danepowell

Doesn't the precipitating change optimize memory on the DNS server at the expense of additional memory usage across millions of clients that now need to parse an unordered response?

I wonder whether the bot hallucinated the wrong information or whether the policy changed and the bot simply wasn't updated / retrained. The latter seems more likely but less interesting, akin to information on a boring HTML page getting overlooked during a site update.

> Surely other patients must have asked about [this traumatic experience]? Or commented on it?

I find myself having this reaction all too frequently after traumatic encounters with the healthcare system.

I honestly don't know the answer. Do other patients really not communicate when they have a bad experience? Or do they communicate and the system is simply incapable of listening or reacting?

I don't disagree with the article at all, I think it's conclusions are probably largely right.

But it's hard to take seriously when the very first figure has a logarithmic y-axis without any callout in the discussion, exaggerating the appearance of the negative effects.

I fully agree that at least in principle it seems wrong to have insurance for routine care, when most insurance only covers catastrophe.

I think the two practical problems with this view are (a) what's routine to you might be catastrophic (or at least seriously detrimental) to someone else, and (b) missing routine care often leads to catastrophic outcomes.

There's a wide gulf between "some customers may have trouble using Slack" and "most/all customers are completely unable to use Slack". Putting aside formality, I'd say "Slack is down" is in fact more accurate here (assuming that it is true that most users can't use it, which is true for our company at least).

Can someone help me to understand all of the pessimism surrounding plant-based meat?

Of all of the morally-dubious technologies in the world today, this seems like a force of unequivocal good, and yet the criticism is endless: "it's not healthier", "the name sucks", "it'll give you cancer".

All of these just seem to be missing the point that it's _no worse than meat_ in most respects, and _way better_ in others (i.e. ethical and environmental impact).

> The other party would pre-approve you and then you could request location on-demand?

Precisely, and you could set a timeout (5 minutes, 24 hours, whatever) to automatically provide the location unless you intervene to deny the request.

I disagree that ending trials early is solid science, or at least not _as_ solid as running them to completion. It makes it hard to know whether results are due to a treatment effect or just random fluctuations over time. Essentially, it allows for cherry-picking of significant results in a way that bypasses family-wise error correction.

From the email to Trusted Contacts users:

> Since then, we’ve built this functionality directly into Google Maps with Location Sharing

That's simply not true. You can share your location with someone else, but you can't request it from someone else _and_ automatically receive it after a timeout, in case they are incapacitated. This was probably 90% of the reason to use Trusted Contacts.

I understand that companies need to kill some products so others can thrive, but don't gaslight me into thinking that functionality exists where it does not.

> Mostly because I don't like the trend towards optimal laziness personally

It's easy to characterize home automation this way, and certainly "optimal laziness" is part of the appeal for some people, but it's genuinely useful in so many other ways. For instance, hallway lights that automatically turn on and off in response to motion _and_ at a dimmer setting at night, so you don't trip over a dog toy or blind yourself in the middle of the night. That's very hard to replicate in other ways (nightlights waste energy and are still bright enough to keep me awake).

Still a first-world frill to be sure, and maybe not worth it for everyone. But not without value, apart from "laziness".