• 4 Posts
  • 1.12K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle



  • What becomes epidemic can often be assumed as normal.

    A Cautionary Tale: Sudden Infant Death Syndrome And The “enlarged” Thymus Gland

    In the first half of the 19th century, physicians were becoming alarmed by sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Healthy infants would be put to bed and found dead in the morning. In 1830, pathologists noted that SIDS-affected infants had enlarged thymus glands compared with “normal” autopsy specimens. It seemed logical to conclude that these “enlarged” glands were in some way responsible for the deaths.

    If an enlarged thymus was leading to sudden infant death, removal of the thymus might be of preventive value. Radiology had advanced to the point at which physicians began making the diagnosis of thymic enlargement from x-ray films. After radiographic diagnosis, thymectomy was initially recommended, but the mortality rate was unacceptably high. Thymus irradiation became the treatment of choice.

    The first “successful” use of irradiation to shrink the thymus was reported by Friedländer in 1907. Thousands of children eventually received radiation to prevent status thymicolymphaticus. Some physicians advocated prophylactic irradiation for all neonates.

    There was only one slight problem. It turned out to be deadly

    The cadavers used by anatomists to determine the “normal” thymus size were from the poor, most having died of highly stressful chronic illnesses such as tuberculosis, infectious diarrhea, and malnutrition. What was not appreciated at the time was that chronic stress shrinks the thymus gland. The “normal” thymus glands of the poor were abnormally small. Here is where the fatal mistake occurred: because the autopsied thymus glands of the poor were regarded as normal in size, the SIDS-affected infants were erroneously believed to have thymic enlargement

    In a household or community where large numbers of people express the same symptoms, it is very possible for people to assume this condition to be the normal one and good health to be the abnormality. They may even conclude healthy people are in need of treatment to bring them back to “normal” patterns of behavior.

    You can see this error repeated historically, from abusive parents assuming “being beaten by my parents toughed me up so I should do the same” to anti-vaxxers who think measles and whooping cough build character.











  • I would initially tap the breaks on this, if for no other reason than “AI doing Q&A” reads more like corporate buzzwords than material policy. Big software developers should already have much of their Q&A automated, at least at the base layer. Further automating Q&A is generally a better business practice, as it helps catch more bugs in the Dev/Test cycle sooner.

    Then consider that Q&A work by end users is historically a miserable and soul-sucking job. Converting those roles to debuggers and active devs does a lot for both the business and the workforce. When compared to “AI is doing the art” this is night-and-day, the very definition of the “Getting rid of the jobs people hate so they can do the work they love” that AI was supposed to deliver.

    Finally, I’m forced to drag out the old “95% of AI implementations fail” statistic. Far more worried that they’re going to implement a model that costs a fortune and delivers mediocre results than that they’ll implement an AI driven round of end-user testing.

    Turning Q&A over to the Roomba AI to find corners of the setting that snag the user would be Gud Aktuly.


  • You’d need someone with access to a large body of accurate data to survey it and tell us.

    One more reason why a guy like Mamdani in the mayorship is useful. He’s invested in identifying real estate bottlenecks and unclogging them, whereas an Eric Adams simply doesn’t care and a Cuomo would only do the work if he got some kind of kickback.




  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldtoLate Stage Capitalism@lemmy.worldAbout time
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Half the joke in the Mamdani rent-freeze is that it doesn’t do more than limit the rate of growth of landlord incomes.

    If anything, it encourages landlords to start releasing more units that have been withhold from the market as an excuse to raise rents as there’s less incentive to constrict supply under a price cap. That’s going to mean more cashflow, even if it threatens lower profits per unit.