Gpetrium

It would be interesting to see the implementation of an Alexa/Google' smart speaker & tablet system to provide support to doctors & nurses. For example:

Doctor - "Smith, please provide checklist for Septal Myectomy"

Smith - "Confirming list for Septal Myectomy?"

Doctor - "Yes"

(Smith raises first point)

Doctor -"Check"

(Smith raises other points until the end of the list)

Smith - "You have completed the checklist for Septal Myectomy, please review it on the screen if you so desire. Is there anything I can help you with?"

Doctor - "Thanks Smith, no need for anything else"

I would be eager to support a project that would provide this kind of support to doctors and other professionals.

It is dependent on supply/demand and business model. You could have asked the same thing when Google/Yahoo as a search engine came into play "why do you think the knowledge of millions would be widely available and relatively cheap/"free"?

Are you implying that the world is better off having global powers that have free speech and self-directed criticism which is why you look to endorse American exceptionalism?

It might have something to do with what you said about being prescribed a lot of it.

The way your comment came out made it sound like you don't know how the world works and that you would jump into supporting legislation that can have strong negative unintended circumstances (e.g. Farmers and miners in BC lose their jobs because they are not competitive due to the legislation you supported).

That does not mean you shouldn't look for legislation and solutions to ameliorate the issue, it just means that if you haven't done it already, you will need to think a lot harder with regards to the consequences.

Coal may be out in places like Canada by 2040 assuming great advances in technology, cost & major climate disruptions. However, it is very unlikely to be out for countries in Africa and Asia that are seeing tremendous increases in energy consumption that cannot be covered by other means of energy capture due to a variety of reasons.

> That's why I said "actively."

That's one of the reasons I said "I agree with the point you have raised".

I also think you have once again, raised some good points. Hopefully, others will use similar structures when writing and publishing their research.

Did you bother to read some of the comments people have written here and did you even read my whole text or just hand-picked something that triggered you and decided to argue?

Like I said before, based on OTHER PEOPLES COMMENTS, I recommended them to consider those guidelines. I still have no idea why it became about me projecting something.

Regardless, to cover your point, media companies use titles to instill something in the reader and emotion is often a tool. "The woman behind..." or "The man behind..." doesn't have any impact on the way I process the information, however, it does for others (positive and negative). For a children, it can be a source of inspiration, for someone else it can trigger something negative based on the current environment of things. This tool has been used to glorify astronauts, soldiers and many other areas. I didn't project anything, I read OTHER PEOPLES COMMENTS and thought it was important for them to consider what I said.

Hopefully in the future, everyone will stop putting so much emphasis in biological characteristics (READ OTHER COMMENTS HERE AND ELSEWHERE) and take it for what it is, a bright scientist gave us a snapshot of something we have been curious to see for decades. Regardless, you should re-read my comments to realize your points are null and you likely misconstrued my points based on your preconceived notion and current state of mind. If you are willing to have a healthy debate, I would be more than willing to dig into some of the topics you may have, including the amazing work Dr. Katie Bouman did. Now if your aim is to continue to attack me for something I didn't do, then I hope you have a good day.

Most nations are shifting or have shifted to a service based economy, which means that most of the exchange of money is for a service, not parts, materials, etc. Services are often meant to augment the lives of individuals and businesses in different ways.

A lot of folks complain that companies like Google have made so much money that they don't have anywhere to spend so they start to hoard it instead of 'helping the economy'. The reality is that for a company, it is better to wait instead of investing for the sake of investing without considering the returns. It is also worth noting that when a company makes so much money, they often shift a portion of their business into the 'Financial services' segment of the economy.

I find it difficult to sell the idea that banks, etc are not part of the market. For example, without a bank loan at X% interest, some industries wouldn't exist. Without insurance for X product, a lot of companies and technologies wouldn't exist since insurance impacts risk level, etc.

Ecuador has been reeling with weak economic growth and increased debt for a while now. Although there were still other options to finance their problems for the time being, it is likely that Ecuador has requested IMF financing and it has been blocked at the executive level for a few years on the condition that they played ball. Coupled that with the fact that Assange lost almost all his political capital and 'friendly points' in the past few years, it became a matter of when, not if, Ecuador would trade in.

Reading some of the comments in here and in previous texts, I think everyone should try to heed to the following guidelines:

- When an individual/team's work is emphasized by their biological characteristics, it is often meant for clicks or to drive emotions (positive & negative)

- When that happens, ask yourself whether the author of the paper did it for nefarious reasons or not.

- If the cause doesn't seem nefarious, ask yourself whether the society around you has outgrown the biases towards X biological characteristics

- When interacting with others, do not base your actions and thoughts on their biological characteristics.

- Celebrate, debate and criticize the work that the individual/team did, the work the author of the article did and the comments.

