Having worked as an MSI (Medical Specialized Interpreter) at $4/h, I've noticed that patients are still very reluctant to accept telemedicine for anything other than reviewing lab results.Do you possess a strategy to overcome this challenge?
LATAM Subcontractor for Teleperformance/LanguageLine Solutions/Pacific Interpreters.
The strategy I possess is to use telemedicine in novel and directed ways when it suits the purpose.
Most telemedicine roles I have interest in start with a very directed patient population and a limited set of interventions. Patients at risk for HIV, obese patients, etc. In this context, these subsets of patients are happy to accept special-purpose telemedicine, in my experience.
I personally would not want to see a primary doctor or surgeon over the Internet, and if I needed follow-up testing in the lab right next door anyway, I would prefer to go in person to both places in one "quick" trip rather than dicking around with the Internet before going out to the lab anyway.
Patients are right to be reluctant. Telemedicine offers a lot of benefits, but it can never be as thorough as time in person with a primary doctor. (But this in-person time is just not possible to get for your average patient in my experience.)
Google's Cache is a wonderful way to circumvent many paywalls. I have a bookmark that I use as a button to redirect the current URL to it's cached version.
You can try it out, just add a new bookmark and paste this:
Not long ago, something similar happened in my country with garbage collection. They noticed that the staff completed all the assigned areas much faster than predicted so... they assigned almost twice the workload to each of the trucks. The result? A massive strike because workers were able to prove that the new schedule was impossible to follow without rushing.
Twice the workload is a pretty extreme example. They could likely have boiled the frog - You're doing 25% longer routes this year, then another 25% the next, gotten real efficiency gains, and gotten reasonable pushback when they did.
A strike is the right option, but strikes are good for nobody. It's crazy how often management these days has just zero clue.
And I thought that the technology seemed quite interesting, so I hope the development of it can pan out since it seemed like it would enable greater usage of geothermal energy around the world, which seems to be mostly untapped at this time, and also seemed like it might be able to address the seismic issue/concern, although I'm not an expert on the topic so I could be wrong there.
Geothermal is mainly a topic of interest for myself since there are a few local plants in my own region but I hadn't really realized that it is an underutilized power generation option until I read the article on Quaise recently above.
I believe the seismic problems come from water flowing across the bore hole and eventually destabilizing the ground (this can happen with fracking). The Quaise approach basically cauterizes the hole as it drills, so water can't flow across. The water is more of a closed system.
Seems like the perfect candidate for $165 million in DOE research funding.
>The Geothermal Energy from Oil and Gas Demonstrated Engineering (GEODE) initiative will provide $10 million to form a consortium of experts to develop a roadmap for addressing technology and knowledge gaps in geothermal energy, based on best practices used within the oil and gas industry. DOE will then use that roadmap to fund up to an additional $155 million in research to address those gaps. This funding opportunity supports President Biden’s priorities to deploy clean energy sources to combat climate change, strengthen our energy independence, and create good-paying jobs.
Entering the fab market as a new player seems very unlikely. To have any hope of competitiveness it would be incredibly expensive (much more than all their cash on hand, which is 1/8 of Intel's), and even then it wouldn't have much chance of success any time soon. AMD spun off GlobalFoundries for good reason.
In my point of view this is actually good news; Since I'm not a native english speaker and since this language has become the world's lingua franca it's very nice being able to understand an article just because the author's didn't waste time looking for bombastic synonyms just to sound smarter. I applaud this and projects like Simple English Wikipedia which allows us, non-native english speakers, keep learning.-
The rising proportion of non-native speakers in US academia is what I thought of when I saw the article's claim that academic vocabulary is shrinking over time. Papers written by adult language learners tend to cluster around domain terminology + the absolute most common English words + words that happen to be similar to ones from their native language, and there's not a lot of incentive for them to go read Charles Dickens until they're indistinguishable from native speakers because, really, it doesn't matter and nobody cares.
Add in “grant writing specialists” with no domain expertise but lots of “test the nsf as an api” expertise and you have even bigger sources of error in these claims.
Apple has already begun. Apple + Nike targeting sportswear. Apple + Hermès targeting upper class consumers. How long until they acquire all the know-how they need and ditch their strategic partners?
I don’t really know anything about fashion, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would take Apple seriously as a high-end fashion brand. To me they seem like Target: undoubtedly more fancy than Walmart, but it’s not like that’s a high bar.
And sure, maybe the fashion eites of the world all use Apple products, but that’s more a consequence of the duopolies and a lack of choice for consumers rather than any actual merit of the brand itself.
LATAM Subcontractor for Teleperformance/LanguageLine Solutions/Pacific Interpreters.