boxspam

Robovalley right?

Is there still animo for this? I would love to invest in elderly care technology, especially AI for Alzheimers.

Would this still be possible, or is it a big company (Philips?) thing now?

Maybe he realized that his behavior would be against the new CoC.

Maybe he had a good conversation with people he respects, where they confronted him with his behavior, and he was finally able to view his behavior through the lens of an outsider.

Maybe he finally found and realized the "bugs" in his social interaction code and needs some time of to improve his mental tools.

The real world is hardly binary. Both the complaint may be valid, and part of a PR strategy.

I meant "the best" for the advertisers, not necessarily for the users. It is possible to do this transparently and there are times when users may actively search such "ads" out (and being paid a small fee, instead of that fee going to ad click companies), but the trend is going to obfuscation. You can block ads, but you won't block content.

In a sense this complaint and PR is such a form of obfuscated advertising. The money and technological skills is in the hands of the advertisers, not the users, so this will be an unfair fight (advertisers will be better at hiding ads, than users are able to detect them).

Kill your fans.

I hate how Xi Jinping is running China so strictly. The Russian Apartment Bombings was an inside job. Westerners should have no business in the Middle East.

> Alex Jones will still be heard by his audience.

Current audience. What about a new young audience? What about the part of the audience that wants to listen to him on Twitter?

> That would be against Twitter's freedoms.

I think you should be able to fire your users for being assholes. But I do realize the slippery slope here. I could discriminate on race, political preference, smell, weight, sexuality, age, etc. and that causes me to label someone an asshole.

Now Twitter, the biggest public and digital town square of our future, labels you an asshole, but does not specify exactly why. The global media town crier goes around town telling everyone you are now the new village idiot. Even if you vehemently agree with their decision, this should give you pause: How could such a system be hacked by adversaries/what vulnerabilities are exposed? How much unchecked social/tribal power is held in the hands of the few? What would such a system look like if it is artificially/clumsily converged to a majority opinion ideology chamber? Then, will you still be heard by your audience if you have a dissenting/unpopular/asshole opinion? Not too long ago "homosexuality is not a mental disorder" was an unpopular opinion. Do you trust our current evolution enough to say: "We are there. We can now freeze our morals and views."

Qanon is a Russian psyop and a bunch of unwitting agents.

The Periscope video was the last straw. Jones was angry and ranting, because that journalist had claimed that his campaigning/efforts lead to Jones' ban on social networks.

> Important to note that tech platforms did not enforce their own rules and take action against Alex Jones / InfoWars on their own accord.

> It took media outlets to point out for weeks that InfoWars was skirting the rules on these tech platforms for them to enforce own standards.

Previous offenses include: "dehumanizing trans people". That looks very bad on paper, so you search for the video, and you see him discussing an over-the-top drag queen reading a book for children in a public library. To me, with the long nails and the thick make-up and the wig, the drag queen really looks demonic/ridiculous/freaky and he remarks on that. You should have the right to call that abnormal and refuse to want to see that normalized.

Look at what happened with Pewdiepie when a media company goes on a crusade with an agenda, it is very similar.

The bottom line for this decision is not harassment or abuse, it is the political preference of Twitter's employees. Maybe it is not a good idea to have a left-leaning workforce police online debate, even if it is their platform. For all the talk about diversity, SF companies sure could do with some more political diversity.

They should have banned Alex Jones from public discourse when he had this crazy conspiracy theory that high-ranking politicians and businessmen workship Moloch and child sacrifice. They should have banned Alex Jones when had the crazy conspiracy theory that chemicals and pesticides in the water change the sex of frogs. They should have banned Alex Jones for saying that Lady Gaga turns satanism into a performance and flirts with illuminati symbology. They should have banned Alex Jones for stating that weather manipulation is still a thing after the Environmental Modification Convention.

Why? Just because you have active PR, your methods are now also flawed?

What is the conflict of interest for a company doing or hiring a PR? Is it fraud or unethical to promote your company?

Your logic/conclusion makes no sense to me at all.

They actually reduced the average length of stay for knee replacement from 3.3 to 2.4 days. They verifiably saved costs of a middle-sized hospital of 10m$ a year. If we assume professional integrity, then they won't intentionally inflate projected savings, so we have no reason to doubt their expectations. (Just like I don't have any reason to doubt that you don't give inflated life expectancy projections to your patients, or receive kickbacks from needless prescriptions). It is, on a professional level, like telling an engineer who projects a bridge to be safe, that they likely build an unsafe bridge, and you'll only believe it when at least a 1000 people have crossed it (trust me, I am a lorry driver who loves driving over bridges).

The hospital in the article also used Allscripts.

> The next step for Flagler was to review the findings with the Physician IT Group (called the PIT Crew) and to make the necessary changes to AllScripts. Physician buy-in is critical...

> There are two interesting anecdotes from this process that bear repeating. The first is that once doctors became aware of the work that was being done, requests for membership in the PIT Crew skyrocketed and attendance at the bi-weekly meetings doubled. Doctors want access to data.

> The second is that one of the more accomplished physicians remarked that the care process model for pneumonia was far lighter than what he would have used, but upon looking at the outcomes, readily agreed that it delivered the same or better care in almost every case – and that what he was doing was essentially unnecessary, or wasteful. Presented with the evidence, he committed himself to rethinking his approach.

Edit:

> but decreasing length of stay by 2 days would be a shocking advance.

If you look at the industry average, maybe. But these 2 days were for this specific hospital (being a community hospital they get many different patients, and you can't have experts for every area). Perhaps removing those 2 days brought them closer to industry average, which seems like a very reasonable advance.