We have standards of care for a reason. They are the most basic requirements of testing. Ignoring them is not just being a bad doctor, its unethical treatment. Its the absolute bare minimum of a medical system.
> I do feel I actually biased the first doctors opinion with my "research."
It may feel easy to say doctors should just consider all the options. But telling them an option is worse than just biasing their thinking; they are going to interpret that as information about your symptoms.
If you feel pain in your abdomen but are only talking about your appendix, they are rightfully going to think the pain is in the region of your appendix. They are not going to treat you like you have kidney pain. How could they? If they have to treat all of your descriptions as all the things that you could be relating them to, then that information is practically useless.
It sounds strange to me that you would use GPT to start consulting to your doc, as if you suddenly know better than them. You don't want to be doing their job for them.
If I used GPT for my medical issue last year and everybody took my word for it, I would be dead.
Neither "the worst case would be" nor "everything is a sliding scale" are good single hueristics. There are rarely There are rarely good single hueristics, but implying them tends to color discussions strongly.
I've related self-dianoses of minor issues to a doctor, immediately followed up with a proviso that I don't put a lot of credence into non-professional opinions. The doctor was supportive that patient directed investigations had value. There is a threshold where an informed patient can be useful for treatment.
Yeah, I personally know a couple people where self-research found the correct diagnosis, and I am one of them. We had a fantastic primary, who worked with us quite closely and did a lot of research after we found some new information from him.
Doctors don't know everything and don't have access to everything, they are just quite a lot better than the alternatives in the vast majority of cases, so your default odds are much better following their recommendation than anything else. Training is worth a lot, and everyone also knows it's not perfect, and that's entirely fine.
Any competent doctor is aware that patients are likely to misdescribe things. If you walk in and say your appendix hurts, they absolutely should try to clarify that rather than just assuming you have appendicitis.
> An earth-like planet orbiting a different star would likely have evolved photoreceptor arrangements which match that star instead.
No, not really- the limitation is chemical, not evolutionarily-driven. Earth is very well lit in infrared, but it's very difficult to make a chemical that is biologically useful for seeing infrared because the wavelengths are just too long. Its very challenging to do more than the most primitive kinds of sensing in infrared. If our sun was much dimmer, we would probably be blind, but if not our eyes would still not see in far infrared. Same goes for ultraviolet- the energy is too high and molecular bonds are too weak. Seeing in visible light is a reversible reaction, but ultraviolet wouldn't be.
What you're saying is true of ocean animals, especially in the deep sea. They don't see red very well or at all, but the evolutionary pressure against seeing red is not terribly high except very deep where food is very limited.
There also is evolutionary pressure on our vision, but it has nothing to do with the sun. We're twice as sensitive to green since it is so common and important, but green comes from photosynthesis and not from the color of the sun. In a way, we are most sensitive to the least important color of light- the color that is not absorbed by plants. The wasted, useless byproduct of sunlight is what lets us identify food.
Plus, we actually basically only see in blue and green. The overlap between rods and red/green cones is huge. "red" and "green" as we perceive them are mostly fabrications of our neural circuits- if we were seeing them how our photoreceptors actually receive light, all shades of green/red would be very strongly mixed together. All shades of red would look significantly green except for the very farthest reds, which would look very dark because of low sensitivity.
> From what I've heard from auto engineers I know, using the battery as part of the structure is not really done. Transfering mechanical stresses to the battery is something you just do not do.
This is technically true, but structural batteries are not the same as stressed engines like on a motorcycle. In the latter, the engine fully replaces a frame member with essentially just the engine block. With structural batteries the cells themselves are not taking on any stress (they could, but yeah its not a very safe idea) but the outside containment is stil doing double duty. Its a pretty minor weight savings because the battery case does not need to be as strong as the frame does, but its not fair to say that structural batteries are not done. Even when they are just bolting on to a subframe, they're still usually doing things for frame stiffness.
The problem is people are conditioned so hard on the "drive till empty then fill up" method of car ownership, that it's totally incomprehensible to imagine not being able to put 300 miles in your car in 5 minutes.
Topping off everyday at home just doesn't register. Driving 7 hours with only one 30 minute charge doesn't register.
It either needs to function like a gas car, or it's not even worth considering.
There are millions of people living in cities that do not own their own home, that cannot charge every day (speaking as an EV enthusiast that rents somewhere that thankfully has public charging across the street). For those that are able to charge at home, there is definitely a mindset shift that needs to happen. I have seen the lightbulb over my friends heads turn on when I ask them how they would like it if their gas cars could fill up 1 gallon per hour at their house, and if so why would they care how long a gas station fill up takes.
The earth is actually a pretty big heat source in space. Solar radiation is a point source, so you can orient parallel to the rays and avoid it. The earth takes up about half the sky and is unavoidable. The earth also radiates infrared, the same as your radiators, so you can't reflect it. Solar light is in the visible spectrum so you can paint your radiators to be reflective in visible wavelengths but emissive in infrared.
Low satellites are still cooler in the Earth's shadow than they would be in unshadowed orbits, but higher orbits are cooler than either. Not where you'd want to put millions of datacenters though.
The people of Minneapolis are defending their right to accept foreigners into their community. Do you genuinely think those people are being paid? That all those protestors don't genuinely feel that way? That the majority in that state don't, as the polls say, want those people there?
If you really think that people in Texas and Florida have the right to say who gets to live in Minnesota, why?
I think most people would agree that the country has a right to enforce its border integrity -- after all, that's sort of a prerequisite for being a sovereign nation.
But not with an unaccountable, unidentifiable, largely-untrained, and "absolutely immune" paramilitary police force, forcibly deployed in cities that don't want them there. Cities that are, in any event, nowhere near any borders.
This isn't really about immigration enforcement. If it were, then what ICE was doing under Biden was more effective than what Trump is doing now, just going by the numbers. There is a widespread conspiracy theory, to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, that maintains that Trump is deliberately trying to provoke circumstances that will justify his use of the Insurrection Act or other quasi-legal shenanigans to ratfuck the midterm elections.
The people of Florida and Texas do not have the right to say who gets to live in Minnesota, but neither do the people of Minnesota. The federal government has sole authority over immigration (but not to murder people while enforcing, obviously). The alternative is ridiculous and incompatible with freedom of movement within the country.
> skewing their biases in a way that creates internal chaos and dissent, disrupting institutional order, and sewing distrust of thy neighbor.
I don't really have respect for this idea; we do this to ourselves far more effectively than people who frankly have a pretty hamfisted cultural understanding- just as we have of china or russia.
IMO influence over real concrete choices is much more alarming. Someone with household-level information has an insane amount of advantage in an election. You can target politcal messaging street by street to play up the worst aspects of your opposed candidate and the least repulsive aspects of your own candidate.
But if you're in china, the most you can do is try to push towards whatever of the two candidates is least bad for you. And spoiler, zero american politicians are pro-china.
This is the difficulty with propaganda- you have to tailor it to a foreign audience but then the message is changed.
America has been trying to spread it's way of life for a hundred years. People liked the fridges and cars but never cared much for the Christianity and croony capitalism.
> And spoiler, zero american politicians are pro-china.
..Other than, well possibly, Trump. Maybe not directly, but the Tiktok deal, withdrawing from the TPP, the eventual outcome of the trade war, the praise for Xi—all stands to benefit China at the expense of the US.
> I don't really have respect for this idea; we do this to ourselves far more effectively than people who frankly have a pretty hamfisted cultural understanding- just as we have of china or russia.
reply