Although I agree with the point you have raised, it can sometimes be a little tricky to draw the line. Should we have Microsoft cited for projects completed using their software or system? Should we always cite Newton when using calculus?

I think society implicitly assumes that there has been a tone of people backing up a single individual towards their main achievements and that the individual is humble enough to know and to try - ever so slightly - to show appreciation.

A punishment can often be used as a form of learning. By punishing the individual, he gets a chance to better understand the costs associated with doing such acts. At the same time, if it becomes public enough (or teachers decide to anonymize and make it a use case), others may get a chance to see an example of what not to do. The case can also be used by the school and other entities to improve security, etc.

The biggest loss of all would be to put it under the rug.

There are implicit agreements that society has to itself and the entities that coalesce in it. A major event tends to have a disproportionate impact on the population's perception of its institutions. It is in human nature to search for something to blame, it helps people rationalize the issues at hand. I don't think people realize how many incidents are resolved before it even reaches the TV and that is a good thing.

Even if society was willing to exchange more privacy for a higher number of unpredictable 'negative' incidents, the question changes from what, to how many. For example, how many incidents of X magnitude would be required for people to change their minds? What if you only need 1 incident of Y magnitude to change the shape of your society in a negative way, potentially rocking its very core? Would you take the risk for your individual's privacy? You have to remember that an event can be come in different ways such as a terror attack, a semi-natural disaster, a cyber attack, an espionage that rocks the foundation of a key industry in your country, etc.

I think some of the questions society should be asking are: What is an acceptable degree of personal privacy that we should strive for? What are the blockers to ensure the material is not used for nefarious reasons? Are the right institutions in place and are they solid enough? How can society engage more and have a better understanding of the issues at hand?

Unsurprisingly since they have had a strong tech workforce with cheap labor cost and an advantage in language (English). It will be interesting to see them move up the value chain and the disruption it may create.

It is a combination of factors that lead to this, I will just give you a quick example, please note that I will not cover all factors.

* Product X is made by 3 companies in the US. It costs them $20 to make the product and it is sold for $30-33.

* Government increases minimum wage, which leads the cost to go up to $23 (e.g. cost of raw material is impacted, labor, etc), the producers increase the price to $33-35 while still taking a personal hit in their returns.

* Unexpected economic disruption or shortage in a certain raw material leads to increased costs to $25 and increased consumer price to $36-38

* Government implements a new legislation that impacts customer demand negatively and increases cost of production to $28. This leads to increased consumer price to $39-40

Throughout this process, supply/demand dictates that the increase in prices may impact negatively the demand for the good produced.

* One of the companies realize that it can produce the goods in a country called Melo for $5. It shifts a good portion of its production there, allowing it to sell the goods to consumers for $20.

* Customers sensitive to price will flock to the cheapest good. All the other companies decide to move their production to Melo country to remain competitive.

In part, consumers are willingly exchanging a few jobs here and there so that they can get goods & services at a cheaper price. Economics is full of trade-offs, understanding them is essential for a country's long-term success.

This is an interesting point you may have raised regarding re-post. At one end, repeated information will lead some to think it is counter-productive, think it is a karma-hungry person or lead to backlash. On the other end, there are many individuals that can benefit from older articles that they have yet to see.

Where to find the balance? We have yet to see.

There is a tricky balance to the point you have raised. If the business makes the process too easy, the attrition will increase and the pricing structure will have to go up for the remaining buyers. When that happens, you would come in here to complain that the prices of goods & services are exorbitantly high.

"Invest some time in a better product" is not an appropriate solution since consumers have different incentive processes and those incentives changes throughout their lives. There is a diminishing return on investment for the producer of the g&s and they have to find the right balance.

The process of increasing cancellation cost (e.g. time), inadvertently puts the onus on the consumer to do their due diligence prior to purchasing a product.

It likely takes quite a bit of willpower to not touch the money for X amount of years. In the meantime, most people are rationalizing why they wouldn't get caught and how it could enhance their lifestyle today.

That is highly dependent on the quality of renter and quality of your property. One of the key values of having multiple rental is the economies of scale, for example:

* Property advertisement - Preparing material and advertising for 1 property can be more expensive than multiple properties

* Material for fixes - Purchasing material for 1 property can be more expensive than multiple properties

* Vacancy - The cost of vacancy for a single rental is higher than having multiple rentals. The other rentals may off-set the cost of the vacancy lot for a period, without requiring external cash flow.

* Experience - Multiple properties will give you the opportunity to experience different issues and allow you to take proactive steps to diminish certain risks.

It is pretty clear that you lack empathy towards something you don't fully grasp or doesn't conform with the way you see, that is unfortunate but understandable.

