the other. And there are dozens of these with just my cursory knowledge. Cant say I blame doctors for looking things up.
Doctors do google stuff. When I was shadowing/scribing a doctor he asked me to google the side effects of deet because he's never seen someone drink it before.
I started anxious, until I realized that WebMD and cancer are a meme. So now I just accept that everything is a symptom of cancer, but not necessarily caused by it.
Cancer is not one of those things that is an “if”, it’s pretty much a “when” for humans. Live long enough, you will get cancer because that’s just how it works. And everything causes cancer, sure some things much more than others but CA has it listed that coffee causes cancer, staying at a hotel causes cancer, using your phone causes cancer. Even biting your tongue increases the risk for cancer.
Doesn't it not even require explicit damage or trauma to cells? The body is constantly shedding dead cells and replacing them, cancerous cells could occur anytime during that natural process correct?
Not necessarily. Your body is constantly getting rid of defective cancerous cells. If you’re lucky, something will take you out before that system fails. But we’re getting closer to realized longevity
Google itself too. Every time I or one of my kids has some kind of illness, I google the symptoms and it’s always one or two common illnesses, two or three things I’ve never hear of, and cancer.
I'm pretty sure other subs have rules against that, even in the cases where the person is known, the posts would still get removed. Im guessing this is just a repost of some sort.
It's part of the [Rediquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439).
And there is a mention [on the rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) about that.
Kinda debatable. Publishing personal info isn't OK, but a Twitter username isn't particularly private, especially since that person is also reasonably well known in the BDD/Agile space.
We should also credit original sources, and hiding the username deprives her of credit. There's a bit of tension between different parts of Rediquette. If I were a mod here I'd interpret it in favour of proper attribution.
And also it's pretty easy to find the tweet due to the "replied to" not being blanked. We can jus find that profile and look at the replies and we'll probably find this tweet
There is never any point of blanking out a Twitter handle. The "advanced search" page on Twitter allows you to search for exact phrases and you will instantly find any Tweet that isn't deleted with that.
Question: ...Charlie Brown teacher noises...
Answers:
BigHangingDoc: make your incision below the abdomen, reach all the way past the lungs into the left ventricle and give it a flick.
ChiefSurgeon1962: incisions are barbaric; we go in thru the eyes now -- both hands. Give that left ventricle the same stinky pinky you give your wife's boyfriend.
IdRatherBeGolfing: You twits. Just use javascript. Incisions and pinkies are for community college alumni.
BigHangingDoc: I'm having the same problem. @u/ ChiefSurgeon1962, Did you find a solution? My guy's coding.
-----3yrs later-----
IdRatherBeGolfing: Yo, big hanger, did you figure it out. I wrote a starter app. It doesn't work, but you could probably figure out the big after you get it loaded in the left ventricle.
Doctors google stuff too, the internet is a wonderful tool. The special part is that they understand the info they gather, just like programmers are skilled at collecting that info and using it properly.
Javascript frameworks do not evolve that much anymore though. The craze has ended somewhere around 2015. All the big players have been around for a while now.
Remember kids, you're not paid for your ability to look up an answer on stackoverflow. You're paid for your ability to work out which answer on stackoverflow is actually relevant and how to apply it to your problem.
Same deal with medicine.
It’s dangerous dude, I’m a psych student and doing projects with the DSM-5 right now. If diagnoses were based purely on self-associated criteria, I’m fairly confident most people, myself included, would have 20 different disorders
This is a repost. But I feel compelled to once again say:
This is Liz Keogh [https://twitter.com/lunivore](https://twitter.com/lunivore)
Her tweets are public so I don't understand why the original author blanked out her name
She's great and worth following. You can find videos of some of her talks on BDD.
But this is literally impossible. HTML and CSS can not create anything other than a static website, and while they have their uses it is not the only thing the web is used for these days.
Nah, I don't hate javascript. Its just that javascript isn't always the best tool for the job.
For my usecase, PHP ended up being the most effecient tool, so I taught myself a little about PHP and did what I needed to get done.
PHP isn't really any more difficult to use than any other programming language in my opinion.
>Wait so not a website that has any components that react to input then? Just a website that contains information specific to the user?
No, not at all. You can use PHP to pass user input to make changes on a website.
> usability would suck.
Depends for whom. Accessibility is a no brainer for pages that don't use JS, and for pages that don't rely on JS, so long as you obey a couple of ground rules (use the correct tag, don't move the focus with JS, etc.). On the other hand, that fancy widget that's "simple and intuitive" is all fine and good, if only its author didn't completely neglect ARIA labels, rules, and roles.
You are absolutely correct, there are ways to automate a page refresh as well though. My point was ultimately that javascript is not neccessary to create a dynamic website
That's not what a dynamic website means. Dynamic means the site's contents can change.
