Why in the world would economists need to study this? It's been known that large bureaucracies have been dysfunctional for over a couple of decades now if not centuries. The large reason is because 1) the incentives to do great work are not there (most of the credit for a huge company's success goes to the CEO who gets 100X the salary of a regular worker while delivering usually pretty much nothing) 2) politics usually plays a huge role which gives a huge advantage to your competition (i.e. your competition needs to spend less time on politics and more time on the actual product) and 3) human beings don't functionally work well in groups larger than 100-250 due to the overwhelming complexity of the communication needed in order to make this type of structure work. Incentives though I think are the primary driver - most people at companies like IBM don't have any incentives to actually care about the product they produce and that's the secret behind the ruin of almost every large company.
Edit: you also seem to be giving too much credence to Watson. Watson was actually mostly a marketing tool designed to win in Jeopardy and nothing else. It was constructed specifically to compete in that use-case and was nowhere near to the architecture of a general transformer which is capable of figuring out meta-patterns within language and structurally understanding language. You can read about Watson's design and architecture here if you're curious: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs4740/2011sp/papers/AIMa...
More like we need psychologists to ask "why are companies still working with IBM's efficiencies 30 years after its peak?" The workers don't have to care but the businesses dealing with IBM should.
I may be wrong but I think it's mostly for things like enterprise support in case something goes wrong. IBM has had a large footprint in enterprises (WebSphere MQ, etc). People don't want disruptions in case your own kafka cluster with in-house engineers accountable for everything. So having enterprise support for product/ infra gives a sense of safety. At times rightly so. Depends on a lot of factors- risk appetite, capabilities of in-house engineers, what's at stake, and mostly psychological safety, etc.
> most of the credit for a huge company's success goes to the CEO who gets 100X the salary of a regular worker while delivering usually pretty much nothing
Well, in Confluent's case I'm not so sure that's true given that their CEO is also the company founder as well as one of the original authors of Apache Kafka.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone -- I've mostly been a lurker here over the last 20 years and I'm thankful for being able to interact with such a bright and vibrant community full of thinkers, doers and explorers -- you guys definitely changed my life for the better and inspired me in many, many ways.
This is 100% true, especially in Canada. I've had multiple encounters with doctors who were not fit for their positions and should not have been working as doctors. One of them nearly killed my mom, and another one was suspended due to malpractice and performing research fraud, but was given her license back and is back to work at the moment. Yes she is fully licensed and back to working as a regular MD in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Jamal
This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.
> According to the regulator for Ontario doctors, Jamal initially tried to place all the blame on her innocent research associate, almost ruining her career. She then tried to discredit her colleagues, claiming they had ulterior motives for questioning her results.
> When that didn’t work, they found Jamal tried to cover up her fraud: She illegally accessed patient records to destroy and change files, disposed of an old computer so investigators couldn’t examine it and even went into the Canadian Blood Services facility and changed freezer temperatures to damage blood and urine samples to mask her deception.
> And in March 2018, after admitting her misconduct before a disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Jamal was stripped of her medical license.
> This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.
And yet I haven't heard how this affects this person's ability to be an endocrinologist. Most of any job is routine busywork—and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public, we may never have a politician (or hospital chief) for the rest of humanity.
I am not saying that OP should love their endocrinologist. I am saying that all of this is a non sequitur.
People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.
Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.
I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.
> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.
> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.
> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.
So much pathos—I was responding to an illogical set of statements.
People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar. - or maybe the evidence was insufficient?
I don't see a comment about research standards. Let's stick to rationality here, please.
> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for.
Exactly the opposite of what I am asking.
> about the origins of professional standards.
The suggestions of your comment have been falling flat, so I'm not going to take this ill-defined assignment. If there are logical statements you wish to provide, please do.
---
Again, the OP did not say anything about malpractice. Had the OP done so, I would have made no comment.
The incidental prior incidence of alleged research fraud has no a priori bearing on why OP did not like this person.
It is not alleged research fraud. It is admitted fraud. The person is saying they sensed something wrong with her. Dishonest behavior is often discernible in advance if you know what to look for.
> Jamal now takes full responsibility and “regrets having exposed patients to the risk of harm by enrolling them in studies which had no value.”
There is no pathos in my comment. Your statement is literally naive.
By defining any ethical statements as pathos you are attempting to force medical practice to be assessed in a logical frame. It is not valid to do so. It is an interpersonal endeavor with ethical requirements.
Whenever medicine is discussed on HN, there is a knee jerk response to assume physicians are incompetent and that search engines replace their training. We’re on the same path here. Is lying bad? Yes. Does that mean that a liar can’t be a good physician? Exercise left to reader.
Regarding your supposedly ‘ethical statements’ that aren’t actually arguments meant to draw emotion:
> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.
Where’s your argument? Also, total elision of the actual panel of the professional society that did not remove licenses. I don’t see ethics, or logic. Appeal to emotion.
> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver .
You don’t even know what the Hippocratic oath is, friend. And on your incorrect premise, you make some grand statement that does not follow (nurses don’t take this oath, so they clearly can’t be fit to be caregivers? Oh wait, that’s absurd. So is the oath important or not?)
> Medical care is about more than technical competence.
Emotional argument all day. And not even something in contention.
> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.
Haha; I have been trying to and then realized it was senseless. I actually wonder if this an ai designed to troll.
I could see someone using a prompt that says something like “make a poor argument based on ______ and repeatedly alter it in further comments. Use words from a list of logical fallacies incorrectly, make yourself sound credible.”
> "all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.
I am very specifically responding to the post I saw when I made my post.
Here is an example for the HN crowd.
"I really dislike my pointy-haired-boss project manager. He is unreasonable and terrible at management.
