US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3261

On March 11 2016 03:04 ragz_gt wrote:


Not saying you are wrong, but "I have seen it first hand" has very little value in policy discussions. It's like Jim Inhofe holding a snowball as evidence that climate change does not exist.

On March 11 2016 03:04 ragz_gt wrote:


Not saying you are wrong, but "I have seen it first hand" has very little value in policy discussions. It's like Jim Inhofe holding a snowball as evidence that climate change does not exist.

On March 11 2016 03:23 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter who you blame. If those congressmen keep their seats (many will), it doesn't matter. They are still there. They will still vote. Many of these congressmen have survived terrible approval ratings already. Their districts are on complete lock down.

On March 11 2016 03:29 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Oh, there's jobs. Even in the US. Just not for every degree. And not in every area of the country. And not for the pay you'd like/need to pay off debt quickly.




I see the problem. But if you let this dictate who you vote for, you are fucked. You can't do that. If you as a voter wants Trump or Sanders or Cruz(maybe the least liked of all 3), you have to shove it down their throats.

Or else, just let them nominate the Koch brothers as 'president-twin for life' (hopefully won't be a very long time), and be done with it.

Or maybe the voters should be less schizophrenic about what they want. And one reason they are so schizophrenic is because they do not vote on issues but on 'who wins' or 'who do I want to drink a beer with'.

On March 10 2016 15:31 oBlade wrote:
I am going to disagree with Kwark some (as usual probably), but I have a similar train of thought..

The reason McDonalds or supermarkets or even airports can have self-checkout kiosks is that there's almost no need for human involvement - people are buying what they want to buy. It's between the people and the product. The cashier is convenient but not contributing substantially to the relationship. You'll note there's still no automated bagging, even though the packing problem is a fundamental thing in computer science. And there won't be for a while because it's just bagging groceries. That's the point I'm trying to make about healthcare. There's no streamlining left to squeeze revenue out of automation when it comes to getting amoxicillin from your PCP.

And there's already tiers of skill, which is why there's nurses. The nurse is already the automation when they digitally weigh you and take your BP/heart rate. You can't make people less skilled in this field, because you want them working well within their comfort zone.

In terms of someone walks into a clinic, says "there's a thing on my arm," I don't see where the automation happens. It'll be a cyst, wart, parasite, tumor - in so many cases like this, is there any way for automation to introduce more efficiency? It'd be a hindrance.

Or radiology. A person tells you how to position yourself, they position the machine, and it images you. Where is the demand to invent some kind of meta-imaging machine that uses 20 cameras to construct a 3d image of you so its algorithm can control where the radio - all while the tech is sitting there providing oversight? Why doesn't the tech just take 30 seconds and do it?

There are exciting things happening technologically in medicine (as always), like the fact that people in the first world are starting to keep consistent track of their basic vitals with smartwear, which might expand further, and the fact that there's companies like medibid popping up which are great for consumers. I am all for a decrease in administration so a greater proportion of the industry is actual healthcare, but I don't think basic medicine is where the automation is going to happen in the future, because it's not where it happens now. What happens is there's some guy, who's one of a few in the world, who can perform some procedure. And he's not cheap, although he may do - I forgot if there's a special word for pro bono with doctors - he may do the procedure for people who need it. But over time, new technology and new techniques make the procedure minimally invasive, and more people are capable of performing it, it's cheaper, it has fewer complications. That's the real effect of technology. Especially eye surgery has experienced this in recent memory, if I'm not mistaken.

I think medicine is probably expanding right now (just a hunch) - I mean more than the base rate our society expands. And it should continue to for a long time. That's where I agree with the point about Excel. 1000 years ago, medicine could do fuck all (even though there were books, people had done dissections, and so forth) and people died by 40-50. Now people are living until they're 90. There's an expanded need for oncologists, thoracic surgeons, dentists because everyone's teeth fall out by then, etc. In telemarketing, it's literally a recording doing the talking. "Automation" has a real meaning in that context, or in the context of manufacturing. People get replaced for some or all of their duties. I don't think this works in a the context of healthcare. And that was my original point: careers that deal with people don't admit to significant automation, including healthcare, education, law, government, police, barber, journalism, or whatever.

On March 10 2016 15:31 oBlade wrote:
I am going to disagree with Kwark some (as usual probably), but I have a similar train of thought..

The reason McDonalds or supermarkets or even airports can have self-checkout kiosks is that there's almost no need for human involvement - people are buying what they want to buy. It's between the people and the product. The cashier is convenient but not contributing substantially to the relationship. You'll note there's still no automated bagging, even though the packing problem is a fundamental thing in computer science. And there won't be for a while because it's just bagging groceries. That's the point I'm trying to make about healthcare. There's no streamlining left to squeeze revenue out of automation when it comes to getting amoxicillin from your PCP.

And there's already tiers of skill, which is why there's nurses. The nurse is already the automation when they digitally weigh you and take your BP/heart rate. You can't make people less skilled in this field, because you want them working well within their comfort zone.

In terms of someone walks into a clinic, says "there's a thing on my arm," I don't see where the automation happens. It'll be a cyst, wart, parasite, tumor - in so many cases like this, is there any way for automation to introduce more efficiency? It'd be a hindrance.

Or radiology. A person tells you how to position yourself, they position the machine, and it images you. Where is the demand to invent some kind of meta-imaging machine that uses 20 cameras to construct a 3d image of you so its algorithm can control where the radio - all while the tech is sitting there providing oversight? Why doesn't the tech just take 30 seconds and do it?

There are exciting things happening technologically in medicine (as always), like the fact that people in the first world are starting to keep consistent track of their basic vitals with smartwear, which might expand further, and the fact that there's companies like medibid popping up which are great for consumers. I am all for a decrease in administration so a greater proportion of the industry is actual healthcare, but I don't think basic medicine is where the automation is going to happen in the future, because it's not where it happens now. What happens is there's some guy, who's one of a few in the world, who can perform some procedure. And he's not cheap, although he may do - I forgot if there's a special word for pro bono with doctors - he may do the procedure for people who need it. But over time, new technology and new techniques make the procedure minimally invasive, and more people are capable of performing it, it's cheaper, it has fewer complications. That's the real effect of technology. Especially eye surgery has experienced this in recent memory, if I'm not mistaken.

I think medicine is probably expanding right now (just a hunch) - I mean more than the base rate our society expands. And it should continue to for a long time. That's where I agree with the point about Excel. 1000 years ago, medicine could do fuck all (even though there were books, people had done dissections, and so forth) and people died by 40-50. Now people are living until they're 90. There's an expanded need for oncologists, thoracic surgeons, dentists because everyone's teeth fall out by then, etc. In telemarketing, it's literally a recording doing the talking. "Automation" has a real meaning in that context, or in the context of manufacturing. People get replaced for some or all of their duties. I don't think this works in a the context of healthcare. And that was my original point: careers that deal with people don't admit to significant automation, including healthcare, education, law, government, police, barber, journalism, or whatever.

On March 11 2016 03:52 Naracs_Duc wrote:


Aren't the Koch brothers supporting Sanders?

On March 11 2016 03:55 Plansix wrote:

The Koch brothers are supporting the Koch brothers. They made a single video praising him, which can either be seen as backing him or trying to poison the well.