It goes both ways. How many alcoholics had this doctor treated that lied about their drinking? We can expect our doctor's to be perfect but addicts lie, and it's normal to expect addicts to lie. I think a little empathy would have gone a long way here, don't get me wrong, but saying they have no humanity is a bit much.
I do not think it true that it goes "both ways." Patients do not have a collective responsibility to doctors. Patients should not go untreated because other patients lie about their addictions. Being a doctor means exactly watching dozens of horses go in and out the door each day and saying "that's a zebra" before the zebra makes it to the exit. There's a fundamental responsibility to perform differential rather than normative diagnosis.
Patients do not have a collective responsibility to doctors, but I dont think doctors have the responsibility to provide a diagnosis at all.
I think people have strange and exaggerated expectations.
You don't go to a car mechanic and expect them to have all the answers and perfect accuracy. The expectation is that they will take a look and provide their fallible opinion.
What standard of care are you proposing? Please be specific.
Auto mechanics frequently misdiagnose problems, especially those caused by electrical or software faults. But in the worst case they can usually just keep following the manufacturer's service manual and replacing parts in a trial-and-error process until the vehicle works again.
The human body is orders of magnitude more complex and there is no service manual. We have a few evidence-based medicine clinical practice guidelines but those cover only the simplest of cases. For anything more complex, physicians have to fall back on theory, intuition, and experience. It's not surprising that they sometimes get it wrong. And sometimes there's just no way to make a definitive diagnosis for the root cause of a patient's complaints and so treatment is necessarily symptomatic; this can be tough for patients to accept. I'm not trying to defend clinicians who make preventable errors or dismiss legitimate patient concerns but we need to be realistic about what is achievable given the current limited state of medical knowledge.
The standard here was the doctor didn’t listen to the woman. He could easily have found she was lying or not with a simple overnight visit to the hospital. Put her in there for one night, see she’s not drinking but still drunk, and that’s it. Instead, she suffered for ages.
Listening is a simple standard. Doctors don’t listen because they don’t care further than getting more patients through the door faster.
If I tell my mechanic there is a problem with the steering, he’s not going to change the oil and send my car out, he’ll check the fucking steering.
Did the woman come in and say "I have auto-brewery syndrome, and I want you to test me for it"?
If so, then the comparison is off. It isnt that the doctors "didn't listen", it is that they didn't correctly deduce a 1 in a million cause, based on the information they had.
She came in, the doctor asked if she had drunk alcohol, she says no, what more is there to understand? This doctor didn’t listen. If he had, even if he didn’t know about this specific disease, he could have started tests and brought in other doctors. Instead, suffering. Not hard to understand. Doctors don’t listen.
You keep saying they don't listen, but there's no evidence they didn't hear what she said. It seems your problem is more with how much weight they put on that information, and how much effort they put into getting to the bottom of things.
Most doctors aren't interested in playing Detective for the extremely rare cause. They treat the most likely cause given the information that they have on hand
I think you are hung up on the word listen, and I am saying there are a lot of things that happen after they hear what a patient says.
patients aren't saying "I have auto brewery and would like you to confirm it".
Patients are instead reporting symptoms which the doctor then has to interpret and find a likely cause. Even if they 100% believe the patients, the diagnosis may not be obvious. IF they dont 100% trust the patient, or think they may be confused, then it is even harder. Patients ARE very unreliable.
They think she’s a drunk, she says she isn’t, the easiest way to find out is ensure she can’t have alcohol. Not that hard to do at a hospital! Seems like a simple idea to me.
Remember, it took several visits to figure this out, and no one even tried this simple thing to suss out if she was truly an alcoholic.
My standard is that doctors listen to patients, which they don’t do because they don’t respect them. They think they’re all knowing, incapable of mistakes, and let their personal biases rule. Every doctor I’ve been to has struggled to listen.
I have never expereinced a doctor that doesnt listen to their patient. However most dont take everything the patient says at face value.
Processing, weighing, and interpreting what patients say is a fundamental part of their job. Sifting through crappy data and figuring out what is relevant.
Severe auto-brewery has been documented on the order of 20 times in the history of the western world. Thats why it is worth publishing a paper about, and why doctors dont suspect it, and might not even know about it.
How many people have have gone to the doctor and lied about their alcohol use? 6 nines is 1 a million patients. There are probably more nines than that.
When there are single digits for the number of people experiencing this, and many digits for those who are alcoholics, you cannot expect anything but Occam’s razor.
