August312014
August292014
jayparkinsonmd:

See that weird rash caused by a fitbit? That’s the only time a doctor will ever care about your fitbit. They’ll never care about the data generated from these devices, ever. Why?
Because ignorance is bliss. Imagine if a doctor’s typical panel of 2500 patients all had fitbits and were all generating data and sharing all that daily data with doctors. That’s a lot of data for a doctor to digest on a daily basis. Of course the doctor surely wouldn’t be responsible for all of that data. The doctor would only be responsible for the data that sets off some sort of trigger. Let’s say that there’s a miracle device with a miracle algorithm that flags 1% of users as atypical and something the doctor should be analyzing. That means a doctor would then be looking at data from 25 patients a day. Doctors typically see 25 patients a day in their practice, so now they are responsible for 25 more patients, analyzing their data, and then acting on the results. Meanwhile they’re not getting paid for this kind of management. Would this be a co-pay that patients pay? Could doctors open up cases for you that would then give them the freedom to take your co-pay whenever they want?
And what happens when they overlook a blip in someone’s data and don’t act on it? Are they negligent? Will they be sued for malpractice? Will you also be able to sue Apple or Fitbit because of a flawed algorithm that didn’t trigger alarms for life-threatening data it’s collecting about you? 
It’s the same issue with paper records. If you have your paper records and deliver an inch-thick of paper to your new doctor, it’s in the doctor’s best interest to refuse to take them. Because if they do take them, they are assuming responsibility for them and are then expected to know the information in that stack of papers. If they don’t take them, they can always claim ignorance. And, legally, ignorance is much better than negligence.
For doctors, it’s best to ignore these devices and this data. Too much data coming at you. And too many unknowns. With increasing data streams targeted at you and increasing risk of malpractice, it’s probably better to just keep your distance and call them “cute.”

I’m going to have to disagree with you here. There are many things that you need a physical physician for, but analyzing data isn’t one of those. Anyone with the expertise could have the data sent to them. This means that analysis of Fitbit data can be outsourced. Also, since it’s just data I don’t see why a doctor has to be the one to do it. Why not just make a program to put the data in a nice readable way and then design a class to teach people how to analyze it? Doctor’s time is expensive so I think there would be some better alternatives to it.

jayparkinsonmd:

See that weird rash caused by a fitbit? That’s the only time a doctor will ever care about your fitbit. They’ll never care about the data generated from these devices, ever. Why?

Because ignorance is bliss. Imagine if a doctor’s typical panel of 2500 patients all had fitbits and were all generating data and sharing all that daily data with doctors. That’s a lot of data for a doctor to digest on a daily basis. Of course the doctor surely wouldn’t be responsible for all of that data. The doctor would only be responsible for the data that sets off some sort of trigger. Let’s say that there’s a miracle device with a miracle algorithm that flags 1% of users as atypical and something the doctor should be analyzing. That means a doctor would then be looking at data from 25 patients a day. Doctors typically see 25 patients a day in their practice, so now they are responsible for 25 more patients, analyzing their data, and then acting on the results. Meanwhile they’re not getting paid for this kind of management. Would this be a co-pay that patients pay? Could doctors open up cases for you that would then give them the freedom to take your co-pay whenever they want?

And what happens when they overlook a blip in someone’s data and don’t act on it? Are they negligent? Will they be sued for malpractice? Will you also be able to sue Apple or Fitbit because of a flawed algorithm that didn’t trigger alarms for life-threatening data it’s collecting about you? 

It’s the same issue with paper records. If you have your paper records and deliver an inch-thick of paper to your new doctor, it’s in the doctor’s best interest to refuse to take them. Because if they do take them, they are assuming responsibility for them and are then expected to know the information in that stack of papers. If they don’t take them, they can always claim ignorance. And, legally, ignorance is much better than negligence.

For doctors, it’s best to ignore these devices and this data. Too much data coming at you. And too many unknowns. With increasing data streams targeted at you and increasing risk of malpractice, it’s probably better to just keep your distance and call them “cute.”

I’m going to have to disagree with you here. There are many things that you need a physical physician for, but analyzing data isn’t one of those. Anyone with the expertise could have the data sent to them. This means that analysis of Fitbit data can be outsourced. Also, since it’s just data I don’t see why a doctor has to be the one to do it. Why not just make a program to put the data in a nice readable way and then design a class to teach people how to analyze it? Doctor’s time is expensive so I think there would be some better alternatives to it.

11AM

Anonymous said: theyre called dad jokes because theyre cheesy jokes a dad would say to their child...

bestnatesmithever:

cholq:

bestnatesmithever:

bestnatesmithever:

Dad jokes have a specific style and pattern. 

"I’m hungry."

"Nice to meet you, Hungry. I’m dad."

That’s a typical pattern for a Dad joke. 


"Can I go to the bathroom?"

"I don’t know, CAN you?" 

That’s another typical Dad joke. 

The joke, “How does NASA organize a party? They planet.” is a pun. Just a straight up pun. Good old fashioned pun. 

image

Hmmm…well in that case literally ANY joke can be a Dad joke so long as it A. Doesn’t make the audience laugh and B. The one telling the joke IS laughing. 

So how would we know if a joke on the Internet is a Dad Joke unless we had confirmation that the joke teller is laughing? 

I do respect and appreciate thefrogman's comedic intellect, but I think this definition of Dad Joke is problematic.

