reureu

I'm hesitant to, but more because it seems that many vibe coded apps* that I've come across have a week's worth of commits and no activity for the past 2-3 weeks. I have trouble imagining somebody who one-shotted an app is going to support that app for any reasonable lifespan. And, to your point, not only am I concerned about longevity of the app, but security and data harvesting concerns are also there.

*"vibe coded apps" in this context are ones whose description is full of emojis, the repo is in somebody's recently created personal GitHub account, and where there are likely already other apps addressing the same or similar use cases.

When you say you integrate with EHRs using RPA or API, are you using FHIR for the API connection? Or what interop standards are you using?

All I want is for my calendar invites from my custom-domain iCloud email to consistently work for gmail users.

As a gay man, I will begrudgingly volunteer as a sacrificial genital checker. I will sit at the entrance to the men's restroom, like a bouncer of a club, and the men that are concerned about who is in which bathroom can show me their penis prior to gaining entry to the restroom. That way, we can make sure restrooms are safe for all.

I'm struggling with this at my current job: nobody communicates about anything in asynchronous channels, doesn't want any form of daily synchronous meeting (e.g., standups), and won't agree to ad hoc meetings outside of our 1 hour once per week meeting. So lots of decisions and work get done in vacuums, which cause errors in various systems that would have been easily caught and addressed if someone just said "hey, I'm changing this column name from X to Y". So, just to say that the counterfactual here isn't "no stress because no notifications"-- it can be more stress from failed coordination.

There are in betweens here, with the major one being threads in slack. Everyone gets notified about a single message at the start of the thread, but does not get notified for any subsequent discussion. Any interested party can read more and participate as needed. For someone like me (a leader on paper but not really in practice), I'd read all the message and look for dependency or similar problems, but for others they may not need to.

I like the way you think... Wanna join my startup? I'm looking for a technical cofounder. A ninja. A 100x engineer. I can offer 36k/yr and 0.1%. I'm a fast-paced ideas guy, and I need you to be on your implementation game. I'm in touch with some top notch investors-- just waiting for them to respond to my emails, and then we're going to be the next unicorn. This comp package is going to be your ticket to early retirement-- just think, Apple has a 3.5bn market cap, so if you have 0.1% of that you'd be sitting on millions.

(I think I've been in the SF tech scene too long-- I've literally had every one of those things pitched to me before)

we just need to code up some llm-based, blockchain-enabled, genAI apps to automatically remove hyped tech from hn

> In general I’m frustrated that patients can’t just order the exact tests they want.

See jasonhealth.com (for Quest) or ownyourlabs.com (for Labcorp). The main issue is that you can't bill insurance without a provider's order, but a lot of tests are cheaper when not billed through insurance.

ACH often refers to filtration and not ventilation; that is, recycled air counts for ACH calculations but won't decrease CO2 because that's not scrubbed by the filters. So it's possible you can have high CO2 levels but also no virus or particulate matter in the air; this is why some places will report PM2.5 as well as CO2, as a proxy for filtration. To make it more complicated, you can also use UV-C to inactivate pathogens, which may not decrease PM2.5 and won't decrease CO2.

I'm not saying this is the case necessarily for planes, but I'm just trying to provide context for how proxy measures of air quality may not tell the full story.

> to imply that dissenting opinions aren't supported by science to be pretty offensive

Unless I missed something, you have yet to share the science that supports your view. I'm not bowing out of discussing this because we have different opinions, I'm bowing out because I shared a study (and could provide more) and you responded by shifting goal posts and standing by your claim, not by responding in kind with similar studies or different interpretations of the data. There's not much discussion to be had if we're not working from a shared understanding of data and facts, and those data and facts aren't driving our opinions and beliefs. Anyway, best of luck out there!

Multiple citations needed here, but your response suggests science isn't driving your beliefs here, so I'll just point out one thing and then will leave this thread:

> More often than not that's what people mean when they're saying that politicians have given up on fighting Covid.

I know a lot of people in public health and disability spaces, and every person I know that talks about the failure of public health around the covid pandemic is referring to the dismantling of surveillance (e.g., testing), the lack of investment in next generation vaccines and treatments, the failure to upgrade ventilation and filtration, and removing mask mandates in targeted places (like emergency rooms). I haven't heard anybody in the US discuss lockdowns in years. I haven't even heard people talk about broad (i.e., outside healthcare) mask mandates in over a year. You need to get "mitigations = lockdowns" out of your head, that's not what people are "implying" when they discuss fighting covid.

You moved the goal posts. Your claim was that "lockdowns" did little or nothing, and I provided a study that shows that simply isn't true. You're now disagreeing (without any evidence) but have shifted to arguing they have side effects that you find too severe.

That's a completely different argument, and one that really can't be objectively measured (e.g., how do you value a life saved?). But lockdowns were effective at saving lives in 2020, and since we knew nothing about SAR-CoV-2 and had limited treatment options there was basically no other option. Nobody (other than you) has mentioned reinstating lockdowns.

> and loads of people in awe about them, almost none realizing they were just AI photos with fake instructions.

Bold of you to assume those were people and not also AI

I volunteered as a crisis counselor: was trained in crisis counseling, and then thrown on phone lines for hundreds of hours. I use those skills every day in work and my personal life.

The three biggest parts that I learned and got good at, which have come in really handy are: reflective listening, non-directive communication, and not asking "why" questions.

Reflective listening is repeating back what the person is saying to them. It's definitely more art than science, since if you do it too overtly it just feels cheesy and not genuine. But done subtly and well, people open up in really noticeable ways.

Non-directive communication means not telling people what to do. That doesn't mean you don't have opinions about the situation or that you don't push them towards a decision... it just means that your role is to be a sounding board. If someone comes to you saying "My partner cheated on me", the response many people have is "dump them!" -- but you're not living their life, you don't know all the complexities of the situation even if this is your best friend. So, instead of "dump them", a series of questions can often help someone through the situation and leave everyone feeling more seen and heard ("What happened? How are you feeling about that? What do you think this means for your relationship? What would have to happen for you to trust them again? How would you feel staying with them? breaking up with them?" etc)

Not asking why questions is difficult, but once you get the hang of it it's really easy. "Why" questions are almost impossible to say without there being some tone or judgement. "Why did you do that? Why did that thing break? Why didn't you tell me that?" You can often rephrase the question to a more neutrally worded question (sometimes they also sound judgmental, so tone and context matter a lot): "What were you hoping would happen? How did you see this playing out? What do you think led to the system breaking? What can I do differently to allow you to feel comfortable sharing?"

Ultimately it all takes practice, and fundamentally you need to have the time and space to be a good listener. If you only have 2 minutes between meetings, then you're probably not going to have the capacity to listen to your friend talk about their divorce or health scare. But ultimately people like talking about themselves while feeling safe-- so anything you can do to create and encourage that environment will cause people to feel like you're a good listener.