As others have pointed out, the answer is moderation. High quality, diligent moderation. Reddit is the ultimate proof of this. A highly moderated, focused subreddit can be a wonderful place. A loosely moderated subreddit quickly devolves into memes and lowest common denominator posts, which is totally fine for specific subjects, or even meme-based subreddits for a given topic. If you want quality, you have to invest in it. It doesn't just happen. The good news is that it's self reinforcing. Once you have something good, people start policing themselves and others. This can go overboard of course, but it can be a good a really good thing. I often see comments here along the lines of, "comments like this are not welcome here".
I really dislike forums nowadays but I'm part of a /r/$car subreddit along with the $carforum.com and there's no comparison between using reddit vs the forum for quality data and not losing things to the ether.
There are so many subreddits where great posts get lost, subreddits that don't allow commenting on old posts, being notified when old posts are updated, things like that. $Carforum has tags I can follow, just so many QOL features that reddit will never implement. You can sort subreddit by top, google search for something specific but all of those QOL improvements forums have lead to such better growing conversations. I guess reddit has flairs now that I think about it but I rarely see that used as a search mechanism.
With that said I absolutely hate having to sign up for forums. If they don't have a google/apple/whatever auth I can use there's a 70%+ chance I'll never make an account. And even then it's a consideration because you never know if after creating an account with an SSO you'll next be asked 20 questions, be limited from posting for X amount of time/karma (which does happen on reddit but less frequently IME).
Subreddits need .. sub-sub reddits or something similar. /r/$car/wheels, /r/$car/engine..
Also, as cliche as it is, I have never had a worse experience with moderators than on reddit. I used to be an ircop on efnet and none of us were anywhere near as rude and quick to assume the worst as my reddit experience.
Using a password manager negated the whole signing up thing from me and I actually like it better because I'm signing up with a site specific email and random password instead of using a third party account that they might not support or that I might not use in the future. Mostly I just don't want my major provider identities associated with individual third-party sites. A password manager basically provides the same click to login experience without the side effects of using SSO.
Yeah you're not wrong, I use password managers for everything. The forums that require an email sign-up are typically always the ones with the annoying (to me) sign up process where I feel like I'm doing the equivalent of putting my resume information in line by line on a job application that didn't auto-input it. Age, required. Gender, required. Car model and year, required. etc.. etc.. etc.. Just got old to me after being on a thousand car forums over my lifetime.
I couldn't tell you how many birthday messages I get from 10-20 year old forums every year.
I only once tried to participate to a subreddit /r/instax.
I could leave comment but I could not post to ask a technical question or share my own instax shots. My posts were just commented by a bot saying they were moved to a temporarily queue waiting for approval and later were deleted. No communication about rules that would apply, nor the reasons of the deletion.
I just never bothered anymore. To me reddit is pretty much a dead platform.
Thanks for contributing to the good days on efnet.
I gave up reddit after (although not because) I was banned for not riding a mod vigilantism hype train. If you're not part of the hive mind, you're really worse than nothing to them.
reddit is lame too. it's facebook for millennials.
facebook: boomers posting cringe rightwing/normie (back in my day we worked hard!) stuff with occasional wholesome bits
reddit: millennials posting cringe leftwing/normie stuff (my dog might be gay, am i the asshole? btw i like ukraine) with occasional wholesome animal photos
I barely know a single person IRL outside of tech who uses reddit and I'm a millennial. Like, they know about it, and occassionally reference a post on it but they aren't on it anywhere near like my friends on instagram. My millennial friends are on instagram 24/7. I might make a story once a month and as soon as I post it I have 100+ people who have looked at it. And I have so many friends who post stories every single day. They're on it non-stop during any idle time.
Reddit has an atrocious new user experience. That's why Digg was so much more popular and reddit was incredibly niche until digg died. I didn't use reddit pre-digg-death because I had no idea how it worked it looked so confusing.
Unfortunately reddit-style "moderation" causes other problems. In particular it creates the worst kind of echo chambers. I put moderation in quotes because on reddit they are more like tyrannical overlords. Places like HN and traditional fora work much better.
I’d guess when you consider all the people who have the free time to sit down on a site like reddit and post and comment, they are probably like 12 years old on average.
Subreddit numbers have got to be bs and inflated now adays. 800k people in the community and five new posts a day the highest with a couple hundred votes. Seems legit.
I don't think this is correct - this is an extremely common view, in several senses of the word. It's especially popular among people who have never tried to use an unmoderated forum with more than a few members, and the sort of people who make moderation a necessity in the first place.
>because it's a convenient lesser evil
This is the true in the sense that pretty much all of society is a convenient lesser evil than "everybody agrees generally what the right thing is and does that all the time without exception".
