> 'Those include a disgusting, misogynistic guess from Moghadam that Rodger’s sister is “smokin hot” and compliments on the writing style of the killer.'
Complimenting someone's writing doesn't mean you endorse their actions, and the killer's sister being attractive is relevant when the killer was motivated by sexual frustration. Sometimes we need to talk about things, even though people might be offended, or, in Gawker's case, act offended for attention and/or page views, another way of exploiting tragedy.
People take offense at everything nowadays. Obviously he was an idiot for making jokes that anybody with common sense knows would offend people, but it wasn't any more offensive than jokes other popular figures have said before.
Definitely hardware failures are a PR challenge but kickstarter's margins aren't affected by COGs and hardware projects tend to require more money (as you pointed out). They've got lots of motivation to make it work.
Pebble is definitely a success, OUYA is another success, the Neil Young endorsed Pono player and service seems to be well underway and looking like another success and of course, the LIFX wifi enabled multi light-bulb as well. When you run the numbers, the percentage of success for hardware projects is quite small. But as you point out, Kickstarter get their fees regardless of success or failure. I think Kickstarter does care, the problem is just a lot bigger than they currently know how to fairly solve.
I wish more people saw healthcare this way, and I guess now I'll probably use Uber and AirBnb as an analogy to help them to. THIS is the way to think about health, and how to treat it's risks and limitations.
That's a fair argument but in practice isn't true. The pace at the larger health IT shops is FUCKING GLACIAL. I've been through getting an EMR through two meaningful use stages in a fifth the time combined than a typical larger shop might've gotten one done, with a tenth the manpower.
In verticals like this don't dismiss the advantage of being lean, nimble, and wholly stocked with incredible and enthusiastic people.
Maybe sometimes, but that's strong. Just avoiding groupthink or the weight of ecosystem apathy that tends to grow out these depressing verticals that hire incestuously from other shops that have been building shitty products really slowly for years.
I don't mean to downplay the ridiculous bureaucratic and regulatory crap, but I don't think it's fair to lay the blame at it's feet either.
Honestly, health is just a Ripe For Disruptions™ as any startup-interesting vertical. Takes more stomach and open-mindedness than anything.
It's a bummer. Page/Google are being limp and lazy on this. With opportunities as broad as they have they can afford to Do Hard Things, where Hard is something a little bit out of their wheelhouse. That's okay I guess, but it's a big shame cause health IT could really use some shops with lots of leverage and actual engineering talent to help move the needle when it comes to the constantly backward standards.
[FWIW - I'm a decade and a half long healthcare startup hacker]
I've been in healthcare for a bunch of years (I dunno, sheesh, I guess like 14?). For a big stint of that I built systems that aim to prevent medication errors in hospitals by telling clinicians when doses were due, etc.
I know of at least two incidents where code that I wrote failed in a way that (due to some edge-case concurrency in one case, and daylight savings time in another case) didn't make it clear to a nurse that another nurse had given a medication to a patient and the patient received a double-dosage of a pretty severe drug.
Imagine getting that call. It's every bit as fucking terrible and humbling as you'd think.
Far more numerous (thankfully) were the calls that we got reporting that we stopped double dosages or even order-of-magnitude label misreadings on drugs. I know of more than a handful of instances that code I wrote may have literally saved a life.
I've been lucky to have found myself at companies that take this stuff really, really seriously. It's a really hard balance to strike when failure is as devastating as it can be in healthcare, but the status quo is pretty terrifying also. In general every health IT shop's culture finds some balance between making decisions based on fear, and trying to achieve a velocity that allows problems to be fixed quickly and the greatest positive impact possible against the problem they're solving.
I talk to a lot of people who want to work on "big/real problems" and list "healthcare" as one of them but when it comes down to it are often pretty freaked out about the stakes. It's weird to be used to the gravity of it, I certainly am now. I can't even wrap my head around what it would mean to work on something that doesn't hurt people when it fails.
Also in the industry, but on the HL7 interface side.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've seen studies that suggest, for example, a 75-90% reduction in med error rates in hospitals that have gone to computerized barcode systems. So there's a tremendous amount of good to be done in the field.
But, as you point out, the potential damage that can be done by mistakes makes for a fair bit of anxiety at times. Fortunately, it's been my experience that people in the field tend to take testing very seriously as a result.
Another interesting thing on that aspect - I'm one of the only people in my department that doesn't have a prior clinical background. I almost wonder if the fact that they're less trusting of the technology at times is a good thing to some extent.
>I'm one of the only people in my department that doesn't have a prior clinical background. I almost wonder if the fact that they're less trusting of the technology at times is a good thing to some extent.
I totally agree. Over time I've come to really value working with teams made up of a variety of backgrounds. I think it's incredibly valuable to not end up in group-think on either end of the spectrum when it comes to how to approach problems, assessing risk, and healthy cynicism about technology.
Yeah, I came here to ask this as well. I get really excited about shops that work hard to facilitate and lower the barrier of entry for people to make a living doing what they love (Etsy is a specific career-crush for me). Curious whether this is included in the sort of thing the RFS is talking about.
FYI, the trailer for the documentary at the bottom of this article has a clip that makes it clearer what exactly he does with the mirror to help him paint photo-realistically. It wasn't super clear to me until seeing that.
I'm guessing a mirror pointed at the subject over one eye with the other eye looking at the blank canvas? Then it would just be a matter of filling in paint on the canvas where it should match up with the original.
No, the mirror is on a stick and doesn't move. When Tim is looking down at the mirror from above he can see the reflected image he wants to paint, and also the paint surface he is going to paint on. He keeps adding color until the edge of the mirror disappears at which point he knows that he got the color on the surface to match the color in real life.
Oh interesting. That may be it. I wasn't sure whether he was actively using both eyes that way, or if he was tilting the mirror in and out while painting. I think it's probably hard to sort out how well it would work without trying it yourself.