Very cool! But imagine having a rough day and accidentally running one of the heavy machines into the supporting pillar. It looks pretty tight under there.
In healthcare, the workers are in high-stakes situations with personal liability for the care they provide. When you make a mistake, your license can be taken away. Licensing is important to prevent malpractice, but it does enable a form of worker exploitation.
When you’re on a severely understaffed ward, you have to get the work done whatever it takes. If the next shift fails to turn up, you can’t just go home. People’s lives are at risk. You’re responsible until you can hand the care over to someone else.
Like this, things can be stretched to unhealthy or even dangerous levels for a long time before there’s any accountability for the management. The front line staff have to get the work done, often at great personal expense.
I also get somewhat scared when I hear about things like shift lengths or "on call" times from my doctor friends, even on "well staffed" shifts.
If you're on your feet and working for 14 hours straight with no rest, you will make more mistakes. It's just being human. Pretending that isn't the case and punishing those mistakes won't reduce them.
Staffing enough people for regular 8 hour work days with regular breaks should be the norm. At the lowest bar, any mistakes that happen on shifts longer than that should be held accountable to any management of the hospital or government agencies making policy, not the nurses and doctors. These are preventable situations, so the people creating the situation in which this occurs should be liable.
The problem is we are collectively not willing to pay for this quality of life, so we operate various systems near the breaking point. As long as said systems don't fail, they will continue to operate as is. Teacher shortages, nurse and doctor shortages, bus driver shortages, air traffic controller shortages, and so on.
Agree with your point that the people creating these situations should be held accountable in some form, although I'm unsure if the will exists for accountability. America runs on "maximum extraction minimum liability" as a philosophy.
At some point it was determined that working longer hours was safer than increasing the amount of mistakes caused by handoffs where new staff takes over and can make errors, miscommunicate, or just lose information. I'm still skeptical fatigue is less dangerous than handoffs.
Yeah this is the wrinkle. I do wonder though, whether there might be a situation reversal effect if you moved far enough in the other direction. If you instead had handoffs extremely frequently, say for example, every 6 hours, or perhaps a staggered system where there are people shifting off every 3 hours, you could/would build better process, habits, and culture potentially even to the point where it's no longer a significant liability, or even a benefit (fresh eyes).
It's somewhat similar to how having a handful of remote individuals in a mostly in-person company can lead to significant communication issues, but a fully/mostly remote company builds and leverages tools and processes to reduce these issues significantly.
A good bit of the required education for MDs is tangential to providing care. It may not even be a question of "lowering the bar" per se, but of streamlining the curriculum.
That said, you can accomplish a lot by leaving MD education alone and allowing the "technician" type health care workers like PAs and NPs to do more.
Make the caregiver's pay rise the longer they work. Take a rising chunk of that extra pay out of the management's pay, right to the top to help incentivize them. As the rate's rise, rise them higher for the higher-level managers.
Direct Supervisor of 10 staff. Ward supervisor of 50 staff. Hospital manager of, say, 500 staff.
An extra 1-2 hours, +5% pay/hr, manager -1%/10, ward -1%/50, hosp man -1%/500
2nd extra 1-2 hours, +10% pay/hr, manager -2%/10, ward -3%/50, hosp man -5%/500
3rd extra 1-2 hours, +20% pay/hr, manager -5%/10, ward -10%/50, hosp man -20%/500
4th extra 1-2 hours, +35% pay/hr, manager -10%/10, ward -20%/50, hosp man -40%/500
...
While this allows a few overworked people without hurting management much, if it's widespread, it hurts management a lot, especially at the top. You may choose to introduce a cut-off where management starts getting hit hard, without the staff divisor, to really disincentivize working anyone longer than that cutoff point.
One thing that is unlikely to change, regardless of what happens: people will keep writing these speculative doomsday pieces (perhaps with the help of some generative AI).
“What if all the roombas decide to band together and unionise? That would be a disaster!”
When humanity gets wiped eventually, maybe the robots will keep the tradition going?
“Traces of human DNA discovered in Alaska! Any chance they could come back?”
> girls who spend five hours or more on social media per day are three times as likely to be depressed as girls who use social media only a little or not at all
I mean, I can't possibly imagine the state I would be in if I spent 5 hours on Instagram every day for extended periods. But the same applies to watching reality TV or reading tabloid newspapers.
Social media clearly affects young people — some of them negatively. That said, it's not 100% negative all the time. Maybe it's just changing the structure of society. In the same way that computers gave nerds the option to be the cool hacker kids and highly-paid FAANG engineers later, some skills/traits/behaviours are becoming more valuable while others are losing their usefulness.
Things won't be the same, just like things aren't the same as they were 200 years ago. People will adapt and learn to deal with the new challenges.
I view it the same way. It's evolution. How it plays out is usually too complex to understand. Trying to avoid making decision for yourself (because everyone is different), by making it explicit for all people, is just running away.
Also whatever we have now, a worse thing is coming yet. Or at least, a newer stranger one.
I’m wondering whether another motivation for this could be trying to keep the data set as clean as possible for future model training.
Creating videos takes quite a bit of time. If AI video generation becomes widely available, pretty soon, there could be more AI content being uploaded to YouTube than human-made stuff.
Presumably, training on AI generated stuff magnifies any artefacts/hallucinations present in the training set, reducing the quality of the model.
Universal must be in a pretty difficult negotiating position here. The artists they represent want their music to be distributed on TikTok. The royalties are nice, but the primary value is likely the popularity boost of having your music featured in insanely viral videos and trends with billions of views. Universal doesn't get a cut of that though (aside from increased streaming revenue elsewhere).
Ah the "exposure as payment" argument. Every artist is familiar with it. Landlords, grocery stores, and bill collectors won't accept exposure as payment. If you live on expousre, you die from exposure.
I'd say that open-source works best for companies when they don't open the main thing. Meta building React in the open is a good example. The community gets a well-maintained library. Meta gets free testing, code contributions and potential hiring pipeline. When trying to compete with Meta, React gives you virtually no advantage. There's no incentive to leave important features out of the public codebase. Both Meta and the community benefit.
Would it make sense for Meta to open the codebase for facebook.com? Aside from studying/scrutinising the code, the only other thing you'd be able to do with it is to change the logo and try to compete with Facebook.
In this example, it's still probably not enough to disrupt them thanks to the social graph and infrastructure complexity. But you could imagine moments where even Meta gets nervous when anyone can start competing with feature parity from day one.
Over the long-term, it's more likely that Meta would want to keep some features private. It's also less likely that they would get lots of quality contributions back. If you're running a fb.com clone in production, you're likely trying to compete with them on some level. This leads to a weird relationship with the community and limited value for both sides.
Desktop copilots/assistants have huge potential, but this type of data collection can't possibly end well.