I dislike censorship but I dont mind* moderation. Twitter is impossible to use because you have 0 buy in and common ground. I have no problem with a subreddit that wants to show beheading videos that moderates non-beheading videos from being posted. This is how I believe the town square should work. There is room for everyone to have a space, but it's NOT the SAME space.
Moderation of bots and some content makes sites useable as long as everyone agrees what is OK and what is not OK. Thats how HN functions
Honestly, I just don't get this view - moderation provides clear, obvious value. You know what, we can have an experiment. I'll provide a list of things that are handled by moderation, and you pick which ones you think should be moderated.
All of those require the interpretation and goodwill of an authority that I do not trust (and certainly does not express my own will as well as I can do it myself).
If you're incapable of trusting some sort of authority on this, why are you here? Go host your own community. Everyone else in the world is willing to make some sort of sacrifice on this front so their community is, in fact, a community, and not a pile of trash.
As for trust - I'm not really sure what trust has to do with it. I evaluate communities based on their content, and what I don't see is often just as important as what I do. If I like it, I'll stick around - if I don't, or if it changes, I'll leave. The community is operated by the people in charge of it, it's theirs by default. Do you visit people's houses and refuse to take your shoes off because they're the "authority"? Seems like an odd thing to get hung up over.
> (Let's not fool ourselves. We have moderators and downvotes, not because they work well, but because it's a convenient lesser evil)
Well, indeed. This is just anarchism vs. policing but for text. It gets re-litigated over and over again; different places move the boundary to different places. But very few dare to have no moderators or no police, and those that do are usually fairly immediate disasters. I'm sure you could find Bakunin quotes that accurately describe the moderation dilemma from 100+ years foresight, if you were so inclined.
This subreddit is actually moderated. And it contains a quite heavy handed rule:
> To avoid disappointment, do not post AI-generated work here.
Which is kinda absurd if you realize the direction generative art is going. (in 50 years, do you think the discussion between generative art with code vs generative art with AI will make sense?)
But, such a rule helps maintain the space on-topic and avoid re-litigating the AI discussion every time someone posts an AI-generated picture.
HN looks lightly moderated but there is a reason why the front page is not full of the latest and greatest political flamewar stuff like all the other media sites.
Never had a comment deleted on HN and only one submission flagged (link to a scientific study on p** sizes). At reddit, I had hundreds of comments deleted simply for stating the facts. It got worse, now I am shadow banned very quickly after creating a new account and posting a couple of comments. So just reading it using redlib now, wonder how long redlib lasts after those AI deals.
HN makes it look casual but it has a very active and diligent moderation and a whole automated system to detect spams, self promotion, hateful comments...
The basic design is on purpose, but the backend doesn't match the front.
i think the overton window is quite large for ideas you can discuss on hn unlike reddit. you can go anywhere really but if your bot-ing or selling something you get swatted. also overtly political takes get nuked but it's both sides
You can't even make a joke on HN without an entire subthread being created to chastise you for it. Most political stories get flagged by default because they tend to degenerate into flamewars, to say nothing of any subject even tangentially related to race, gender, religion, physics or medicine, when the bigots and cranks come out of their crawlspaces. And plenty of people flag any non "technical" subject because they believe (erroneously) that HN is only for programming, CS and startups.
And God forbid javascript runs on the site hosting TFA, or it's behind a paywall, or it has too much whitespace or uses the wrong font or margins or there's a typo. Because if so, that is now the entire topic of conversation.
Compared to the entirety of Reddit, including all of the topic-specific, well moderated subs? Hacker News is unfortunately a dismal place to discuss most topics.
FWIW I agree with almost everything you said, but I think there's a few things that HN has that Reddit doesn't. Reddit's larger American user base tends to dominate most subs with American perspectives but HN seems to have a decently large EU population, especially during EU daytime. Reddit also has a pretty strong anti-capitalist bias in most medium sized subreddits that HN doesn't have, and I perceive that Reddit's average user age is in university while HN's average user age is probably approaching middle age (which probably contributes to the political differences.) I generally think your criticism is spot on.
I agree. This a the quote from the article, someone called it the "destruction of human experience". We have to be a little bit tougher than this, right?
I agree that one can see the ad as depicting "destruction of human experience". This does not mean that my day is ruined after viewing the ad. Disliking the ad and calling it what it is does not mean one is not tough.
I don't feel anything from the ad, but if you're numb to a pointed reminder of the towering tetragrammaton that ushered in perhaps the most anti-human technology we have seen (phones), then perhaps you need to be a little more open to experiencing the rawness of life.