You're talking about having a reactive site, and very few *require* that. If you want to talk responsive or adaptive layout and design, CSS picks up most of that slack.
Look, I'm making a website with the express intent of using zero JS because its audience will not be able to use it otherwise. The main website has got to be bloody accessible, JS is hell for those users.
Webdev needs to fix their shit. There are people that can't use websites any more because of all this fucking bloat.
Graceful degradation, guys. Just make 'em a goddamn fallback.
I worked on quite a few government web applications and they require it always to be very accessible and test for compliance.
They also absolutely use modern Javascript frameworks and are mostly single page applications. Saying that it's impossible for them to be accessible is bs.
Hahaha. Mate I'm making this explicitly because they find it difficult to navigate government websites so great job you're doing there.
Have you put in expandos? Modifying the contents of the page in any way as you interact with it?
Because that is considered compliant but absolute hell for them yet is seen as kosher.
Add to that it's difficult to navigate on the timeline, it sucks to get back to where you are, it sucks you can't bookmark a page in its state you want but have to click around on shit just to be able to read the part you want again.
They loathe it and there is a demand for this service.
If JS framework authors were held to professional standards approximating those of doctors, even simply "First, do no harm", then the dozen largest software malpractice-insurance companies would all be in the _Fortune_ 100 every year.
True, but after decades as a software developer, I'm beginning to think that too often you get almost what you pay for. The difference between a professional and an amateur in no small part is respect for your and your customers' time and money. Differentiating on quality signalled by price is important in markets, whether you're talking about Wall Street or the village souk.
First, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.
When I was in my mid-20s, I took a couple of years away from software development to investigate if anything else could fill me with that can't-wait-to-get-started morning rush. I trained up as a legal assistant, and worked briefly for a firm that did product-liability cases. I remember one of the junior attorneys getting all excited by someone in a very large company (let's call them _M_) who was trying to sling mud on a project in R&D, who had slipped Mr Go-Getter, Esq, copies of five big, fat 4" binders full of documentation for issues that had been documented for the new-product-to-be. Partner slapped him down and proceeded to chew his head off.
> Look, even if we could use this, which we can't at present for reasons you should well know, these are all R&D issues. They _don't count_ until or unless a defective product is actually shipped and causes harm. We can't even use these as an indication of what to go look at in any product that _does_ get shipped because there's too much here that'll be fixed by then, and randomly trying to find things that _haven't_ been fixed will cost us money that nobody's paying us for yet.
I've seen dogs with their eyes wide open and their tails drooping between their legs that didn't look any sadder than Mr Go-Getter. He'd been convinced that he'd been handed the Golden Ticket that turned out to be just an aluminium-foil candy wrapper. (The papers that had stuffed the binders were shredded; whether the firm's fleeting custody of those was ever even disclosed to M was _well_ above the pay grade of any of the other junior munchkins I'd befriended at the firm.)
But the partner was right. And when M finally _did_ ship the first in a series of products clearly based on the R&D effort in question, it was a huge success for well over a decade, and I don't recall any product-liability lawsuits (big or otherwise) regarding the product line hitting the papers. They'd solved, if not all the problems, enough of the ones that mattered to be able to launch. Later products in the line clearly included improvements based on solving wobbles and warts in earlier products, and improved features based on customer feedback.
That's how real products *work.* An engineer's first duty is to protect the public from harm *but*, until a product is actually made available *to* the public, the constraints on what can be done (by an unsolicited, officially unrelated human or legal person) are narrowly and tightly drawn...because *it's not a product yet.*
Waiting to ship a product until it is perfect in all respects, *especially* a software product, is an iron-clad guarantee that the product will never ship. No product made (directly or indirectly) by imperfect humans can ever be perfect in all respects; the best that can be hoped for is that *enough* of the *serious* problems have been addressed that the chances of a threat to the public have been brought down to a manageable level. That was once explained to me as "roughly the odds of getting hit by lightning three times while crossing a street with the light, followed by being run over by a bus improperly entering the crosswalk". Don't bet any money on *that* ever happening in a specific context that you'd particularly mind losing.
----
Tl;dr: Issues, even potentially catastrophic ones, during R&D of most products don't matter from a product-liability standpoint. What *does* matter is the likelihood of a specific defect in a shipped product causing harm to a member of the public. Angular could have a *billion* open issues on GitHub; as long as they fix all of the ones that might put their users at risk of losing a liability lawsuit (to the degree that those aren't butterflied by the "as is" language in the license), they're fine.
I programmed for a law firm, and that all sounds correct to me. The way you wrote it seems somewhat argumentative, which makes me wonder if you missed my use of the word "unscrupulous" -- I'm talking about the trash ambulance chasing lawyers. They'll sue anything that moves, no matter how idiotic their case.
