xdavidliu

i thought i was the only one who did this!

additionally, the "get scared" is only if the theranos test incorrectly gives a "something is wrong" diagnosis. What if the theranos test incorrectly gives an "everything is ok" diagnosis? Then the patient does not get scared when they should be, and potentially get significantly harmed

prosecuted and indicted for both, convicted by jury for only latter

your parent comment just wanted to get a shot of serotonin by chiming and showing off that they've read (or are merely aware of) the book

in her position, given her history, it is 100% rational to continue lacking principles

> People who get inaccurate diagnostics get scared.

That's only true if those people always follow up with a second test using traditional means. If they don't follow-up and instead immediately go past diagnostics into some sort of action, then it could be catastrophic in a manner exceeding being scared.

Now you can argue that if the patient is working with any medical practitioner worth their salt, that med will surely ask for a second test. But is it obvious that that will always be the case?

i think what's going on here is similar to why celebrities are often curt with people that come up to them. Some celebrities are actual douchebags, but others are not necessarily so but just get so many people coming up to them and saying the same thing to them.

It comes down to two mismatches: first being the famous person's own patience, which is just a normal amount, but instead of usual number of others going up to them now it's 100 or 1000x the number of others.

The second mismatch is the information asymmetry: the famous person him/herself knows that they have gotten 100x people going up to them and saying / asking the same thing, and they know that they will continue getting this for the rest of their life, so they respond with annoyance, which is completely understandable. However, the average person going up to them isn't gonna think that many logical steps and realize this; they're just saying "oh cool, it's a celeb, I never see celebs. Let me try to talk to them!"

"I am 100% sure Microsoft stock will go up 20% tomorrow!"

"i call bs. Why don't you bet your money on it then?"

"well you shouldn't be talking either, you haven't bet money on the stock going down!"

"I am 100% sure Microsoft stock will go up 20% tomorrow!"

"i call bs. Why don't you bet your money on it then?"

"well you shouldn't be talking either, you haven't bet money on the stock going down!"

I think you misunderstood. His mouth was not at "the proof is correct". His mouth was at "you are not really certain that the proof is incorrect". Those two are not the same thing, so flipping the accusation back at him and saying "you should've bet on the proof being correct then" does not actually make any sense.

edit: in other words, if there is anything that he should bet on, it's "the other guy wasn't really certain that the proof is wrong, he is just bloviating". That's a different bet than "the proof is correct".

> By standard semantics, if you state that believing with certainty that the proof is incorrect is stupid, then you surely believe with certainty that it's correct.

you might want to think a little bit harder on this

this argument clearly does not make sense

ah sorry i should clarify what I mean. I meant to say that it's probably true that very few consumers care about or want this feature, but this feature was desired by the company manufacturing this to sweeten the picture for their own investors