The conclusion is basically this (the last sentence before the "conclusion" section...
> But it does mean that we cannot afford to compound these problems through the use of an RCA tool that is so deeply and fundamentally flawed. Other more systems-focused techniques, such as fishbone75 or lovebug diagrams,72 causal tree diagrams,21 Causal Analysis based on Systems Theory (CAST)76 or even prospective risk assessment approaches,77–81 should be considered instead.
I find it odd that the paper cites so many theoretical problems with "5 whys" and then elevates these other methods as preferred solutions without any discussion. It's possible RCA committees already recognize the limitations of "5 whys" and use it as a heuristic that helps focus their efforts. That doesn't mean these committees all sit around a table and say "well, X sounds like a major problem, but it doesn't fit our '3rd why,' so we have to ignore it."
Those other systems are either based on 5 Why's or have essentially the same core. The author's complaint is that there exists an informal approximation to his technical system, that's easy to understand and which can be used effectively if you don't have a RCA team that's gone through a bunch of certification classes. It's like a Java programmer mad that someone launched a product using Python.
I think you're both right. The commenter above you is just taking the short view and you're taking the long view. Automation is great for long-term productivity and the supply of better, cheaper goods/services, but you can't argue it makes for a happy former file-clerk 5 years away from retirement who now has to find a new gig.
Well, I think I supplemented the commenter above -- I was arguing with him only ironically. I don't think it's impossible for something that happened in the past to stop happening, because the situation re: automation, robotics, and AI are qualitatively different than past evolutions (plus we're already grasping at non-productive straws to keep people occupied, e.g. the rise of bullshit jobs).
(In fact, the fully realized endgame of AI+robotics revolution would be the elimination of the need of a human involved for anything, including even creative endeavors. Why some believe "human jobs" are something that's inevitable to always exist in new forms and always enough for most of the population -- as opposed to e.g. just a 10-20% at some point, if not 0% --, is beyond me).
> In the abstract, you get this statement: "The drop in wages depressed the labor supply of men and increased that of women, especially in married couples."
Seems to get cause and effect backwards. Isn't it more likely that an increase in labor supply (women entering the workforce) had, simply by the laws of supply and demand, decreased wages?[1]
[1] https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/women_lf.htm#one
The paper is full of complicated-looking economic models and nice graphs-- but if you don't get the basic assumptions right it's hard to trust the fancy models.
A new worker (or 50 million new female workers) does on one end increase the supply of labor, which should lower the price (wages) of it, but s/he also starts spending an income, which increases general demand in the economy and acts to push up wages.
It's not obvious what the net effect is. Economists probably have a (or several :) well thought out and validated answers to this, but my gut feel is that it all evens out.
I think it's necessary to look at it more in more detail. What did women stop doing to make time for work? What products and services had higher demand and which ones did not? In particular were they labor intensive goods or resource intensive goods or even zero sum goods?
I don't have the answers to these questions unfortunately.
Elizabeth Warren did a lot of research on the topic before going into politics. The bulk of the income went towards transportation, childcare, housing and medical care.
They stopped being mothers and outsourced that to public education. That is why kids now are brainwashed and dumber than previous generations. A generation of impressionable people to fuel capitalistic growth.
Social cohesion is down and communities are dying. The social fabric is being torn apart.
The assumption that lower wages depresses labour supply is a pretty good one. Supply curves slope upwards, i.e., if they pay you less, you work less.
The other point they make is that men's wages declined more than women's, which might explain why women are more likely to work. (Assume couples need to make $X per week in the labour market; when male wages drop, the tradeoff between male and female employment changes in favour of the latter.)
I agree that increasing labour supply would also decrease male wages.
Exactly. More people entering the labor force was only good for the owners and employers, it destroy the bargaining power of the actual workers. Add to that the fact that having two parents at work seriously harms the family, making it more difficult for their children to develop in healthy ways. This is the future we asked for. Given the statistics that say women only want to marry men who make more money than them, it seems to have done even more harm than we might imagine, because there are few women wanting men to stay home and fill the role certain ideologues claimed would be open to them.
Are you trolling? You're accusing management of onboarding an H1-B, paying a sign-on bonus, paying relocation expenses and then paying them for 2 months to surreptitiously "pad the relatively useless team" so you can initiate a layoff instead individual firings. Nope. Generally, firings at big corp go like this: 1. Create an improvement plan for your under-performing worker. 2. Evaluate worker based on that plan in 1 month. 3. Fire worker.
When you have several layers of middle management trying to sabotage one another in pursuit of better chances at the next reorg, even weirder things could happen. Been there myself.
You can make any number of arguments why X, Y or Z is bad (or, "considered harmful"). The truth is, if you want to get stuff done, objects often fit the domain well enough and put state in predictable places. A bandaid here or there, "friend" classes and so on may be required. But, you'll get stuff done even if it's not in some perfect stateless beauty.
I'm assuming you're referring to RATHL? RATHL attempted to show a treatment regimen was non-inferior to bleo, and didn't. The results are quite controversial, and bleo remains standard of care for many Hodgkin's cases. However, that may change with future trials and more data. Bleo is, as you say, truly a poison. It hurts a lot of people. But on balance, it saves lives better than the alternatives when appropriately used.
It's genius marketing-- they were guaranteed a "surprising" conclusion that people widely share.
edit: The point I'm making, perhaps too tersely based on the below response, is a flawed study can be designed where every outcome would be "surprising" but obviously the rationale supporting that outcome would be poor. That people tend to share surprising outcomes (ie-- post it on Hacker News)-- makes it genius marketing.
I believe the GP’s point was that it wasn’t surprising regardless of the outcome (unless you find it surprising the author would make a test whose outcome is correlated to the test itself).
Which I don’t think is a particularly new concept or a good use of smart people’s time. Nor would people ever enjoy music, film, food, x hobby, based on what a scientific study determines is ‘best’ in the first place, making the whole thing based on the false premise that an outcome could ever be known through this method.
Seems like MetaMed tried working on every buzzword in medicine.
* Artificial Intelligence and diagnosis (check).
* Evidence-based medicine (check).
* Personalized medicine for all (check).
Consider, for a moment, all the capital and smart minds working on those things. I'm certainly not saying that's a reason not to work in any of those fields. Rather, a small startup is probably better suited focusing on 1 specific hard problem and gaining sufficient domain knowledge in that area to do meaningful work.
Think of what this means for voter representation. You just made it much easier for people with computer access to vote, compared to those without who still must trek to the polling place. I doubt the demographics represented in this vote were the same as the last comparable one.
I think you have it the wrong way around. This actually improves voter representation. It's now a lot easier for people with disabilities, the elderly, etc to cast a vote — they don't have to organize transport, they can just vote from home. Getting people to actually go to the polling stations and cast a vote is something that all democracies struggle with to a certain extent, this helps alleviate that issue.
90% of Estonian households have access to the internet. [1] The percent is still increasing. On top of that, it's possible to request the government to send an official to your home if you wish to cast a paper vote from home.
Nope. Docker's value isn't just its software. It's the support built around it, tutorials, familiarity and common usage, Dockerfiles, huge Docker Hub, existing setups relying on it and so on. Articles like this tend to overlook the value of entrenched technology that works well enough.
I find it odd that the paper cites so many theoretical problems with "5 whys" and then elevates these other methods as preferred solutions without any discussion. It's possible RCA committees already recognize the limitations of "5 whys" and use it as a heuristic that helps focus their efforts. That doesn't mean these committees all sit around a table and say "well, X sounds like a major problem, but it doesn't fit our '3rd why,' so we have to ignore it."