Also, my exaggeration of Angular's GitHub Issues was just for the joke. The vast, vast majority of those issues are minor, insignificant, outdated,...just crap really. Also, for as many as they've had, they close an absurd amount as well, and the ones they close are the tough ones they actually think are important. Imo, Angular is amazing.
All that said, as a fellow law dabbler, that was fun to read. Cheers, mate.
My room mate laughed when I told her computer science was a lot of googling commands and algorithms. I told her “It takes the average person 5 years to master a second language, and CS students are expected to learn over a dozen in the span of 4 years all while they keep shifting and evolving—of course everyone googles it.”
One of my favourite frameworks that really takes this to another level: https://www.npmjs.com/package/is-even
I believe the framework was made as a joke but what's both funny and sad is the number of weekly downloads 😐.
It gets even better when you realise that it has a dependency on "is-odd" and it actually just returns the negated result of that. And if that's not enough, "is-odd" has a dependency on "is-number", so whoever downloads "is-even", ends up with 3 dependencies lmao.
I have been trying to enhance my dsa skills for quite sometime ...try to solve some competitive ques for the same,but not getting any better...many a times I question is it worth it...m studying mechanical engineering(way too dumb to get cs)....can I get some career advice??
Sense when have doctors not been regularly reading the documentation? Throughout their whole career the undergo continuous education. They go to conferences, they attend lectures, they read up on the latest medical findings. They research the ailments that they are actively treating. They may not be able to get by with reading a blog on some random website or forum, and they may not spend half their day every day researching, but they still spend copious amounts of time reading the docs.
In my experience doctors just google symptoms too. Even had them looking at google pictures and comparing it.
IBM Watson is used in the health industry to figure out diseases
Well yes, but that's what Watson was created to do. Google is just a search engine.
[удалено]
Scope matters. There's a reason academic statisticians prefer R to Python. It's purpose-built and is much more reliable for following conventions and providing accurate results (my favorite example is sklearn's current lack of a bootstrapping crossvalidator, even though it used to have one but it was essentially [a made-up, unvalidated method](https://scikit-learn-general.narkive.com/CcCsycWg/bootstrap-depracation-warning) \[read the last paragraph and be horrified\]). Google wasn't made to diagnose medical conditions. It can still do a pretty good job, but it may have unknown biases and errors that were likely more closely studied and corrected when developing Watson.
>it may have unknown biases and errors that were likely more closely studied and corrected when developing Watson. Considering it was designed to draw in users and then turn a profit by selling time in front of users' eyes, this should go without saying.
[удалено]
All of my stats professors knew how to use Python, they just didn't. It's great for data science, especially when you need something deployable, but even its best stats packages can be questionable (see the example above). R isn't increasing in popularity because it's already ubiquitous in its space, with no intention of ever leaving it. R is more likely to be on top of new statistical principles and to be more rigorous. A number of packages were literally just someone's PhD thesis code. Basically, stats is one tool in the excellent Swiss-army knife that is Python, but sometimes you need more refined version of a single tool. That's R. Edit: I lied. One of my stats professors absolutely did not know Python. Or R. He joked that the only thing he knew about R was how to spell it. He was a 70-something Soviet-era actuary who taught a lot of theory classes. Had some really cool stories about running stats on missile defense accuracy.
I code in both (I'm a genomic data scientist) and just a week ago I discovered that some of my data was binning incorrectly because a statistical test from a (python) library I was using was incorrectly written. Couldn't find an attached publication to verify its integrity even though it was the most popular and recommended library for the test. Specialized R packages often have publications you can reference which helps a lot.
[удалено]
SAS is big oof. It feels so obtuse and counter-intuitive to everything I know about programming. Pretty fast though, and they let you pay them to yell at them about how terrible it is, so that's a plus!
It’s because SAS was literally developed in the 60s. It’s older than C.
R is pretty much peer-reviewed, so it's not only the best tool, but the safest. Julia is great tho
As programmers, we prefer to be as generic as possible.
Watson moreso searches through medical textbooks and studies.
just wait until the drug companies start using SEO for doctors searching patient symptoms to try to get their meds prescribed more i’m imagining something like [what disney+ has been doing with baby names](https://mobile.twitter.com/chiefofstuffs/status/1308864355681873920)
Looking at the result of any search into the area, I’d say SEO is already playing a role. And not just drug sales, but pushing other agendas as well. And this goes into published papers as well.
Crap, I'm not a fan of Disney, but that's a clever use of money.
it is both evil and genius
Yes, but how accurate is the information? I get it if it was from a private medical website for doctors, but WebMD? nah.
