13 karma · joined March 27, 2025
This idea was apparently introduced in a bill last month: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7378...
Another problem I have with it - they state that the red text was such a huge problem, but then their solution is to... Keep only using red? Why not, for example, make certain non-failure notifications yellow or some other color? Surely using other colors should at least be tested as a solution, right? The whole process seems bizarre to me
A bit more expensive than the one I linked previously at $1,400, though it's a full color display. It's unfortunately missing a description, so the only evidence that it's a touch screen is in the title itself. Would obviously require some due diligence with the manufacturer.
I'm sure there are other options as well (the breadth of vendors on Alibaba is pretty impressive actually)
One potential idea - it might be worth looking at overseas manufacturers to see if they can offer a similar display at a better price point. I did a bit of digging on Alibaba, for example, and found a 25" E-ink display with the same resolution as the Boox for around $1000 (and the price goes down to $500 if you order 100 units or more): https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/25-3-inch-e-paper-dis...
Seems like they offer a color E-ink display option as well, which could be worth exploring.
Note: I don't have any affiliation with the above company, it was literally just the first one I found when searching. I'm sure there are many other options available as well.
The Mercator projection (which is how most 2D maps are displayed) makes Greenland appear to be the size of North America. It's large, to be sure (around 25% bigger than Alaska), but it's certainly not continent sized.
Obviously thats no justification for his actions, but found the explanation at least a bit amusing given his other odd misunderstandings (eg thinking people seeking asylum are from an insane asylum, thinking wind mills somehow affect whales, etc. The list goes on and on...)
Now I know it's a metaphor and not a literal ladder, but it does make me wonder if that association skews the results at all..
Essentially every assertion in the article is either an oversimification, cherry picking a random niche situation to highlight, or just flat out factually inaccurate.
Let's take this paragraph for example:
"Catching cancer early is beneficial only if (1) the cancers we catch would otherwise cause disease and death, and (2) we have treatments that prevent those outcomes, and (3) these benefits outweigh the costs of additional screening. This table does not show that any of those things is true."
To address these one by one:
1. Obviously cancer causes disease and death. The same graphic he references makes that abundantly clear. Sure, there might be some rare exceptions (elderly patients with slow growing colon cancer for example), but we're talking about the general population.
2. All cancers have treatment options available in some form (could be chemo, radiation, surgical resection, etc), so this assumption doesn't even make sense to include. Let's assume for a second though that treatments might not be available. Even if that were true, there ARE treatments that can help treat cancer symptoms, and but may not affect the tumor directly. Often these are specific to the specific type of cancer.
3. This assertion is dumb - is the author really trying to argue that providing symptomatic or other relief to a cancer patient isn't a sufficient benefit to warrant additional screening?
I could go on, but you get the point. Some people just like arguing for the sake of arguing I guess.