The BLS request I got was via USMail. They reminded me full force of law not to comply. It was a dumb survey. I filled it out (several year(5) survey they kept sending year after year) even though it was not really applicable to me. I think you'd be wise to do the same. I don't recall the exact penalty, just recall it was large enough to put a serious dent in my bank account. I guess one of the "features" of doing an S-Corp is the privilege of more forms to fill out.

What is BLS? I have a S-Corp and I'm not familiar with with BLS....

There's no way an article that doesn't get the technical semantics remotely right would make it past CmdrTaco.

No...all these leftists are complaining that conservatives have taken their rights away.....and I'm trying to figure out what rights have been lost.

Threads on this article have mentioned lost rights....

Your Fox talking points are easily disputed with raw data.

I don't need. "Talking points" from anyone to know from personal experience that my health care costs skyrocketed starting from ACA times.....my bank statements show that...

All my friends I talk with...saw their costs rise too.

Can you name a single Democratic politician who has called for a similar action of name and shame and fire?

Maxine Waters....a treasure trove of "fun" speeches and statements of the like...

Exactly what rights have been taken away....?

ACA enabled access to medical care if you needed it. I may oversimplify a number of things but that's how I see it.

ACA did succeed in making medical care MUCH more expensive for everyone....so, hey, success there!!

Let us not make light of the fact that the fucking Vice President just today has said "no unity" and basically siccing people against their perceived enemies to get people fired. The VP has sanctioned cancel culture.

Hello Pot....Kettle....Kettle....Pot.

And with this....it isn't the govt supports sing speech , it is repercussions in the private sector ....which the liberals cheered in the past recent years.

And this time around, the govt isn't forcing social media to cancel people or deplatform them either...the Dems were caught red handed doing that.

They're happy you won't come back anyway....even though the reality is that you probably will. Or small scale boycotts in general.

Tell that to Bud Light....

I mean if they're calling by phone, they won't get me...I do not answer any phone calls I do not recognize (ie on my contacts list).

I figure if it is important enough, they'll leave me a voicemail.

And even if they get through, with phone or email, I don't answer questions to unsolicited contacts from people, as that I have NO idea who they really are or what they want.

I assume most every call or email is a scam unless they prove otherwise.

I kinda figured anyone today with much common sense or even slight sense of privacy and personal security pretty much did the same.

I've instructed my aging parents to do the same thing....too many old people getting swindled.

It's okay if you live in an area where tips are decent, or if you are an attractive young woman/twink, but generally speaking having to rely on tips to earn a decent amount is discriminatory and works greatly in the employer's favour.

I worked in smallish cities in the southeast of the US...so, no major tipping capitals....and I"m an average looking guy I guess....

I found that a sense of humors and being outgoing and friendly did more than anything for tips...

Hell, there were a couple of times I dropped a whole large tray of food....everything..gone....and well, I just made a joke and everyone laughed...etc.

I ended up making a HUGE tip on that one....

I did well as well as my co-workers...and there was nothing discriminatory about it.

This is retarded.

1. It isn't for profit healthcare that is the problem, it's THIRD PARTY PAY.
2. I don't use third party pay, ever, for healthcare. I've been insured nonstop for over 30 years, and NEVER ONCE has my insurer paid my doctor.
3. Even when I've had emergencies, I still called around, negotiated a fair cash up front rate, paid cash up front, and billed it to my insurer. My cash up front rate was sometimes below any co-pay negotiated with my insurer, lol.

I just recently had some elective surgery that would have cost me about $2000 on my annual deductible, but I was able to cash pay a negotiated rate of $400 including a follow-up "free". I submitted the $400 to my insurer and they reimbursed me.

Third party insurance exists because YOU VOTERS demanded the HMO Act of the 1970s, which tied health care to employment, and then employers outsourced it to third parties.

Health care is remarkably cheap in the US (cash pay, negotiated) and I don't have to wait months to see a doctor when I call and say I am cash pay. They bump me up fast.

We're to the "infighting" part of this conservative dance. Just stand back and watch 'em take each other out. People who perform stochastic terrorism over people's immutable attributes (race, sex, gender, orientation, age) don't deserve life.

What you describe is essentially a form of bootstrapping, which is a legitimate statistical method. However, there are important limitations that cannot be overlooked.

First, the constructed data are still being created from real data. Ethics is not just about preserving patient privacy, although that is a very important aspect. It's also about taking into consideration how the data will be used. Does the patient consent to this use, and if they are unable to consent, how should this be taken into consideration? Medical science has not had a stellar track record with respect to ethical human experimentation (e.g., Henrietta Lacks, the Tuskegee syphilis study, MKUltra--and that's just in recent US history). There is a documented history of patient collected data being used in ways that those patients never even conceived, let alone anticipated or consented. Caution must be exercised whenever any such data is used, even indirectly.

Second, this kind of simulated data is problematic to analyze from a statistical perspective, and any biostatistician should be aware of this: there is no such thing as a free lunch. The problem of missing data--in actual patients!--is itself difficult to address, since methods to deal with missingness invariably rely on various strong assumptions about the nature of that missingness. So to make inferences on data that is entirely simulated is, at the very least, as problematic as analyzing partially missing data.

Third, the current state of LLMs, and their demonstrated tendency to distort or invent features from noise (which is arguably the primary mechanism by which they operate), is such that any inferences from LLM-generated data would be questionable and should not be considered statistically meaningful. It could be used for hypothesis generation, but it would not satisfy any kind of statistical review.

It all comes back to what I said in another comment: you can't have it both ways. If you can draw some statistically meaningful conclusion from the data, then that data came from real-world patients and must pass ethical review. If you don't need ethical review because the data didn't come from any real patient, then any inferences are dubious at best, and are most likely just fabrications that cannot pass confirmatory analysis.

The purported claim is that "because the AI-generated data do not include data from actual humans, they do not need ethics review to use."

But if the data only represent actual patients in a "statistical" sense (whatever that means), how can the research be CERTAIN that it has captured appropriate signals or effects that are observed in such data? And I say this as a statistician who has over a decade of experience in statistical analysis of clinical trials.

There is a fundamental principle at work here, one that researchers cannot take the better part of both ways of the argument: any meaningful inference must be drawn on real world data, and if such data is taken from humans, it must pass an ethics board review. If one argues that AI-generated data doesn't need the latter because it is a fabrication, then it doesn't meet the standard for meaningful inference. If one argues that it does meet the standard, then no matter how the data was transformed from real-world patient sources, it requires ethics board review.

In biostatistics, we use models to analyze data to detect potential effects, draw hypotheses or make predictions, and test those hypotheses to make probabilistic statements--i.e., statistical inferences--about the validity of those hypotheses. This is done within a framework that obeys mathematical truth, so that as long as certain assumptions about the data are met, the results are meaningful. But what "statistically naive" people consistently fail to appreciate, especially in their frenzy to "leverage" AI everywhere, is that those assumptions are PRETTY FUCKING IMPORTANT and using an LLM to generate "new" data from existing, real-world data, is like making repeated photocopies of an original--placing one model on top of another model. LLMs will invent signals where none originally existed. LLMs will fail to capture signals where one actually existed.