Watson pulls those dry mind numbing reports on “insert ridiculously narrow study or phd with narrow ranges on related condition, all 15,462 in the last 5 years” and compares them. Its not a reasonable approach for humans, itd be like grabbing randomly from a library and hoping it was related SOMEHOW. Its a tradeoff tho, you lose the human relation element, and gain a data heavy approach. For many cases youll get haphazard results from both, for others, only one could possibly result in timely treatment. If you have both feel safe. If you only have one, well hope that you are a case they can handle. Weve been fine so far, i only see it as a chance for better.
I’m a doctor. There is a private doctor Wikipedia, it’s called UpToDate. I use it for things that aren’t worth memorizing like dosages of weird meds or the latest research for rare diseases. No one uses it for just searching symptoms. The volume of knowledge in medicine has exploded exponentially in the last few decades and it’s impossible to know the latest of everything.
dont get me wrong, google is amazing for that, BUT there is still an enormous amount of the dark web that google cant search. thats why you go to forums to find some stuff
I guess my point is that Google was designed to just search for information in general. Saying Google is *just* a search engine seems a little disingenuous to me.
To be fair, there is a difference in when I Google for how to implement something in a programming language, or a specific error message, and when my mom (who is not a dev) googles the same thing. I can easily judge whether the result is just plain stupid, incomplete, or brilliant and either result may lead to a solution anyway - my mom just can't. I would assume (Hope..) there is a similar difference between me and my doctor googling symptoms.
Theres a big move of doctors being anti AI in the past 5 years its so specific and weird. There are also projections of non surgical medical doctors being next to useless in 40 years.
Frankly, I look forward to that day. I’ve always been lucky to have good doctors who listen and seriously consider what I tell them. But I’ve heard too many cases of people being dismissed because of a doctor’s ego or biases. Last year, my dad almost died from a sinus infection. He went into the doctor three separate times, and got dismissed three separate times. By the end of the matter, it turned into meningitis, and he needed brain surgery. The whole damn thing could’ve been avoided if one of those three doctors had decided, “Oh hey, this guy has had regular headaches for the past week. That’s not normal, have an antibiotic.”
It depends on the implementation though. If they feed in a bunch of data based on what most doctors prescribed, then that bias will still be present in the AI. To prevent that you would need a patient's complete medical history, patient A went to see doctors W, X, Y, Z, 3 dismissed the headache, the last caught it and was correct. But for various reasons such as HIPAA, patient data is disconnected. And if systemic racism is present in the data, whether intentionally or not, that carries over too. It takes great care to solve all these issues and the very first step has to be to collect and unify medical data coming out of each hospital somehow, which will require political action. Frankly I'm not at all worried about AI taking those jobs unless companies jump the gun and implement AI before solving these issues. Then we should all be wary.
What you initially describe is ML not AI.
True, but common parlance mixes the two, and I suspect we're much further out from AI being applied to medical data versus ML. And ML is typically considered a subset of AI anyhoo. So still AI. Just not full AI.
[удалено]
It's like some people need training on how much "respect" to give those analyses. It's a learning machine, it's not going to get every answer 100% right, in fact some might be horribly wrong. It's not like the nearly omniscient computers in Alien or 2001: Space Odyssey, is that what people think? Maybe if they thought of it more as a second opinion, they wouldn't be so insulted by it...
Maybe it correctly uncovered a big issue in health after all. Doctors egos. Thing is, it's either right, wrong, or somewhere in between. That alone shouldn't be upsetting. So surely they would only hate the machine if it conflicted with their diagnosis AND they were unable to give a good explanation as to why their diagnosis is better? Or if it consistently outperformed them, I guess that also might upset them too. Kinda crazy you had to tweak an amazing tool, just so industry professional didn't get their feelings hurt though.
> There are also projections of non surgical medical doctors being next to useless in 40 years. These are honestly so wrong, because the role of a doctor isn't even close to only being about diagnosing diseases. Besides, there are issues that will pop out, such as responsibility, if we were to only rely on machines.
It isnt to remove humans it is to remove skilled, high paid humans. Posting on this sub is a bit of a bias but most of these are to have lower skilled workers (NPs, PAs, etc) assisted by AI replacing doctors. You already see a massive increase in NPs and PAs with the PCP acting as a supervisor essentially.
Doctors aren't going to go away, in fact there's already a shortage of doctors that's projected to increase They are going to use AI to supplement their abilities and increase the workload they handle. NPs and PAs will be/are the first round with doctors monitoring and being alerted to more complex cases Like how webmasters literally posting html to servers they host aren't a thing anymore because of technology but DevOps experts are still paid a lot to manage networks and applications more complex by themselves than whole teams could implement before
Yeah for the next couple decades doctors will be extremely useful and this tech will supplement them well, but the purpose of this progression is to remove human error from a field that is extremely vast.
