srinivgp

It's not about your feelings. If you facilitate their efforts, no matter how much you wish to disclaim responsibility, you have still facilitated their efforts. Thus the binary. "Can't we just choose to ignore it" does not magically mean that when they trade their resources for yours in a deal that they like, you are somehow not helping them achieve their goals.

> all the good ones

People who are regularly in great pain would read this comment as saying "you are being mauled by a bear, but if you have ripped your own vocal cords out so that you're not constantly screaming, we judge that preventing the bear from mauling you won't affect the environment much (since the screaming level will not change), so we will not prevent the bear from mauling you".

> separate legitimate issues from psychosomatic ones

I know what you are trying to say, but phrasing it like this is harmful. Psychosomatic issues are absolutely legitimate. Knowing it's psychosomatic means there may be other avenues of addressing it than if it wasn't, but calling the issues "not legitimate" is very problematic, akin to telling someone with depression "just think happy thoughts".

You mean that's business talk _and_ lies.

If I may interject, no surprise with stakes that high is actually worth the downside risk. Just communicate. Unless you're sure your partner would have agreed that the surprise was worth not communicating, I suggest discussing things like this.

Signifyd | Quantitative Risk Analyst | San Jose, CA; New York City, NY; Denver, CO | Remote | https://boards.greenhouse.io/signifyd95/jobs/2150518

Signifyd is a fast-growing online retail fraud protection company that maintains a startup culture of curiosity, agility and compassion. We use machine learning technology that protects merchants, while allowing them to ship more orders and open new markets without the fear of fraud.

"The Risk Analytics team is fast-paced, high-energy, and diligent in identifying emerging fraud patterns and preventing fraud loss before it happens. We conduct stringent analysis of complex data sets, and set up multiple layers of business rules, models, and other processes to fight ecommerce fraud.

We're looking for a quantitative risk analyst to hit the ground running. They'll work alongside a team of analysts to investigate and identify solutions to prevent and mitigate fraud. They'll be responsible for proactively identifying fraud patterns and minimizing our customers' exposure to financial risk."

If actually making measured, informed decisions without discarding all knowledge of numbers makes me heartless then I readily accept.

> You have someone in a clinic, or on a table, groaning about how it hurts even though there's nothing, objectively, wrong with them. What do you do?

In practice, living the years I have with my wife, the answer seems to usually be "assume that you, as a doctor, have much more knowledge about your patient's experience and that because no test you know how to do dings 'yep, a problem', that the patient in fact _does not_ have a problem, that their claims of being in enough pain to want to die at least a few times a week are made-up, that they've lived this long with their 'must be just in their head' problem that surely it's not so bad and they can keep doing so".

From a purely probabilistic standpoint, they might be right.

From my wife's perspective, they are torturing her, hopefully not to death.

What _do_ you do?

You've heard of binom(N, p)? Now try binom(M>>N, q<<p)!

People can also suffer greatly from not giving up the fight.

The "brainteaser" question type in the survey is just another type of question. If you've seen/practiced Fermi estimates, it's pretty rote. If you've never seen/practiced Fermi estimates, it will sound like a horrible trick question. I wonder how well it would work to begin with "are you comfortable with Fermi estimates?". If so, go ahead and ask. If not, _teach_, do a couple together, then have the candidate do one on their own. The technique isn't hard, it's just surprising that it can work and work pretty well if you haven't already been exposed.

Repeat after me. Addiction is not dependence. Dependence is not addiction. When I read "dependence is expected", I will not interpret it as "addiction is expected", and I will ESPECIALLY not immediately assume tolerance, drug seeking, preoccupation, or harming oneself just because of dependence.

> For those of you that think that a few doses of opioids can't cause addiction, think again. This study found that even after 10 days supply of opioids, 20% of patients had a dependence lasting up to a year.

The study did not find that. The study looked for long-term opioid use, not addiction, and not dependence. Long term use, addiction, and dependence (and tolerance) are all separate things.

Long-term use: simply using a thing consistently for a long time Addiction: compulsive seeking, not noted in any of your links Dependence: something bad happens when use is discontinued Tolerance: more use is required to get the same effects

Equivocation. "the principle" points at different principles for different people. There are differences in which types of organizations we might wish to forbid from interfering with speech. It is absolutely coherent to believe in a principle which celebrates censorship by corporate entities but not by governmental entities.

Yep. My wife regularly decides to under-medicate rather than risk having to radically under-medicate later. And politicians attack the weak to appear strong, and we the weak sometimes have to cry ourselves to sleep, or die, or whatever is needed to cope.