Places like GoFundMe have morphed into a multi-tool for different groups. There are legit and illegit cases even within areas you may perceive to be "right". I have worked with an individual that needed a transplant and he simply requested close friends and family to support his cause. We went with GoFundMe for a few reasons: (1) it is easier to have a page talking about the matter so people (close friends) can read and empathize, (2) it goes beyond a single social media tool, (3) can be transmitted to friends-of-friends, (4) has an annonymous component to it, (5) allow others that empathize with the cause to support, (6) is well-known [instead of a suspicious link for example]

Can other methods provide some, if not all the few points I bothered to list? Very likely, but that was the option we decided to go with.

Some people don't seem to realize the impact their actions can have on the internet, whether the scammers in places like GoFundMe (look at the reaction ppl are having about it in here) or defamers like you.

GoFundMe is a way for people he knows to come together and donate without having to figure out where/how to wire the money directly to him. That includes auntie Jane, the one you haven't spoken to for 3 years but still cares about your well-being, whether you made stupid decisions or not.

Raising this guys' specific Fund is similar to the media defaming you on international tv. Chances are you would call a lawyer and ask him to take it down or raise a defamatory libel towards the business.

The example you have given seems to be targeted to close friends and acquaintances he may have or individuals that connect to his cause like others that had similar issues before. A place like GoFundMe allows this community to come together to help the individual without having to figure out how to wire money to him.

We don't know if a large portion of the fund comes from the family or not, neither do we know whether he has the latest generation foldable cellphone or not. You have to make your decision whether a GoFundMe like this falls under your profile or not, it does not mean others have the same profile as you.

This tool would probably be useful in conjunction with other tools or in specific conditions:

* A tool that can clear the noise from the hard disk, allowing a glimpse at some parts of the conversation

* When the computer is turned-off (assuming the listening device can stay on)

* Some areas in an Airport

* Construction areas

It is not impossible to be useful for some actors, but it does require specific conditions.

This is probably the way the business found to ask the same question as a date of birth while requiring an extra step from the user, which then:

* Decreases the number of bots able to get into your account

* Make it harder for a foreign agent with limited knowledge of English to do the same.

No, I did not write that question for you to answer.

It is not as simple as it looks. Some degree of globalization already existed for tens of thousands of years, whether through colonialism, Asia-MiddleEast-Europe trade and many more. Even though there are ups and downs in the cycle of regional/global trade, it has continued to move towards more integration, especially due to technological innovations seen in the past 500 years.

Nations that decide to close down in certain areas, may find themselves in a competitive disadvantage to peers making use of data, economies of scale, technology, labour, etc. This is something we have seen happen in history.

I don't think anything is bad with Toronto per say (maybe housing prices), he explicitly said states, maybe life just pulled him to the EU

I don't think Airbnb (Netflix) marketplace necessarily covers for some of the benefits a set of clients look for in Hotels (BlockBuster). However, going along with your analogy, I think this move is 2 fold: data driven & marketplace synergy. I believe Airbnb is interested in the data it can get from a model business such as HotelTonight and to be able to cross-connect it to their own. I think their end-goal is to have Airbnb become a one stop shop for not only current users of AirBnB, but also hotel users.

I believe a good portion of large hotels are aware that at some point they will need to tap into the Airbnb market and if that marketplace (Airbnb) manages to create an environment where both sides can live or directly compete with each other, everyone (winners mostly) will be happy with the outcome.

The real tricky part is that synergy can be difficult to have and different players (hotel customers, airbnb customer, hotels, airbnb renters) may have different degrees of resistances to Airbnb plan.

I think their main focus will be to create a B2B environment that will make big ticket customers (e.g. IBM) want to use their system to get either a rented place or a hotel room for their consultants and business travelers. Lots of money to be made in this area.

It feels that a majority of the issues you have listed is mainly due to resources.

> Not enough resource to reach out to a wide number of sources, especially when you know some stories will not pan out.

> If something goes against a journalist's assumption, it can make their story null. This can jeopardize their career and cost a lot of resources to the company

> In order to sell, journalists may emphasize the areas that makes the story look juicy, besides, not all sources are reliable.

> The industry requires businesses to keep throwing watered-paper at the wall to see if it sticks. It is the incentive it has to remain afloat. Besides, what is useful to person X may not be useful to person Y (think of horoscope for example).

> Some journalists will find it more profitable to sell to the mass media or work a 'cosier' job in mass media instead of grassroot networks. Similar to someone going to work for a FAANG instead of a startup.

Due to the revenue structure that exists in the journalism industry, the pull method is becoming less often used or only used in cases where the directors feel they have a solid footing.

I would argue that this is a society issue since people are less inclined to want to and pay for material that has more insight. Society wants quick, flashy snippets of what is happening or what someone think is happening. This creates bad incentives that have led to quite a bit of damage to society so far.