Having worked in medical software for a long time now, it's not surprising.
Medical software is purchased by upper management based on features. Usability is rarely considered, and hard to evaluate anyway since it depends on integration.
Hospitals themselves create this incentive because they will rarely if ever change their processes to fit more smoothly into a different workflow. The core purpose of an EMR is to integrate different parts of the hospital, though, so the only possible solution is a huge do-everything piece of software like Epic.
I spent years on a project to try to standardize exams between a major research hospital and its satellites. The ended up quitting about half-way through because they realized there just wasn't going to be enough political power at the main campus to convince the doctors at the satellites to follow their lead.
You'll even see this at smaller regional hospitals. We'll bring software and workflows developed in tandem with the top hospitals in the world, and they'll tell us that they don't care and they want to keep doing things the way they've always done them.
Everyone may hate EMR, but hospitals seem to be getting exactly the EMR they're asking for.
Obviously being LLM generated is a good data point because it shows that the OP isn't arguing against the statements of the review itself.
It's also good for the editor to know about. LLMs represent a new acute threat to review quality that they may currently be underestimating. I've literally heard of people bragging about using ChatGPT instead of doing reviews themselves. People who aren't LLM experts don't necessarily understand their limitations or that using them in this way should be unacceptable. The editors should know so they can improve the communication of review expectations.
The demand for human radiologists never actually went down, though[1]. There is improved efficiency due to technology, but it hasn't kept up with increased demand for scanning and increased patient volumes. There's also induced demand caused by efficiency increasing. Diagnostic AI tends to make different kinds of errors than a human, so even if it were better, both together is even stronger.
The "Radiologists are being replaced by technology" story has been repeated so many times by uninformed software developers that it has become popular wisdom, but the reality so far is that we need more radiologists than ever.
Ironically, radiology might be a decent proxy for what could happen with software engineering, but in the opposite way you intend.
Amusingly a poster above indicated they had issues with multiple Subarus, and another had issues with Hondas (which is what has worked well for me).
People on this forum want it to be a technology issue, and I'm sure it is to some extent, but I think the differences between driving styles is also a large component. If you're a careful driver that usually leaves a lot of separation, many AEB implementations will rarely trigger and you'll usually understand why when it does. Whereas if you're an aggressive driver that cuts between vehicles, leaves <1 s separation, etc., you will notice a lot of "unexpected" braking from these systems. Like the poster above that was upset the system slowed them down when they were nearly clipping a car exiting the road.
A lot of good comments here, here's one point I haven't seen: If you can, just respond tomorrow. Use the evening to exercise, visit friends, play trivia, etc. I find it can help you force your brain to see the comments as just one part of your whole life.
The creators of these images assigned the rights to adobe, including allowing Adobe to develop future products using the images. So yes, this is perfectly fair.
It's completely different than many (most?) other companies, which are training on data they don't have the right to re-distribute.
I think you are making a jump here. I’m not a lawyer, but your first sentence seems to be about why it is legal. And then you conclude that that is why it is also fair. I’m with you on the first one, but not sure on the second.
The creators uploaded their images so adobe can sell licences for them and they get a share of the licence fees. Just a year ago if you asked almost any people what “using the images to develop new products and services” mean they would have told you something like these examples: Adobe can use the images in internal mockups if they are developing a new ipad app to sell the licences, or perhaps a new website where you can order a t-shirt print of them.
The real test of fairness I think is to imagine what would have happened if Adobe ring the doorbell of any of the creators and asked them if they can use their images to copy their unique style to generate new images. Probably most creators would have agreed on a price. Maybe a few thousand dollars? Maybe a few million? Do you think many would have agreed to do it for zero dollars? If not, then how could that be fair?
No that isn't how it works with Adobe or any of the other big stock photo companies. The photographers or creators of the images still own the copyright. Both with rights managed and royalty free they aren't assigning rights to anyone else.
If you're an experienced individual contributor, the shift to remote work was great. You got less oversight at work and more free time in your personal life. This category is a lot of the hacker news audience, so remote work is popular here.
It was less good if you were a new contributor. You might find yourself with less development and struggling to break into existing cliques within the organization. You may not have built good practices in personal time management. None of this is malicious, it is just failures that are easier to have happen when working remote and not being careful.
Managers have an even harder time. Good managers work by building strong relationships with their team members, not with carrots or sticks. That's harder in a remote environment, due to the default-private nature of most remote communication. The lack of relationships hurts individual contributors too, who become even more like cogs in a machine.
Overall, I think the ability to retain experienced employees and hire from a wide range of locations outweighs these costs of remote work, but they are real and significant. For Big Tech, where acquiring talent is relatively easier due to salaries and name recognition, you can see why they might prioritize in-office work.
> I think it was actually extremely clear that Git would win. It had a guaranteed audience by virtue of hosting the Linux kernel. And forget even about its distributed nature; Git was already better at the centralized model than "centralized-only" version control systems ever were.
I think you're forgetting about Mercurial, which was also created by a Linux kernel developer around the same time. It brought all the same benefits of git, but had a simpler command line API and better cross platform support. Mercurial saw wide use, especially in large corporations like Facebook.
Indeed, a lot of people will say that it was the success of github itself that pushed git over the top. In a world where bitbucket won instead of github, we could all be using mercurial.
Although I've never used it, I'm not sure how much of an improvement either of these was over BitKeeper. The primary impetus to create git and mercurial was licensing changes in BitKeeper, not technical deficiencies.
I also do not understand why people claim that mercurial is more beginner-friendly. Especially putting relatively basic features into optional modules is very confusing in the beginning.
Medical software is purchased by upper management based on features. Usability is rarely considered, and hard to evaluate anyway since it depends on integration.
Hospitals themselves create this incentive because they will rarely if ever change their processes to fit more smoothly into a different workflow. The core purpose of an EMR is to integrate different parts of the hospital, though, so the only possible solution is a huge do-everything piece of software like Epic.
I spent years on a project to try to standardize exams between a major research hospital and its satellites. The ended up quitting about half-way through because they realized there just wasn't going to be enough political power at the main campus to convince the doctors at the satellites to follow their lead.
You'll even see this at smaller regional hospitals. We'll bring software and workflows developed in tandem with the top hospitals in the world, and they'll tell us that they don't care and they want to keep doing things the way they've always done them.
Everyone may hate EMR, but hospitals seem to be getting exactly the EMR they're asking for.