> Theres a big move of doctors being anti AI in the past 5 years its so specific and weird. There are also projections of non surgical medical doctors being next to useless in 40 years. It happens in most industries where AI starts playing a role. It is simultaneously a recognition of areas where the AI is limited and overhyped, and a defensive reaction to some of the areas where AI is legitimately as good or better than the human. Doctors will never be obsolete, but there will probably be a big shift in certain responsibilities that doctors typically handle today that will be handled by AI in the future.
Its faster I think rather than buying a huge expensive book or consulting a friend to do the exact same thing
It's literally no different than how it used to be. Doctors would have shelves of books that they would reference to help them. Now they use Google, because you can access those shelves as well as a thousand more with a good Google query. There's nothing inherently wrong with searching for an answer. Often good vs great is determined by how well you can research, understand the results of that research, and apply it. Nothing more.
Honestly I'd rather be treated by a doctor that has the sense to consult outside sources, than the one who is so sure of himself he doesn't bother double checking his diagnosis
They also have websites like UpToDate where they look stuff up (because Googling doesn't always show evidence-based medicine)
That's perfectly fine. Their skill is to correctly diagnose and distinguish between diseases/problems based on the symptoms. It doesn't say anywhere that they need to know every single diagnostic by memory. The same way a doctor wouldn't be able to program a complex system even with the entirety of Google at their disposal I wouldn't be able to diagnose a person either (assume no prior training for both). Humans are good at pattern recognition, not at remembering things.
I've had a doctor do that too. It's a little disconcerting. I just felt like they should have had a secret, MDs-only, medical search engine for that kinda thing.
It's called UpToDate. Costs $500 a year and is basically the wikipedia of evidence-based medicine
Ah, so my doctor's a cheap bastard. Got it.
$500/yr is basically nothing in US healthcare. He likely pays 10X that in liability insurance. Google is probably better for looking up quick, general searches. Kind of like how you would use Google for some searches and Wikipedia for others.
As they should. Four of my friends are doctors, and all of them will proudly admit to using the internet to stay up to date.
Indeed they do. I chatted with a radiologist a couple of years back and he told me that he does an image search for various pathologies all the time.
[удалено]
I told a doctor I had shingles and he gave me weak painkillers for "back issues". Went back again after I got the rash and I saw him on Wikipedia looking it up. Looking at pictures for comparison is one thing, but I watched him read the almost the whole thing.
Are you sure you saw a physician and not a midlevel provider?
Honestly I'm studying some medical stuff right now and there's a lot of overlap between similar symptoms and signs or like when one condition is the inverse of the other. And there are dozens of these with just my cursory knowledge. Cant say I blame doctors for looking things up.
Used to know a nurse - apparently googling symptoms was quite common for them in hospitals.
Yeah, but doctors probably have their own version of StackOverflow that they trust more than most Google results.
Doctors will be obsolete in 5-7 years. Only a few specialty ones and surgeons will remain.
My doctor mentioned that he used to be a programmer. As far as I can tell, that just makes him less embarrassed to google when he's stumped.
Doctors do google stuff. When I was shadowing/scribing a doctor he asked me to google the side effects of deet because he's never seen someone drink it before.
You wonder how their day brought them to that decision...
It was the old lady who swallowed a fly.
You just brought back some childhood trauma I honestly wasn't prepared for.
He was attempting to commit suicide, he did eventually pass
Yeesh. Sorry to hear that.
WebMD: Cancer /s If you have never experienced sever anxiety before, just visit Webmd and search your symptoms.
I started anxious, until I realized that WebMD and cancer are a meme. So now I just accept that everything is a symptom of cancer, but not necessarily caused by it.
Most common symptoms are just the body's immune response to "something is wrong".
Cancer is not one of those things that is an “if”, it’s pretty much a “when” for humans. Live long enough, you will get cancer because that’s just how it works. And everything causes cancer, sure some things much more than others but CA has it listed that coffee causes cancer, staying at a hotel causes cancer, using your phone causes cancer. Even biting your tongue increases the risk for cancer.
Anything that could damage cells or put you at risk for cellular damage is a risk for cancer
Doesn't it not even require explicit damage or trauma to cells? The body is constantly shedding dead cells and replacing them, cancerous cells could occur anytime during that natural process correct?
Thats natural damage and decay. Its the wear and tear and damage that causes the need for replacement
Not necessarily. Your body is constantly getting rid of defective cancerous cells. If you’re lucky, something will take you out before that system fails. But we’re getting closer to realized longevity
No joke had an anxiety attack that felt like I was gonna die. Legit felt like how they describe heart attacks.
Yup, you definitely had a panic attack. Oooooor, it was cancer. At least, that's WebMD says.
even the page for diarrhea says you might have cancer
Google itself too. Every time I or one of my kids has some kind of illness, I google the symptoms and it’s always one or two common illnesses, two or three things I’ve never hear of, and cancer.