There's no strength in disassociating from the ills of the world. Useful in short bursts, but as a default state I would say is a problem.
Now that doesn't mean the other side -- the histrionics -- are "right," but there is a balance to be found here.
If you dig through twitter, you can find somebody saying something dramatic about basically everything. It might be hyperbole to communicate a feeling. It might be somebody who is legitimately unwell and reacts unreasonably strongly to people. It might be somebody faking it.
You can be almost certain that people using this language don't expect to be aggregated into news articles and then be used as evidence that the world is getting too soft.
I don't think this is so much about this ONE ad but rather, it contributes to the overall feeling that real connections, like art, music, and architecture, are being lost daily. Music programs are constantly being cut. Architects can't find work. Woodworkers can't make a living making custom furniture. Sam Ash music stores are shuttering ALL their locations.
and i'm shocked that your response is to tell people to man up cry babies. maybe try reflecting why there was a reaction to the ad from a human experience perspective. there is a reason apple appologized instead of telling them to man up as you're suggesting.
"We have to be a little bit tougher than this" is not the same as "Man up cry babies". That's a hyperbolic rephrasing which I think significantly misses the tone of the original.
The fact that you think it’s normal to use the word “shocked” to describe how you feel after reading an anonymous comment on an internet board about a tv ad ironically reinforces the entire point.
Apple did it because that’s the typical corporate response to a backlash, that said nobody should tell you to man up, you feel the way you feel and that’s it, just a reminder that it goes in both sides of the spectrum.
I can read "the destruction of human experience" two ways. One, it's a just a descriptive label of the symbolism the act of crushing creative instruments/tools/materials represents, even if that symbolism is clearly not something the creators ever intended. Two, is the more hyperbolic--or perhaps even hysteric--you're literally destroying the human experience and it's hurting me emotionally take. A lot of the commentary on social media is probably closer to the former, but it doesn't discount the latter.
It's pretty obvious what marketing intended. You take a bunch of creative instruments/tools/materials, squish them inside the iPad, and you get to carry them with you with your iPad. Heck, I'm almost certain it's been done before as a cartoon gag: everything gets sucked into one super tool. There's probably an old Looney Tunes episode with something close enough--maybe stuffing books inside someone's head to teach them the material--to make my point.
In any case, the metaphor's pretty clear; unfortunately, the Crush ad completely botches it. There's no mechanism by which the props 'enter' the iPad. Instead, you just see wanton destruction, the hydraulic press lifts up, and then there's an iPad sitting on a giant chunk of steel. Paint is dripping down the side, but the press itself is oddly sterile. The mess? The parts? The paint? All gone on the press except for what's left on the floor. And if it's smashed into itty bitty bits, even if it's now metaphorically "inside" the iPad, what's the point? Did the press somehow squeeze out some metaphysical meaning from the tools that got sucked into the iPad? Now throw in some of the angst about the possibility of generative AI replacing some creative jobs.
If the idea is that an iPad will 'replace' those tools--or more likely, just let the user take them with you wherever they go--there's an implicit assumption that the user values those tools and would like them so close at hand. So literally destroying tools that, for many artists and creatives, are objects of affection closely tied to memories that are critical parts of their self-conception, is an absurd kind of symbolism that would have never made it off the drawing board under Jobs. People tend to respect their tools, and filming their meaningless destruction is going to rub people the wrong way even though it really has no actual impact. Especially with an ad that's simultaneously trying to get you to buy the product they were symbolically destroyed to revel.
Will Crush turn many people off from buying a new iPad when they need one? Almost certainly not. But it does underscore that Apple's changed as as a company. Apple users--myself included--might still love the products they buy, but it doesn't seem like they're in love with them like it once seemed (for way too many of their users).
Local authorities can be very distrustful of government types. Here's a situation where a Forest Service employee was arrested and indicted after a prescribed burn went slightly awry:
More importantly I see this as a band aid for underperforming products. The startup space struggles with this already, but instead of focusing on the product deficiencies and building something people want now we just enable some SaaS that pretends to be a human spewing marketing masquerading as a legitimate human's perspective. Talk about a bottom of the barrel approach. The Internet is going to need to go insular and back to niche forums that are under lock and key from this toxicity.
My friend got robbed in NYC. The only reason he called the police was to get a police report for insurance reasons. They came 8 hours after he called. Obviously they're not going to do anything about it. If it wasn't needed for insurance, there would be absolutely no reason to call them.
reply