looks very cool. consider putting estimated savings in the pricing area too. similar to solar where big upfront cost but amortization prob makes it relatively cheap!
I'm interested in link density and diversity in those little workflow supporting spreadsheets you mention.
Do you have some examples?
We're building a sort of highly linkable (cell level) spreadsheet-type widget builder that is supposed to play nicely with existing workflows (instead of trying to force people to build out entire workflows like many of these new breed of "CRUD-replacer" low-code/no-code apps seem to want us to do). Might interest you!
> Do you have any insight into the reason for the unequal access? Is it that poorer or uninsured patients cannot afford non-emergency healthcare? Is it that they are too far away? Is it education/knowledge/social - belief that they shouldn't go to a doctor for "nothing". Are they "too busy".
I am not a Doctor observing patient populations, but I have lived and worked in East Palo Alto, CA for the last few years, which from my perspective, is a stark case study in all sorts of inequalities (For non-SV residents, East Palo Alto is a small historically socio-economically depressed city wedged between Palo Alto, Facebook, and Google. Zuck's house is a stone throw away from crack houses)
Anecdotally, what I have seen regarding poorer/uninsured people not utilizing health services involves all the things you have mentioned.
Non-emergency healthcare without insurance is pretty much out of the question. Even with insurance, co-pays can be prohibitively expensive. There are people I know living paycheck to paycheck with zero savings and like 50%+ of income going to housing expenses. Even a $50 unplanned-for copay is a painful blow.
Distance is also an issue for a population that may not have consistent access to a car--and the bus system takes too much time. If you are working a few jobs, it's nigh-impossible to take a random 1hr+ bus ride to a medical facility.
Education/knowledge is, unfortunately, also a huge issue. I have observed some astonishingly unhealthy habits that stem primarily from ignorance. Additionally, even navigating our health system requires some level of education, literacy, and time that often seems prohibitive for many in the population I have interacted with. And, with regards to distrust of the medical system, I have observed that as well. I have also seen this coupled with exploitative homeopathic "care" providers...which is doubly sad. These are more complex issues that I don't feel well-equipped to begin to speculate the underlying reasons for. Perhaps some of it is cultural. I am not sure if that is the primary story though.
Generalized ambient anxiety and depression is also, I believe, the more ultimate, albeit distal, cause here, rather these more proximate poverty mechanics. The emotional toll of living in poverty, primarily extreme _relative_ poverty (remember Zuck across the freeway and the swarms of Tesla commuting through your city on their way to high-paying tech jobs that are inaccessible to you) results in all sorts of extremely unhealthy compensatory behaviors. Heavy alcohol and drug use--even if just Marijuana, binge eating fast-food, violent communication styles that contribute to always-on fight or flight reactions, dangerous activities like racing cars or weaving bikes through traffic--perhaps done as some way to "feel something" or perhaps find identity in the only way available--acting out anti-social power displays as a way to reify self-worth contra a system that clearly treats them like shit on nearly all levels. And more.
Frankly, unequal access is both a moral failure and also, I believe, soon to be an instrumental failure for the strength of the United States. Having a large population of enfeebled, diseased people does not bode well for nice things we care about like innovation, improved quality of life, stability of our governance systems, or even things like the strength of our fighting force.
However you want to cut it, the issue of unequal health access is a shame.
What is going on with Greece in the first life expectancy chart? Large reversal in cost increase coupled with unperturbed steady increase in life expectancy.
I agree with your contention that the examples of modern annoyances chosen by the author are not hidden pinnacles of humanness to be preserved at all costs.
However, I think the author's deeper point still stands, despite his poor support for the argument.
Can we not agree that the _je ne sais quoi_ of humanness is threatened, on some level, by modernity?
It is a very difficult empirical case to make, as you have made clear with your totally acceptable critique of _Bowling Alone_.
But, in my view, supporting the claim that our "humanness" is under assault is not really where we should be focusing our energies here... It is much more interesting to discuss how we can preserve the "old good" things from our past, while somehow enabling ourselves to take advantage of the "new good" things unlocked by technological progress without being undone in the process.
I'm tired of all these jeremiads bewailing the loss of all that we hold dear, ripped from our grasp by inhuman techno-corporate-behemoths.
Not sure what the roadmap for a more productive discussion is--but perhaps first we must define exactly what it is we valued from our pre-industrial, supposedly unsullied past.
I agree with you that we must be very critical any rose-tinted "back in my day it was better" line of inquiry, but I do believe that there are things worth preserving.
Another important question to answer is, why are those things valuable to us? Is it because they titillate our neurons in just the right way? Or is there something more there?
Then we need to figure out how to implement our technological progress in a way that fosters these values, rather than undermining them.
I also derive tremendous personal value from getting the opportunity to meet the people driving the cars.
Hearing different perspectives, sharing interesting stories, and generally engaging in real human interaction are something I don't get enough of in my regular life, and Lyft has materially changed that. Of course unfortunate that I don't get enough of that outside of a transactional transportation arrangement, but it's real for me.
> Why do we do this?
Also an issue of framing. Wrong metrics.
With your framing above, it was "everyone should be a homeowner" and "everyone should be educated"... well we did that. Reality conformed. Just at tremendous cost and risk.