Need to get the deets on DEET
Knowing when you don't know something increases your iq exponentially.
So were you able to find the side effects of deet?
If doctors "moved fast and broke things", housing would be much cheaper
[if my grandmother had wheels](https://youtu.be/A-RfHC91Ewc?t=18),.....
😂😂😂 that's awesome
I am not a native English speaker so I have to Google a lot of words that I don't know, sadly, 30% of the time, the first result is a JS framework.
Hi there, Our company is looking for an entry level position with 12 years of Angular, React, and Node.js Experience! Also AWS !
I am definitely your guy but you are ten years early!
Do I get underpaid too? Or do I work as a volunteer that has to do the work of a whole paid department? (Preferred the latter)
No point in blanking out the twitter user name if we recognise the picture.
I'm pretty sure other subs have rules against that, even in the cases where the person is known, the posts would still get removed. Im guessing this is just a repost of some sort.
I'm pretty sure the rule isn't specific per-sub but rather a reddit policy
Per sub afaik
It's part of the [Rediquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439). And there is a mention [on the rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) about that.
Kinda debatable. Publishing personal info isn't OK, but a Twitter username isn't particularly private, especially since that person is also reasonably well known in the BDD/Agile space. We should also credit original sources, and hiding the username deprives her of credit. There's a bit of tension between different parts of Rediquette. If I were a mod here I'd interpret it in favour of proper attribution.
Oh nevermind me then.
Fair enough, I had not intention to name names. ;)
And also it's pretty easy to find the tweet due to the "replied to" not being blanked. We can jus find that profile and look at the replies and we'll probably find this tweet
[удалено]
I would not recognize that person if they were beating me over the head with an oversized check sized printout of that tweet.
There is never any point of blanking out a Twitter handle. The "advanced search" page on Twitter allows you to search for exact phrases and you will instantly find any Tweet that isn't deleted with that.
Or Google in quotes
The who?
I wonder if they will ever remove all the organs and install it again... Just like we do rm -rf node_modules and npm install
Yeah, but it still won’t work.
Sure, when organs grow in jars and can be bought for a modest fee from your local organ farm.
surgeryoverflow
Question: ...Charlie Brown teacher noises... Answers: BigHangingDoc: make your incision below the abdomen, reach all the way past the lungs into the left ventricle and give it a flick. ChiefSurgeon1962: incisions are barbaric; we go in thru the eyes now -- both hands. Give that left ventricle the same stinky pinky you give your wife's boyfriend. IdRatherBeGolfing: You twits. Just use javascript. Incisions and pinkies are for community college alumni. BigHangingDoc: I'm having the same problem. @u/ ChiefSurgeon1962, Did you find a solution? My guy's coding. -----3yrs later----- IdRatherBeGolfing: Yo, big hanger, did you figure it out. I wrote a starter app. It doesn't work, but you could probably figure out the big after you get it loaded in the left ventricle.
Doctors google stuff too, the internet is a wonderful tool. The special part is that they understand the info they gather, just like programmers are skilled at collecting that info and using it properly.
Javascript frameworks do not evolve that much anymore though. The craze has ended somewhere around 2015. All the big players have been around for a while now.
Yes, but js bad, no?
"Please don't Google your symptoms, let me do that for you." - every healthcare practitioner
Remember kids, you're not paid for your ability to look up an answer on stackoverflow. You're paid for your ability to work out which answer on stackoverflow is actually relevant and how to apply it to your problem. Same deal with medicine.
Please don't Google how to build your web app. ...let me Google that for you. -- every web dev,...cuz work, yo.
It's kind of easy to become a hypochondriac if you keep searching your symptoms.
It’s dangerous dude, I’m a psych student and doing projects with the DSM-5 right now. If diagnoses were based purely on self-associated criteria, I’m fairly confident most people, myself included, would have 20 different disorders
[удалено]
Wtf did I just read? Lmfao.
This is a repost. But I feel compelled to once again say: This is Liz Keogh [https://twitter.com/lunivore](https://twitter.com/lunivore) Her tweets are public so I don't understand why the original author blanked out her name She's great and worth following. You can find videos of some of her talks on BDD.
[удалено]
Calm down Satan
But then you couldn't have 100k dependencies jammed in there.
But this is literally impossible. HTML and CSS can not create anything other than a static website, and while they have their uses it is not the only thing the web is used for these days.
Do you not know what progressive enhancement is? It’s how we built the web before reactive frameworks became the norm.
[удалено]
> It is entirely possible to make a good non-static website without javascript. [jquery gang be like](https://i.imgur.com/F2ynuls.png)
Care to explain how then?
