No, that is not what the hospital does, and thus based on this heuristic, it is not its purpose. What a system does is not the same as the context-free outcome. It is the outcome compared to the outcome that could be expected without the system. You have to define your priors.
However, if the expected 5 year mortality for the cancer was 50%, and with this treatment 2/3 died, then the rule would apply. A choice to continue using that treatment could be criticized as equivalent to a choice to kill 1/6 more patients. Because despite the intention, the known outcome was more patients dying.
People often have trouble with this saying, and that trouble often boils down to the difference between intent and purpose.
The people who create a system have some intent for it. The system may or may not effectively achieve that intent, may or may not outlive the initial conditions that surrounded its creation, and may or may not have side effects.
Purpose is something humans assign. It is sometimes linked to intent. A carpenter's hammer is intended to drive and pull nails, and that is often also its purpose. The purpose of the hammer I keep in my basement is breaking open walnuts.
The phrase is stating that the purpose we should assign to systems when judging them is their outcome, and not the intent behind them.
Scammers can definitely get through it faster than you can. Whenever you attempt to address abuse in a system by increasing the complexity of that system, you implicitly bias it towards those with the time and inclination to study it, which always includes those with intent to abuse it, and generally does not include your users.
One thing that I think is demonstrated in the Safari "file" menu, the most common things you might need under that menu* have icons, which means you can scan to them very quickly.
* Note here that most common things you need under the menu are not the same as the most commonly used commands. New tab and new window are surely the most commonly used commands, but those you would almost never go to the menu for.
The real lesson here is that almost all modern SaaS applications have massively under invested in customer support in order to appear more profitable or sustainable than they really are. One of the major factors behind LLM development is trying to solve this problem before the house of cards falls down. Companies were enticed by the recurring revenue of SaaS, but don't want to pay for the level of support required when you are responsible for all your customers data as well as their access to the service.
I am actually not sure that this is an example of bias, at least not in the direction that you seem to be implying. Though I appreciate your strong connection to the subject, the purpose of the Wikipedia page for a topic is not to advocate, but to describe. I don't think it is very controversial to say that the term "feminism" has a more widespread common understanding than the term "men's rights." I empathize with the desire to have a place to put information about issues that affect men, and also with the frustration at being told that the correct place to put that information is under the heading of feminism. But I do not think it is unreasonable for the Wikipedia page on "men's rights" to discuss the various ways people use and understand the term, the history of its use, and criticisms.
I think that framing this as hopeless, and perpetuating the idea the government cannot operate efficiently, is a part of the problem. If a system is created to provide a service, it makes sense that said system would consider its existence instrumental to meeting that goal. This could be a positive motivator to provide the service efficiently and effectively. There are many reasons that it often does not work out that way, but one is public perception that government is supposed to be slow and inefficient.
The phrase does not mean that you can pick any single effect of a system and claim that is its purpose, as your linked article does in its examples. (Ironically, a form of reducto as absurdum.) It is a heuristic, a pattern of thought to attempt to overcome the bias towards judging systems based on the intentions behind them instead of the outcomes they produce. The point is that when you choose a course of action, you are implicitly choosing its negative effects as well, and the choice should be judged on all its effects. You are making a cost / benefit analysis, and if that is not explicit, it can easily be wrong.
Twice I have had listings for companies or organizations I was associated with get phone numbers added to their listings in Google Maps automatically. In both cases, it was worse than this: the numbers were people in the same industry, but completely unrelated. One was bemused, the other was quite angry with me.
Numbers of cases, deaths, and how those numbers are tabulated are factual data. We can argue over the data quality, but at this point we have data from many independent countries' health services. Our view of these facts has gotten better with time, and we now have more certainty than we did in the early days of the pandemic.
Recommendations, regulations, and responses to the pandemic as it happened are factual in the sense that they happened, but are not "facts" in the same way. It is not a fact that standing in a restaurant without a mask was terrorism and sitting was fine. Instead, given the information available at the time, and the practical requirement to have your mask off to eat, this policy was chosen for a time as a risk mitigation balanced with practical requirements. The appropriateness of this policy is a matter of opinion.
You are of course correct that fact checking is not sufficient to protect us from all the ways that a journalistic work could mislead. But it does help when they are based on lies. As in the article this discussion is happening under. It helps address that problem, specifically. It seems like a strange reaction to say that this example of a lie being uncovered makes you less trustful of fact checking.
In addition to that, I am not sure if you have ever worked with an independent fact checker, but they very much do make an effort to point out misleading, cherry-picked, and out of context information.
I mostly don't use Numbers for very much because it's not easy to share and collaborate. Everyone has Excel. Everyone has Sheets. That said, I routinely use it as a first step in converting CSV and other text based delimited data. Open or paste into Numbers and it almost always does a perfect job of determining columns when Sheets and Excel choke.
Because - and _ break text selection in existing systems you do not have control over, if you use those characters your ids will become harder to select.
So in order to not see ads, I must outbid companies who want to show me ads against my wishes. And like any protection scheme, being willing to pay makes you a bigger target. This is why adblockers are the only moral choice.
This is an uncharitable reading of the comment. "Retrieve via email" can just as well be understood as reset using an email flow, as is common on most websites. And the comment does not claim they rely on fingerprints never changing, they say that if you do have a matching fingerprint, you can use that instead of another procedure.
That is not an issue with the analysis as a whole, and indeed he addresses several of those points. It is an issue only with the excess deaths statistic. The data we have so far does not show a correlation between lockdowns and GDP, and tends to show a correlation between lockdowns and a reduction in excess deaths.
The 20 years leading up to 2004 the average was > 6 million square km. 2012 was 3.4. 2020 was 3.8. In the context of the previous average, that does seem close. What was your point?
This is not true where I live. The cheapest electric cars here are only about 20% more than the cheapest entry level cars, and loans have better terms for electric, making the monthly cost almost the same. I am not sure how true it is in California, but even if it is, it clearly doesn't have to be.
Apple does not need to be a white knight who does no wrong anywhere for me to make the informed choice that I prefer their policies in my current country at the current time, nor for me to choose not to be tracked.
I don't think anyone claimed that reducing ad targeting did not affect small businesses. What they claimed was that small businesses do not have a right to target ads against user preferences.
The first target seems reasonable, as an extension of the current ZEV percentage trend. Setting targets also helps alleviate market uncertainty around large transitions like this.
The state is taking steps to develop and expand charging infrastructure, both through extensive funding of utility-side upgrades, building standards and codes, as well as grants and tax incentives. <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/ELEC?state=CA">Here</a> is an overview if you are interested.
The people who have obviously made their preferences clear that they prefer not to be profiled and tracked that way, because the possibility is still there for those who consent to tracking.