The issues are of course way more complex than "# of ppl who own a home" and "# of ppl with a degree"
So the question, then, is how do we use instruments of governance to move complex systems in the direction we think we want.
This is complicated by, among other things:
1.) the fact that politicians are really just optimizing for "signaling" that they are fixing things rather than tangible results.
2.) long time horizons on these issues clashing with shorter time-horizons of political attention spans and our capacity to even reason about long-term things. etc...
Having trouble understanding a lot of the specifics of this--though broader concepts grok-able. Before I go blindly googling around to get up to speed--
Any recommended foundational texts to begin with?
Recommended learning trajectory to get to where this is understandable?
California Constitution. Article 1, Section 1:
"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
(not a country of course, but somewhere privacy is a constitutional right. question then is how a state can protect this right)
However, the profiteering middlemen do add value in that they actively curate and package content in ways that are "consumable" and desirable. They are sourcing the steady drip-feed of content that we passively consume.
Shunning passive feeds, and actively seeking out content that fits your preferences, as you do, requires effort. Any product the consumption of which requires effort is inevitably displaced by service providers who deliver said thing frictionlessly....eliminating the effort.
Agreed that there will always be a slice of the market that actively shuns passively-fed products and ascribes a priceable value to goods that don't fit that friction-eliminating model (e.g., craft beers). But, as long as we remain purely, animalistically, and perhaps irrationally susceptible to simple stimuli-- a large slice of the market will be kow-towed to frictionlessly delivered, externally curated products.
Simply put, some people don't want to go express their preferences for certain products. They just want the market to deliver them something stimulating and to a certain degree they don't care what it is.
But let's move towards your world! On balance it is better, richer, and more full of vibrant, distinctly human creativity.
Interesting point. So capitalist free press is actually a net positive here given the transparency it presumably enables (and promotes to the degree that consumers desire truthful/etc journalism)
I think part of what makes our modern situation different is that mass hysteria has a denser network on which to propagate (yes also means remedial measures also propagate faster) and is propelled via a more ruthlessly efficient propellant (expression of consumer preference in a frictionless, free-market, internet-enabled system)
But I'd argue that, generally, whenever feedback loops are tightened, systems tend to lose stability, increasing risk of very bad events.
So my point still stands, something should be done about this... I just don't know what. regulation feels kludgy, building a competing product/model that somehow encourages more pro-social outcomes, per my business model fixation in parent comment, feels nice--but likely is too naively optimistic.
So what else is there? Some old-time religion? "Don't lie and don't hate each other...". Also doesn't feel like a good route, for reasons too many to enumerate.
Generally agreed with comments here. It isn't really a business model problem, it's just that in the US, our laissez-faire, internet-enabled capitalist system is just uniquely optimized to enable this stuff at scale and at faster cycle time. (radio in 30s germany could be parallel..don't know enough)
So, we're in a tricky situation.
Given that:
1. fundamentally we are just a rabid pack of stimuli seeking animals on a ravenous, desperate hunt for our next emotionally titillating hit
and
2. we've decided that in our (U.S.) implementation of liberal democracy, for the most part, freedom of speech is super protected and businesses are free to peddle pretty much whatever titillation they want (as long as no harm to others, per JS Mill On Liberty, etc..) unfettered by governance
how do we ensure that the public sphere doesn't devolve into a savage, mindless flurry of pure vitriol, slander, and falsehood
in the past we've leaned on a few structures to overcome these tendencies: an aristocratic taste-maker class steeped in classical tradition; authoritarian dictate; religious institutions that appealed to moral orders beyond earthly sin
obviously these structures had deep, DEEP issues, and we've rightly moved towards casting them aside
so what's next?
how to we bake reason into our societal architecture without relying on the problematic structures of yore?
Or should we just have faith that, despite these trying times, the better instincts of humanity shall prevail and we'll lift ourselves out of the morass--perhaps brought to our senses by some charismatic, enlightened leader utilizing moral-suasion and a made-for-tv personality....or some other mechanism of mass-englightenment
Who is making strides in fixing the underlying business model problems that are driving the increasing virulence and frequency of these moral panics, and undermining the integrity and function of journalism? Or at least providing alternatives that are equally profitable yet less pernicious.
Because barring the entrance of one of these as-yet-unimagined alternatives, it seems we'll need to lean on regulation...but then we get into messiness of regulating free speech.
There was Beacon Reader, the crowdfunding journalism platform, but they shut down. [1]
Then there's Google's "Fact Check", but its reach is limited [2]
Hey this is really cool! Thanks for putting it together.
There are obviously so many directions you could go with an active visualization and exploration experience for this data set.
My question for you then, is--what are you trying to enable your visual explorers to do better? How specific can you be in articulating what "problem" you want to solve for them?
E.g., Maybe you believe that art researchers or "visual explorers", whomever fits your target user here, need to be able to more swiftly filter the collection along different dimensions and then see the results grouped by country so as to see commonalities across countries that weren't apparent before. If so, that will inform how you design the interactive visualization.
With your current version, I would think more about the tag/filtering experience. Current behavior--when I click a tag, I'm forced to sit and watch it cycle through items with the same tag.
Forcing a user to play along at a certain speed is generally an issue, unless of course there is a narrative that is inextricably bound to such temporal constraints, and wouldn't make sense without them.