It is my (unpopular I suspect) opinion that the contents of medical or other academic journals is not intended for consumption by the “interested public” as much as I can understand the desire to do so.
That’s not the same as saying that the interested public shouldn’t be able to learn about these things, but I do think they will often need assistance from those who are trained to read and discriminate this content.
And yes, journals should also do better, and peer review should be high quality and paid (you get, ultimately, what you pay for…)
As a clinician-academic who published in The Lancet during medical school, I think this goes a bit far. Unfortunately student doctors are encouraged to publish whether or not they actually have an interest in research… but that shouldn’t discount the work of those who are genuinely engaged.
But certainly we should always approach the literature critically, including the author list, journal of publication and its peer-review practices, and the methods.
A patient being drunk wouldn’t make it any harder for me to anaesthetise them. But if they’re drunk they wouldn’t legally be able to confirm they consent to the anaesthetic immediately prior.
If it was actually 23mins, and not modifiable, then a myriad of important professions would be completely unviable (e.g. medicine). That is to say, it seems doubtful that the impact of interruptions can be meaningfully summarised in a single figure.
I wrote my joint med-CS honours (1 year research thing we have in Aus) thesis in Word. My med supervisor was happy with it. CS supervised insisted I reformat it in LaTeX as he couldn't stand the typesetting.
Honestly I don't disagree with him, it looked far better in 'TeX. But that's probably a learnt preference.
I’ve heard (can’t tell for sure from the photos I’ve seen) that they were “dressing the yards” at the time - which is when the crew stands on top of the yards (the horizontal spars) side by side. It’s done for ceremonial or celebratory reasons, not for work.
I would argue against “entire”. As an academic I (and I believe many of my colleagues also) take much pride in what we write - both the content and the prose itself.
I find the distinction you draw between weights and a program interesting - partially the idea that one is a “static file” and the other isn’t.
What makes a file non-static (dynamic?) other than +x?
Both are instructions about how to perform a computation. Both require other software/hardware/microcode to run. In general, the stack is tall!
Even so, I do agree that “a bunch of matrices” feels different to “a bunch of instructions” - although arguably the former may be closer in architecture to the greatest computing machine we know (the brain) than the latter.
From what I can see, there’s reasonable competitors for CF’s offerings, but extremely limited parallels to their free tier. The free tier is the killer.
I think the majority of contributors to that thread are being very reasonable and measured. CF should not be in a position to determine which UAs are viable on the Internet.
Arguably the issue in your friend’s case is providing the patient with a document that’s not designed for them. Radiology reports are written with a particular audience in mind.
They are also written with a particular medicolegal perspective, which the intended audience will appreciate.
I often give my patients copies of their results/reports, which gives me an opportunity to explain them.
If we are going to send reports to patients directly, maybe they need to be written differently? Who should pay for that different report to be written/checked?
We already have AI tools for prioritising the order some tests are processed in (e.g. which X-Rays the radiologist looks at first). But once the report is written the author has a responsibility to ensure any urgent result is escalated. As a requester (I order tests), if I result needs urgent action within days or less, I expect a phone call to myself or another doctor in the practice.
That’s not the same as saying that the interested public shouldn’t be able to learn about these things, but I do think they will often need assistance from those who are trained to read and discriminate this content.
And yes, journals should also do better, and peer review should be high quality and paid (you get, ultimately, what you pay for…)