I wonder if we are measuring, and therefore concentrating upon, things that turn out to be only incidental to how much we, or perhaps some of us, feel stress.
Cost of replacement is not relevant as the chip and passport are linked, so need a new passport to get that fixed. Not terribly costly. But annoying given that, like you, it is due to no obvious fault on my part.
However it seems pretty routine. All the face-scanning readers eventually (after several attempts and failures) bubble you up into to a process exception that refers you to a human and you get sent into another queue: this time, to be reviewed by a human.
Unless border control are particularly by the book, most of them will simply accept the explanation, and let me directly into the human queue. Sometimes this works out for the better — for all their cleverness, the automated scanners seem particularly tricky for them to keep working reliably. Other times there's lots of families travelling, and I end up waiting a bit longer.
Either way, I'm glad that most of them are alive enough to the issue that time consuming try/fail/repeat/escalate/re-queue part of the process can be skipped.
I thought you may mean that the legal rights provide protection, so one need not worry until deidentification or detachment. Maybe your emphasis was same.
But for clarity, I think we need to worry long before deidentification and detachment — basically the Trusts are not to be trusted, and our legal rights will vanish in a heartbeat.
It rather assumes you could enforce them. Those rights will be great against a responsible outfit. But if the data is exposed in a breach, or if the outfit goes rogue (or if a future government decides to change the law and sell your data, as, by the way, the previous Conservatives tried to do), then you're lost.
We should not be giving money to these mega corps because that also implies giving them our most personal health data. For sure they'll say that we can trust them — maybe it's even true right now, but that can change on a dime, and I don't want to have no option but to trust a crook with no way to pull our public money and my personal data out.
We do need to make things more efficient. But it's lazy of us tech types to fall for centralisation in its most naive form — centralisation of personal data storage always comes with huge risks. We overstate the benefits, and we're not around to pay the price when the benefits fail to pass and the hidden costs creep out.
Instead, we should be pushing the health record out to individuals, and away from the centre. We should own our own data — perhaps it should even reside on our own device. Our governments should be pushing to store less data, not more.
But to your point about not cheering on NAT, well I will because I see NAT as useful tool.
It is not an opinion well aligned with the preferences of the IETF. But the purist model of transparent end-to-end networking has never sat well with me. It’s just not a thing we want.
The problem is that OKRs are divorced from the “go do this piece of work” instruction, and so, just like code comments, they quickly become out of date or are outright ignored.
Because of that, the prescription about SMART and focus on delivery is simply wasted effort. At best a duplication.
The good part about OKRs is (/should be) that it forces an alignment conversation between teams and amongst managers. And the performance discussion with manager is often useful and sometimes revealing. More often both focus on metrics, losing the last opportunity to extract value from the concept.
There was an absolute willingness to allow views in support of a fear narrative win through. (No matter their grounding.) The probing/questioning threads were quickly closed down.
Some of it was done by the social media companies acting at the direction of the state. But much of it was actioned by military information security units acting against the general population.
But I think you hit the nail on the point that “it is actionable”.
You argue any such conclusion is not actionable. But it is, and to make example, one can imagine that senators will be more circumspect in sponsoring labs to do this kind of work. If no one held the opinion, they wouldn’t care a hoot.
Is it a certainty? For sure it’s not. But having opinions is worthwhile.
If our hypothetical $1 common cold pill turns out anything like our COVID pill, it will only be effective for a few months before making you marginally more susceptible than you were before.
Revisionism these days seems to accept that we didn't get it right, but rhetorically asks "could you have done better?", and gives only a shrug.
We should have done better, and we could have.
We put those with preexisting conditions and those over a certain age at greater risk by pretending our protection measures were good enough when they really weren't.
I didn't read it before, but now I have and it's interesting.
Quoting their medical director:
> "Our request of the board is that we would be able to carry and offer those
> (vaccines), recognizing that we always have these discussions of risks and
> benefits," Dr. Perry Jansen said at the meeting. "This is not a blind,
> everybody-gets-a-shot approach. This is a thoughtful approach."
On the face of it, that argument makes the about restriction nonsensical.
Yet it is not correct in the way that one would want it to be understood — the 'discussions' have been between PH and government agencies. Even now, only the boldest doctor would feel safe to have a wide-ranging conversation about COVID. The 'safe and effective' line is truly the safest line for a doctor concerned to continue their career.
Their board director is reported as having said:
> [...] the board had overstepped the relationship between patients and
> their doctors [...].
The irony is of course that (for COVID shots at least), there never was any relationship between patients and their doctors.
In their arguments, both Dr. Perry and Dir. Aberasturi are both fundamentally misunderstanding what patient-centred care looks like, which frankly says lot.
The consequence is that COVID shots are effectively band in these counties, which is not so smart. But as a kick towards a 'reset', hopefully ending with doctors interacting more directly with patients would be no bad outcome in my view.
medConfidential is right to point out: "once he has the data he can do what he likes".
The government will claim to act with my interests at heart. I don't believe it will do so. Even if the current government can be trusted to thoroughly vet all consumers (it can't), it is naive to believe a less scrupulous future government would do so. It is also naive to believe take data consumers at their word.
> Effectiveness of child masking has not been demonstrated, while documented harms of masking in children are diverse and non-negligible and should prompt careful reflection. Recommendations for masking children fail basic harm-benefit analyses.
An important finding, and very much 'of our time'.
Although I suppose it's good that it's getting studied.