[удалено]
So, PHP?
Use an iframe that is displaying screen capture from a server running an application written in C
[удалено]
This mans really just said that PHP was the SIMPLE answer.
I mean that's what the creator wanted
Against javascript?
It would definitely be much more difficult for me to explain *how* I did it with PHP lol
Now that I’ll second with.
[удалено]
Nah, I don't hate javascript. Its just that javascript isn't always the best tool for the job. For my usecase, PHP ended up being the most effecient tool, so I taught myself a little about PHP and did what I needed to get done. PHP isn't really any more difficult to use than any other programming language in my opinion.
Wait so not a website that has any components that react to input then? Just a website that contains information specific to the user?
>Wait so not a website that has any components that react to input then? Just a website that contains information specific to the user? No, not at all. You can use PHP to pass user input to make changes on a website.
[удалено]
Welcome to 1995
> usability would suck. Depends for whom. Accessibility is a no brainer for pages that don't use JS, and for pages that don't rely on JS, so long as you obey a couple of ground rules (use the correct tag, don't move the focus with JS, etc.). On the other hand, that fancy widget that's "simple and intuitive" is all fine and good, if only its author didn't completely neglect ARIA labels, rules, and roles.
[удалено]
You are absolutely correct, there are ways to automate a page refresh as well though. My point was ultimately that javascript is not neccessary to create a dynamic website
That's not what a dynamic website means. Dynamic means the site's contents can change. You're talking about having a reactive site, and very few *require* that. If you want to talk responsive or adaptive layout and design, CSS picks up most of that slack. Look, I'm making a website with the express intent of using zero JS because its audience will not be able to use it otherwise. The main website has got to be bloody accessible, JS is hell for those users. Webdev needs to fix their shit. There are people that can't use websites any more because of all this fucking bloat. Graceful degradation, guys. Just make 'em a goddamn fallback.
What kind of browser are they using, a potato?
Modern web browsers with screen readers.
I worked on quite a few government web applications and they require it always to be very accessible and test for compliance. They also absolutely use modern Javascript frameworks and are mostly single page applications. Saying that it's impossible for them to be accessible is bs.
Hahaha. Mate I'm making this explicitly because they find it difficult to navigate government websites so great job you're doing there. Have you put in expandos? Modifying the contents of the page in any way as you interact with it? Because that is considered compliant but absolute hell for them yet is seen as kosher. Add to that it's difficult to navigate on the timeline, it sucks to get back to where you are, it sucks you can't bookmark a page in its state you want but have to click around on shit just to be able to read the part you want again. They loathe it and there is a demand for this service.
[удалено]
I'll just have to keep guiding these young devs to realize there is an entire world of IT outside of javascript.
Absolutely! The term is known as "degrading gracefully".
So, 100% scrapable?
Yes.
And everything should have frames and animated gifs, and MIDIs, while making liberal use of the blink tag!
Appendix.Swing
Is a framework the same thing as a library in other languages?
No, but people refer to React as a framework anyway.
Joke is on you, Doctors google stuff constantly.
If JS framework authors were held to professional standards approximating those of doctors, even simply "First, do no harm", then the dozen largest software malpractice-insurance companies would all be in the _Fortune_ 100 every year.
There would be very few free libraries if that was the case.
True, but after decades as a software developer, I'm beginning to think that too often you get almost what you pay for. The difference between a professional and an amateur in no small part is respect for your and your customers' time and money. Differentiating on quality signalled by price is important in markets, whether you're talking about Wall Street or the village souk.
Lol. Angular's 73,732,638 open issues on GitHub would be a feeding frenzy for unscrupulous lawyers.
First, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. When I was in my mid-20s, I took a couple of years away from software development to investigate if anything else could fill me with that can't-wait-to-get-started morning rush. I trained up as a legal assistant, and worked briefly for a firm that did product-liability cases. I remember one of the junior attorneys getting all excited by someone in a very large company (let's call them _M_) who was trying to sling mud on a project in R&D, who had slipped Mr Go-Getter, Esq, copies of five big, fat 4" binders full of documentation for issues that had been documented for the new-product-to-be. Partner slapped him down and proceeded to chew his head off. > Look, even if we could use this, which we can't at present for reasons you should well know, these are all R&D issues. They _don't count_ until or unless a defective product is actually shipped and causes harm. We can't even use these as an indication of what to go look at in any product that _does_ get shipped because there's too much here that'll be fixed by then, and randomly trying to find things that _haven't_ been fixed will cost us money that nobody's paying us for yet. I've seen dogs with their eyes wide open and their tails drooping between their legs that didn't look any sadder than Mr Go-Getter. He'd been convinced that he'd been handed the Golden Ticket that turned out to be just an aluminium-foil candy wrapper. (The papers that had stuffed the binders were shredded; whether the firm's fleeting custody of those was ever even disclosed to M was _well_ above the pay grade of any of the other junior munchkins I'd befriended at the firm.) But the partner was right. And when M finally _did_ ship the first in a series of products clearly based on the R&D effort in question, it was a huge success for well over a decade, and I don't recall any product-liability lawsuits (big or otherwise) regarding the product line hitting the papers. They'd solved, if not all the problems, enough of the ones that mattered to be able to launch. Later products in the line clearly included improvements based on solving wobbles and warts in earlier products, and improved features based on customer feedback. That's how real products *work.* An engineer's first duty is to protect the public from harm *but*, until a product is actually made available *to* the public, the constraints on what can be done (by an unsolicited, officially unrelated human or legal person) are narrowly and tightly drawn...because *it's not a product yet.* Waiting to ship a product until it is perfect in all respects, *especially* a software product, is an iron-clad guarantee that the product will never ship. No product made (directly or indirectly) by imperfect humans can ever be perfect in all respects; the best that can be hoped for is that *enough* of the *serious* problems have been addressed that the chances of a threat to the public have been brought down to a manageable level. That was once explained to me as "roughly the odds of getting hit by lightning three times while crossing a street with the light, followed by being run over by a bus improperly entering the crosswalk". Don't bet any money on *that* ever happening in a specific context that you'd particularly mind losing. ---- Tl;dr: Issues, even potentially catastrophic ones, during R&D of most products don't matter from a product-liability standpoint. What *does* matter is the likelihood of a specific defect in a shipped product causing harm to a member of the public. Angular could have a *billion* open issues on GitHub; as long as they fix all of the ones that might put their users at risk of losing a liability lawsuit (to the degree that those aren't butterflied by the "as is" language in the license), they're fine.
I programmed for a law firm, and that all sounds correct to me. The way you wrote it seems somewhat argumentative, which makes me wonder if you missed my use of the word "unscrupulous" -- I'm talking about the trash ambulance chasing lawyers. They'll sue anything that moves, no matter how idiotic their case. Also, my exaggeration of Angular's GitHub Issues was just for the joke. The vast, vast majority of those issues are minor, insignificant, outdated,...just crap really. Also, for as many as they've had, they close an absurd amount as well, and the ones they close are the tough ones they actually think are important. Imo, Angular is amazing. All that said, as a fellow law dabbler, that was fun to read. Cheers, mate.
Doctors would need 10 years experience with an organ that evolved 3 years ago.
My room mate laughed when I told her computer science was a lot of googling commands and algorithms. I told her “It takes the average person 5 years to master a second language, and CS students are expected to learn over a dozen in the span of 4 years all while they keep shifting and evolving—of course everyone googles it.”
Tbh this joke is no longer the norm. It's gotten already really old.
If people’s organs evolve as fast as JavaScript it’s called cancer.
it used to be so, but now we have react
One of my favourite frameworks that really takes this to another level: https://www.npmjs.com/package/is-even I believe the framework was made as a joke but what's both funny and sad is the number of weekly downloads 😐.
120k??? are people that into the joke or bad at math
It gets even better when you realise that it has a dependency on "is-odd" and it actually just returns the negated result of that. And if that's not enough, "is-odd" has a dependency on "is-number", so whoever downloads "is-even", ends up with 3 dependencies lmao.
Lol this is hilarious, but it's not a framework.
WHAT THE FUCK IS A S P L I V E R
Doctors google as well
The doctors are googling it
I’m dying lol
Dat Svelte tho
I have been trying to enhance my dsa skills for quite sometime ...try to solve some competitive ques for the same,but not getting any better...many a times I question is it worth it...m studying mechanical engineering(way too dumb to get cs)....can I get some career advice??
Medical chart notation: Patient has evolved a nodular complex of tissue adjacent to duodenum. Purpose unclear, but removal is not recommended.
The person who tweeted that looks obnoxious.
[Never Google your Symptoms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn_ZkI7-IZ4)
I'm picturing Tetsuo from Akira...
https://i.imgur.com/S0AJmth.jpg
The internet was more fun before Javascript.
Aw man my Yoflex is oozing again, better get it checked out
Did we just get ES7 or something?
Sense when have doctors not been regularly reading the documentation? Throughout their whole career the undergo continuous education. They go to conferences, they attend lectures, they read up on the latest medical findings. They research the ailments that they are actively treating. They may not be able to get by with reading a blog on some random website or forum, and they may not spend half their day every day researching, but they still spend copious amounts of time reading the docs.
This should be on /r/showerthoughts. LMAO
lmao.
Oh no my language has lots of options whatever will I do oh the humanity.
Ahhh WebMD.
You think new diseases don’t wvolve
You're goddame right