I learned that he was investigated at a previous job in computer science algorithmic research at a University—before he ever worked in industry—and ultimately found not liable for this. I am convinced that this is why I dislike my PHB"
---
> I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.
I can't respond to this comment—but if I am "arguing in bad faith" yet responding rationally, we truly cannot have a discussion.
I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.
It would appear fairly clear: she tried to claim a therapy would help someone when it clearly would not and when confronted with this fact, actively tried to hide it. How on earth would you trust such a person to be your caregiver?
> It would appear fairly clear: she tried to claim a therapy would help someone when it clearly would not and when confronted with this fact, actively tried to hide it. How on earth would you trust such a person to be your caregiver?
Where did you derive any of this from what the OP said? He said there was an allegation of research conduct, and this is the statement to which I responded.
Almost all research uses artificial cell lines and animals—where did you get the idea that we were talking about 'a therapy would help someone'?
The original commenter on the subject posted about the doctor Sophie Jamal.
She is the person who published a paper suggested a therapy of Nitroglycerin to treat osteoporosis, is she not?
If a therapy that doesn't help is adopted then those that suffer from lack of care as a result are harmed.
> But the doctor likely makes the same money for less effort that contributes to the patient dying, because it's hard to prove the link.
This makes no sense with how endocrinology works. And OP did not give any evidence of malpractice, so we have no reason to believe that less effort or patient risk regarding the practice of medicine was involved.
Are you unable to engage with the full context of the situation? You repeatedly refer to the OP in your comments but there is a much larger context.
Simple logic, see if you can follow:
1. Sophie publishes flawed research (nitroglycerin for osteoporosis)
2. Sophie practices medicine and gives patients nitroglycerin for osteoporosis, with knowledge that her study is a lie. This causes harm to patients, because she knowingly gives them a therapy that doesn’t work. This is malpractice.
> I am yet to hear of a conspiracy where the doctor makes more money when their patients die.
This was a statement without qualifiers, and when someone has made a strong response to it, you now introduce the qualifier "endocrinologists...in canada"
She blamed the research fraud on her assistant when she was initially accused of it and denied all liabilities. She only admitted to it after they had her cornered. I had her as my endocrinologist for a while and I would not recommend her. Edit: if you want to have a care-taker who doesn't mind lying or is a psychopath, you do you but it's a no go for me.
> if you want to have a care-taker who doesn't mind lying or is a psychopath, you do you but it's a no go for me.
We've gone from accused of research fraud to psychopath.
My original point is that I don't see how the effort to produce new knowledge has any bearing on the appropriate management of diabetes/thyroid hormone.
So if your endocrinologist was found to have ran a concentration camp in the past, it would have no effect on your decision on whether you wanted to use them as your doctor? Running a concentration camp also has no bearing on a doctor's performance.
> So if your endocrinologist was found to have ran a concentration camp in the past, it would have no effect on your decision on whether you wanted to use them as your doctor? Running a concentration camp also has no bearing on a doctor's performance.
The story presented here is that OP disliked their mother's physician. There was no discussion of malpractice. Then, OP seems to have searched for information about the physician.
'Research misconduct' and murdering your fellow man are... not the same thing.
It has to do with the integrity and willingness of someone to tell the truth; if she's willing to destroy evidence to avoid criticism, what other types of mistakes is she willing to cover up when dealing with a patient?
This seems pretty obvious, how are you not understanding this? It isn't her effort to produce new knowledge, its her willingness to lie in the face of failure.
If a patient of hers dies or starts to decline, she could falsify cause. The list goes on. She is so far on the slippery slope that it is dangerous for her to care for anyone.
There's plenty of chances for misdiagnosis in outpatient endocrinology.
If she misses or delays a thyroid cancer diagnosis, or doesn't follow up with a patient at risk, etc, and then lies to cover it up.
I answered your question clearly: research misconduct and her reasoning for it indicates a willingness to lie that should not be allowed in a high trust field such as medicine. She has been banned from receiving Canadian federal funding for life. Her medical license was reinstated but it was a split vote (3-2) and widely criticized, but she is banned from conducting research and has to be monitored by a therapist.
I get that you like to argue, but you should probably learn to admit when you're wrong.
I can see you think you are correct and aren’t really engaging with my arguments- fine.
The original post gave no reasons for not liking the person, and then said she had this research thing. If someone looked into your past, what would they find?
I see your point about morality, but that has very little to do with essentially following algorithms all day.
Had the OP said something related to medicine vs feeling bad vibes, we’d be in a different position.
It certainly wasn’t unanimous. I generally hold my doctors to a higher ethical standard given they’re dealing with people’s lives. Maybe you have lower standards.
20 minutes a day is all it takes. Don't even think about it - just do it. After a couple of weeks you'll wonder how in the world you ever lived without exercise -- trust me on this one :)
Are you experiencing the HN hug of death or is your website down? Either way I'm super interested in what you're building and I'd love to use it but I cannot reach your link at the moment. Good luck with the endeavor either way and thank you for building this.
If you guys like visual-explanations that are a bit more intuitive -- I put actually made guides on both data-structures and algorithms not too long ago which you can find here:
The visual is extremely hard to understand how it relates to the description, given that it looks to be 1-indexed, but the description only makes sense for 0-indexing (4th element stores the sum of the first 4 elements), not to mention none of the binary indexes seem to be storing the correct sums (or they're storing sums of a tree that isn't being presented).
The visual is directly from here (I recommend you give it a read if you want to grasp the full intuition on how a Fenwick tree works (page 97)): https://cses.fi/book/book.pdf
I should have included the full visuals which are included there and I can see your point on why people would get confused by that visual - so I'll make a note to include the full image when I have more time. Thank you for the feedback.
reply