In the UK, most medical information will be classified as sensitive personal data, which means it has significant extra protections under our regular data protection law, in addition to the medical ethics implications of breaching patient confidentiality. Letting it escape is a big deal and potentially a serious threat to the business/career of any medical professional who does it. Fortunately the days of people sending that kind of data around over insecure email are finally giving way to more appropriate methods of communication as the technology improves. It's usually governments seeing pound signs and/or businesses who aren't providing direct care to the patients that are pushing for wider distribution (and also those organisations who act as if impossible claims about sanitising the data effectively before releasing it are true).

Good for you! Unfortunately, for a lot of people, having no car isn't really an option, so the answer to what happens next with your strategy is really that all of those people get an inferior product because there's no effective competition or regulation in the market to prevent that, while people like you don't get any product at all.

What should happen is that governments recognise a failure of the market to maintain adequate standards for customers and introduce regulation to enforce minimum acceptable standards accordingly. Whether that actually happens obviously depends on whether your government is more interested in looking out for the people or the businesses.

True. I love how the vendors are selling this as a privacy feature, when in reality it's a CYA feature. They're clearly going to be hit by massive class action lawsuits over this, and they just seem oblivious to it. I guess if there's money to be made now, don't worry about the future. Hire some lawyers.

... except instead of shoes becoming the only profitable product to manufacture, it's chatbots. Nobody knows why, but when it's all over, the only survivors will be those who evolved into computer-illiterate deaf-mutes.

I don't know what the definition of "accountability" is in climate research, but a threefold error is terrible science, it should have been caught in peer review, and everyone involved owes the scientific world an apology.

"We're still right, it's a terrible problem," only shows clear bias towards demonstrating there is a terrible problem, and that's how they missed this. All of them, peer review, everything. It's a massive methodology screw up that can easily be accounted for in STATA or whatever they're using. It is a solved problem to identify statistical outliers and compensate for or eliminate them.

What's "terrible" is this is more fodder for climate deniers and people with general scientific trust issues.

The only appropriate answer is, "We all made an egregious mistake." Don't tell us you're right, because that tells us that you went into statistical analysis with a foregone conclusion. Even if it's the correct conclusion, and it is, it reflects badly on the entire scientific community if you fuck up the evidence. Worse, some will assume you fucked with the evidence.

Mea culpa and STFU. Let the adults cover your butts and your reputations.

A decade ago Doctors would google your issues. Now they use AI. I bet the AI does a better, quicker job. 20 years ago they would look it up in a medical text book.

Doctors are not memorization machines. Medical school doe snot teach them to memorize all the facts about diseases and the human body. Instead it teaches them how to ask the right questions. They need sources to ask those questions. The internet has those sources.

Yes, there are other sources - hence only 30% of the doctors use AI.

The key point is it is a doctor doing the research. You do not have the knowledge to judge the results the AI gives you, nor the knowledge to ask the right questions.

There is a huge difference between asking AI "What to do if your arm is broken." verus asking "How to tell the difference between a displaced fracture and a communituted fracture"

Everyone who supports AI medical transcriptions says, "of course you still need to proof-read it," but we know there are a lot of physicians and psychologists not proof-reading the transcriptions because stuff like this is getting through. Do doctors not take ethics seriously? They're worried about lawsuits, but not worried about using an unproven technology that's notorious for confabulating?

Agreed; but it is possible to make a Metro-sized car that is safe by modern standards and still gets 40+mpg. The Smart ForTwo and the Scion IQ are two examples.

Not entirely true about stability. Lots of corporations develop a network of big data that can be turned on or off depending on electrical situation.

Most AI can do this. The trick is to have the tech distributed around the world. If your English AI center is short of power, you can redirect the processing to your Japanese AI center, or the Chicago one, etc.

The extra 1 second before they deliver the photo realistic picture of a certain political leader in a pink princess dress you requested does not affect anything.

First, the UK has a major problem in that their only large metropolis is London. London is a huge city about the size of New York,just under 10 million people. The UK's next largest is Manchester, which is under 3 million. The UK got two more with more than 1 million, but that's it. Much of England is rural. With so much concentrated around London, power becomes a major issue.

Secondly, the grid is more of a problem than the power plants. In a large metropolis It is often easier to create a power plant on a set area than it is to send the electricity to the individual houses. The grid of transmission wires is usually near capacity on a city that is growing, so you need more power lines as well as more power plants.

You are correct, and this is part of a broader crisis of falling trust in institutions across the western world. We need science to be able to happen within an open scientific community that the rest of us can see into, but the media has an addiction to reporting on the findings that are weird outliers. But those weird outliers are the most likely to be incorrect, which feeds a cycle of mistrust. I would like to see science come up with a grading system of scientific certainty... where, say, the quantum mechanics model, which agrees extremely well with experimental results to as many digits as we can measure, is graded as a 9 out of 10 certainty, and the results in the squishier social sciences are down in the 2 or 3 range, and then climate science is only going to fall in the 4 out of 10 range at best. New surprising results should come in at a 0 or 1 initially. This would hopefully help the media better understand what they're reporting on.

Yes, but only because most Americans are unwilling to drive a Metro-sized car anymore. They've been conditioned to think small/lightweight cars are unsafe or unmanly or etc.

The invisible hand of the free market solves a lot of things, but it's never quite figured out how to avoid the tragedy of the commons. Everybody wants to live on a livable planet, but nobody wants to pay for the technology required to keep that way.

Being inexpensive to purchase and operate is one advantage scooters have over automobiles; the other is that they are small enough to maneuver quickly through heavy traffic and easier to find a parking spot for in congested areas.

That's actually a good question. Inks have changed somewhat over the past 5,000 years, and there's no particular reason to think that tattoo inks have been equally mobile across this timeframe.

But now we come to a deeper point. Basically, tattoos (as I've always understand it) are surgically-engineered scars, with the scar tissue supposedly locking the ink in place. It's quite probable that my understanding is wrong - this isn't exactly an area I've really looked into in any depth, so the probability of me being right is rather slim. Nonetheless, if I had been correct, then you might well expect the stuff to stay there. Skin is highly permeable, but scar tissue less so. As long as the molecules exceed the size that can migrate, then you'd think it would be fine.

That it isn't fine shows that one or more of these ideas must be wrong.