Simple fix: don't cook with extra virgin olive oil on high heat. The smoke point is one reason. Flavor is another. Cost is a third (less expensive fats are better suited for this task)
When I went to my most recent doctor’s appointment they told me that I needed to sign on the signature pad that I agreed to be treated.
I asked to see the agreement I’m signing and they lied to me and said it’s something I’ve already agreed to even though the last updated date on the document was after my last visit.
Then they said that if I wanted to actually read what I’m signing that it could delay being seen by the provider and made a big deal about trying to find the paper.
Eventually I was able to find the full documents I was agreeing to in MyChart and it wasn’t just that I was okay with being treated.
Not surprising. They clearly care(d) a LOT about the regulators asking questions. I was actually shocked that this mechanism was surprisingly effective at reining in abuses from insurers.
It could have been Cigna -- I've cycled between probably every possible insurer during my career. Dirtbags, the lot of them.
My wife has a civil engineering degree. There were a number of courses where partial credit was not permitted and the final exam was 2 questions. It was common for students to take those courses 3 or 4 times before passing. Giving a failing grade to only 1/3 of the class might get a professor investigated for making the class too easy.
Unless, somehow this is part of an advanced certification process? I really can’t imagine professionals not knowing how to study for an exam like this. Medical school shows what motivated people can do.
In America, dude. Pick your favorite engineering school and read syllabi for core classes such as statics. Read department policies on number of tries you get on core classes before you’re kicked out of the civil engineering program. They take certain things very seriously.
The incentives change when the school becomes a mechanism to sell a chance to increase probability of immigration rights at tens of thousands of dollars per year, especially when the pool of domestic kids is shrinking.
Failing 1/3 of a class if that cohort is genuinely deemed not qualified enough to pass shouldn't be a problem by itself.
But then it raises questions like "are they really unqualified or is the testing methodology inadequate?" and "why was the system unable to provide the necessary growth to such a high slice of the class?". And then the easy way out is to just cherry-pick which students enter the system at all.
> High graduation rates are an important metric to administrators. If a professor gave a failing grade to 1/3 of the class they would be in hot water.
I remember practically every single instructor/professor on the first day of class during my freshman year of my undergraduate study said something along the lines of "I have no curves. Your grades depend on you and nobody else. If the whole class does well, everyone can get an A. If nobody does well, everybody can fail."
So I guess this was more motivational to get us to study rather than stating facts?
It really depends on what kind of class it is, but at most schools:
* If 1/3 of calculus physics for engineers fail, they take it next semester.
* If 1/3 of gen-ed physics for poets fail, the professor better have a good explanation for the provost.
* If 1/3 of physics for pre-meds fail, the professor better have a pretty good home security system and might want to think about having the family stay in a hotel for a few weeks.
I remember a first lecture when I started my CS studies, where the professor said something like "look at the people to your left and to your right, it's likely that at least one of you will drop out by the end of this year; it's ok, this is not for everyone; if you truly believe this is for you, put in the effort and you'll make it"
1/3 isn't that bad in the late 80s/early 90s at the UT Austin CS department. Only ~30% graduated at the time. The orientation was literally "look to your left and looked to your right only one of you will graduate." They weren't joking!
That depends. Some schools actually cap the number of students permitted to continue. They fail a certain fixed number or percentage of students below a threshold, even if the raw score is good.
sure, so red flag warning is sort of high fire risk condition, not to evacuate but to get people ready just in case. generally they monitor things like winds, humidity, and something that they call dry fuel (actually a firefighter explained this to me as something fairly critical but no certain way to tell). when the conditions are sort of amenable to creating a fire, they flag the risk with a red flag warning
so if you are in the zone some prep helps, keeping phone charged, car keys handy ...
Passive investing is a fairly new phenomenon and we don’t actually know if it works long term. The premise of the stock market is that it’s a market. Blind and wide investment goes against the principles of how investment works. We could be accelerating bad outcomes because we are basically rewarding and punishing companies based purely on momentum, not performance.
Basically, I think it’s possible that passive investment only works when it’s a small slice of total investment. Essentially, then you ride off the expertise and decisions of others.
What happens when it’s the majority of investment? We don’t know.
By that line of thinking, even if AI scribes are terrible, you can only blame the doctor because they didn’t check their notes.
In this case as the patient, all you care is there was an inaccurate diagnosis in your notes. If the doctor were typing them up by hand, presumably that would not have happened.
Similarly if Tesla Self Driving cars got into collisions at 3x the rate of non-self driving, would you defend Tesla because all issues are the drivers fault who are supposed to have their hands on the wheels and paying attention?
> By that line of thinking, even if AI scribes are terrible, you can only blame the doctor because they didn’t check their notes.
Same for any profession. If you use bad tools expect bad outcomes. Yes, I work in a company that expects employees to do their work well, and there are consequences to bad performance.
> In this case as the patient, all you care is there was an inaccurate diagnosis in your notes. If the doctor were typing them up by hand, presumably that would not have happened.
Doctors can absolutely mischart by hand. Human error is one of many reasons we moved to electronic charting. We have providers who love the tool and we see benefits from them having it, and some providers don't want it, so they don't have to use it. I've seen people say they feel it's slower, didn't like the output, and one provider simply enjoys charting. They're all good providers too.
> Similarly if Tesla Self Driving cars got into collisions at 3x the rate of non-self driving, would you defend Tesla because all issues are the drivers fault who are supposed to have their hands on the wheels and paying attention?
Bad analogy, since FSD is supposed to work without the human in the loop. This tool EXPLICITLY is to be operated and checked by a human.
That said, I wouldn't defend Tesla at all, however yes I would state that if you are supposed to monitor a "self driving" car and get into an accident, you failed. In that case I'd say it's safer to just manually drive, and many of our providers choose to chart manually.
reply