Doesn't the precipitating change optimize memory on the DNS server at the expense of additional memory usage across millions of clients that now need to parse an unordered response?
For most client interfaces, it's possible to just grab the addresses and ignore the CNAMEs altogether because the names do not matter, or only the name on the address record.
Of course, if the server sends unrelated address records in the answer section, that will result in incorrect data. (A simple counter can detect the end of the answer section, so it's not necessary to chase CNAMEs for section separation.)
I wonder whether the bot hallucinated the wrong information or whether the policy changed and the bot simply wasn't updated / retrained. The latter seems more likely but less interesting, akin to information on a boring HTML page getting overlooked during a site update.
Honestly would it make any difference if the information was just on an FAQ page and it contradicted what the actual ticket contract said?
I’m with you. They should be held to the information they give out. Short of an employee purposely maliciously giving out bad information it seems like not making stuff up should be a basic requirement for them to operate.
I remember my desired domain being premium at launch. What happened might’ve been the premium list was expanded, but it’s bad to apply that list change to renewals that previously weren’t considered premium.
Congratulations on your bargain $12 domain... although you'll be faced with the difficult decision of paying google $850 next year after you've invested in the name building up a site and a reputation on that domain.
> Surely other patients must have asked about [this traumatic experience]? Or commented on it?
I find myself having this reaction all too frequently after traumatic encounters with the healthcare system.
I honestly don't know the answer.
Do other patients really not communicate when they have a bad experience? Or do they communicate and the system is simply incapable of listening or reacting?
I don't disagree with the article at all, I think it's conclusions are probably largely right.
But it's hard to take seriously when the very first figure has a logarithmic y-axis without any callout in the discussion, exaggerating the appearance of the negative effects.
I fully agree that at least in principle it seems wrong to have insurance for routine care, when most insurance only covers catastrophe.
I think the two practical problems with this view are (a) what's routine to you might be catastrophic (or at least seriously detrimental) to someone else, and (b) missing routine care often leads to catastrophic outcomes.
> what's routine to you might be catastrophic (or at least seriously detrimental) to someone else,
Whether a cost is insurable is not subjective. The gp observed that insurance only works to manage risk. Insurance against a risk of 100% certainty costs more than managing the risk itself. Insurance that covers doctor’s visits takes a certain expense and runs it through a system designed for uncertain expenses, thereby adding essentially parasitic loss.
> missing routine care often leads to catastrophic outcomes.
As a sibling comment observed, this is already something that insurance companies deal with. Failure to obtain regular and preventative care makes one more likely to need intervention, which means the cost of insuring the patient is more. Therefore people who are actually paying for catastrophic insurance can save money by going to checkups. This would decrease costs, rather than cause them to baloon like insuring high probability events.
There's a wide gulf between "some customers may have trouble using Slack" and "most/all customers are completely unable to use Slack". Putting aside formality, I'd say "Slack is down" is in fact more accurate here (assuming that it is true that most users can't use it, which is true for our company at least).
Can someone help me to understand all of the pessimism surrounding plant-based meat?
Of all of the morally-dubious technologies in the world today, this seems like a force of unequivocal good, and yet the criticism is endless: "it's not healthier", "the name sucks", "it'll give you cancer".
All of these just seem to be missing the point that it's _no worse than meat_ in most respects, and _way better_ in others (i.e. ethical and environmental impact).
A definitive answer to your question might not be possible but always keep in mind that in any free market, the incumbent has a vested interest in maintaining their position.
A recent parallel could be vaping: It had rediculously overblown criticisms for quite a while, to the point where some smokers were telling folks (unironically) that it wasn't safe and they shouldn't do it.
I want to know what I eat. For example, if I eat meat I want to know if it is pork or beef.
Plant-based does not cut it on that criteria.
Call it what it is, not what it pretends to be.
I think it might be something to do with the "lab grown" aspect. Where people perhaps don't necessarily understand how plant based foods are made and associate it with harsh chemicals and "fake" products to mimic another.
The idea that the plant based alternative is not natural when compared to meat that is grown in animals that we have seen for many lifetimes.
Similar to "I let my body build natural immunity, rather than take a chemically laced vaccine"
I disagree that ending trials early is solid science, or at least not _as_ solid as running them to completion. It makes it hard to know whether results are due to a treatment effect or just random fluctuations over time. Essentially, it allows for cherry-picking of significant results in a way that bypasses family-wise error correction.
The solution to this is changing the stopping criterion in the trial protocol description, so that the real confidence interval can be calculated for the trial _with_ stopping (which is very different from running the trial until the end).
Things got extremely political around these experiments.
When 2 days ago Orban announced from nothing that they will provide Remdesivir to everyone, I knew that again they did something stupid...I want the experimental drug that Trump got, not some leftover drug with lots of side effects.
Now I know that it was not Orban who was screwed, but the whole EU.
As I said, ideally RCTs would run for as long as possible. But in meatspace we cannot ignore that if a treatment shows serious promise it is unethical to deprive control group patients of the treatment. If we ran RCTs for all CoVID-19 treatments for something like 3 years before using any treatment, it seems pretty apparent we'd be looking at a significantly higher death toll.
My point about it being solid science is not that it is a good (from a scientific perspective) to end trials early, merely that the early part of the trial was still an RCT and the data is just as solid as any other RCT which ran for the same period of time. From what I've seen, this is a contentious topic in academia because the ethics of this make it harder to argue that RCTs should always be run to completion (with no exceptions).
But any good RCT will have a stopping criteria established before the trial starts to eliminate ex-post-facto cherry-picking. I'm not familiar with the exact details of the Remdesivir trial and whether they had a reasonable stopping criteria defined beforehand -- I was speaking more broadly about the topic of ending RCTs early.
reply