rcdmd

The conclusion is basically this (the last sentence before the "conclusion" section... > But it does mean that we cannot afford to compound these problems through the use of an RCA tool that is so deeply and fundamentally flawed. Other more systems-focused techniques, such as fishbone75 or lovebug diagrams,72 causal tree diagrams,21 Causal Analysis based on Systems Theory (CAST)76 or even prospective risk assessment approaches,77–81 should be considered instead.

I find it odd that the paper cites so many theoretical problems with "5 whys" and then elevates these other methods as preferred solutions without any discussion. It's possible RCA committees already recognize the limitations of "5 whys" and use it as a heuristic that helps focus their efforts. That doesn't mean these committees all sit around a table and say "well, X sounds like a major problem, but it doesn't fit our '3rd why,' so we have to ignore it."

I think you're both right. The commenter above you is just taking the short view and you're taking the long view. Automation is great for long-term productivity and the supply of better, cheaper goods/services, but you can't argue it makes for a happy former file-clerk 5 years away from retirement who now has to find a new gig.

Are you trolling? You're accusing management of onboarding an H1-B, paying a sign-on bonus, paying relocation expenses and then paying them for 2 months to surreptitiously "pad the relatively useless team" so you can initiate a layoff instead individual firings. Nope. Generally, firings at big corp go like this: 1. Create an improvement plan for your under-performing worker. 2. Evaluate worker based on that plan in 1 month. 3. Fire worker.

You can make any number of arguments why X, Y or Z is bad (or, "considered harmful"). The truth is, if you want to get stuff done, objects often fit the domain well enough and put state in predictable places. A bandaid here or there, "friend" classes and so on may be required. But, you'll get stuff done even if it's not in some perfect stateless beauty.

I'm assuming you're referring to RATHL? RATHL attempted to show a treatment regimen was non-inferior to bleo, and didn't. The results are quite controversial, and bleo remains standard of care for many Hodgkin's cases. However, that may change with future trials and more data. Bleo is, as you say, truly a poison. It hurts a lot of people. But on balance, it saves lives better than the alternatives when appropriately used.

Thanks. I clarified what I meant above.

It's genius marketing-- they were guaranteed a "surprising" conclusion that people widely share.

edit: The point I'm making, perhaps too tersely based on the below response, is a flawed study can be designed where every outcome would be "surprising" but obviously the rationale supporting that outcome would be poor. That people tend to share surprising outcomes (ie-- post it on Hacker News)-- makes it genius marketing.

Seems like MetaMed tried working on every buzzword in medicine. * Artificial Intelligence and diagnosis (check). * Evidence-based medicine (check). * Personalized medicine for all (check). Consider, for a moment, all the capital and smart minds working on those things. I'm certainly not saying that's a reason not to work in any of those fields. Rather, a small startup is probably better suited focusing on 1 specific hard problem and gaining sufficient domain knowledge in that area to do meaningful work.

Think of what this means for voter representation. You just made it much easier for people with computer access to vote, compared to those without who still must trek to the polling place. I doubt the demographics represented in this vote were the same as the last comparable one.

Nope. Docker's value isn't just its software. It's the support built around it, tutorials, familiarity and common usage, Dockerfiles, huge Docker Hub, existing setups relying on it and so on. Articles like this tend to overlook the value of entrenched technology that works well enough.

Vagueish advice for a vaguiesh problem-- When presenting issues, I'll almost always fallback on something like this-- 1. Details of the problem with history of other related issues. 2. 1-2 sentence assessment of the problem that helps summarize everything. 3. 1-2 possible solutions.

I think most consumers take "savings" to mean "reduction in purchase price." Obviously, (or not so obviously) Tesla's sales-page means something different. But even if you dig into the asterisk next to the "after savings price" you find some aggressive assumptions. And $4300 gas savings over 6 years is not worth $4300 today to any rational person on this Earth. They need an asterisk explanation within their asterisk explanation stating they assume a 0% discount rate.