I always considered the classic “dad joke” to be a reaction to something that somebody else said.  For example, the child says something to set up the joke; “I’m hungry”, and then the dad responds with “Hi Hungry, my name is Dad!”.  The classic one at my house growing up was always after I’d say “I’m full” at the dinner table.  My dad would react by yelling “You’re a fool, alright!”.  They all follow the same pattern: 1) somebody (usually a child) unintentionally sets up the joke  2) dad responds by delivering lame punch line  3) nobody but dad laughs.

There also needs to be a certain level of innocence to the joke.  They need to be the type of joke that you can tell to a 3 year old.  The “That’s what she said.” joke would also follow the pattern above, but there almost always a sexual meaning behind that, so I feel like it doesn’t meets the criteria of a classic dad joke.

The “How does NASA plan a party?” joke would involve the same person delivering the set up and the lame punch line.  It would also probably result in nobody but the joke teller laughing, but since that person gave the setup and the punch line, I fell like it falls outside of the dad joke definition.  While it is a bad joke, and not all bad jokes are dad jokes.

This person gets it. I think this is the correct definition of a Dad Joke. It requires someone else, the child, to set it up.

One of my Dad’s “Classic” dad jokes would be when one of us kids in the car asked where we were going and Dad would reply “Crazy.” I feel like another aspect of the Dad joke is frustrating or embarrassing the child. Telling Hungry that “My name is Dad” for instance doesn’t do anything to alleviate Hungry’s food deficit.

August242014
wilwheaton:

bearhatalice:

aspiringpolymath:

phoenix-ace:

girl-non-grata:

Please note: “everyone who works retail, admin, or labor” is pretty much everyone. I can’t remember the last time I worked somewhere without “security” cameras that monitored employees.

I’m having a good laugh right now because our associates just got collectively reprimanded for leaning on the counters during 8 hour shifts on their feet, because it isn’t “professional” looking.  So apparently they can put up with a camera over their shoulder to make sure they do their jobs correctly, but a cop with a gun cant?  

Do cops want CCTV cams removed from businesses and streets? If they don’t want to monitored on their jobs, why should everyone be monitored at theirs (and in their LIVES)? Oh, it makes cops’ job easier to have a video record of crimes and infractions? Huh.
HUH.

I work in an office and not retail, but I also know that every website I visit, and instant message or email I send is monitored and stored by my employer.

Also, surveillance cameras in public areas are nearly everywhere in America, watching just about everything completely innocent people are doing.Police should be held to a higher standard than the public they are sworn to protect, and the data shows that cops equipped with cameras are simply better cops.

Do they stay better cops? The act of observation usually alters behavior in some ways but once people get used to being watched they go back to their old behavior. I wonder if that would hold true for this.

wilwheaton:

bearhatalice:

aspiringpolymath:

phoenix-ace:

girl-non-grata:

Please note: “everyone who works retail, admin, or labor” is pretty much everyone. I can’t remember the last time I worked somewhere without “security” cameras that monitored employees.

I’m having a good laugh right now because our associates just got collectively reprimanded for leaning on the counters during 8 hour shifts on their feet, because it isn’t “professional” looking.  So apparently they can put up with a camera over their shoulder to make sure they do their jobs correctly, but a cop with a gun cant?  

Do cops want CCTV cams removed from businesses and streets? If they don’t want to monitored on their jobs, why should everyone be monitored at theirs (and in their LIVES)? Oh, it makes cops’ job easier to have a video record of crimes and infractions? Huh.

HUH.

I work in an office and not retail, but I also know that every website I visit, and instant message or email I send is monitored and stored by my employer.

Also, surveillance cameras in public areas are nearly everywhere in America, watching just about everything completely innocent people are doing.

Police should be held to a higher standard than the public they are sworn to protect, and the data shows that cops equipped with cameras are simply better cops.

Do they stay better cops? The act of observation usually alters behavior in some ways but once people get used to being watched they go back to their old behavior. I wonder if that would hold true for this.

August162014

geeksaurusrex:

toukos:

do u ever wonder how many of ur followers live near u

If anyone lives in Florida, feel free to say hello!

Hello

July312014

geeksaurusrex:

universalequalityisinevitable:

From this episode of DNews with Laci Green.

The world could be great.

Start here. http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

The Economy doesn’t grow by making more jobs. It grows by making production more efficient. Once our robot servants take over industry, our economy will boom, but it will have to be up for the government to help all the dislocated workers.

July82014

I never liked the original Bridezilla but Bridezilla Vs.King Ghidorah is actually really good!

July62014
June302014

mydamnchannel:

In anticipation of the outpouring of patriotism we’re sure to encounter this weekend, we here at My Damn Channel thought we’d beat the crowds. Here are 10 US presidents at their most badass. 

(Source: SharpWriter)

(via bestnatesmithever)

June222014

sciencevevo:

autisticlynx:

the wikipedia page is kinda dense and I don’t want to go on A$’s page, can someone briefly explain ABA to me? it sounds like the “shock collars” and “withold food until they speak” treat-them-like-a-dog kind of thing

I wrote more than I thought I would so enjoy this; 

Read More

Andrew does a good job of describing ABA and I’d like to add a few things. Firstly,  ABA practitioners are dedicated to helping their clients. Because of this, the use of ethics is as core to ABA as is the techniques for behavior change. One of the ethical practices of ABA, and also what makes it a science, is the use of data. 

Data is HUGE in ABA. It shows that a problem exists and that a treatment is necessary. It shows that the treatment is working, or that something needs to be change because it isn’t. It also helps the ABA practitioner see if she can do anything better. 

ABA uses ethics and data to protect their clients and bring them real and long lasting change.

ABA 

← Older entries Page 1 of 15