I was working for Broadcom when Avago swooped in. Hock Tan came in to present his vision of the future, and it all centered on "harvestable IP." That was all the incentive I needed to take a severance package rather than take the job they were offering. It was a cool place back in the day. It's too bad.

I also do not disclose to patients that I 1)used a computer monitor, 2)adjusted the window setting (contrast etc) on their radiology imaging study 3)checked Uptodate to make sure I don't miss a guideline 4)phone a friend (get advise from a colleague)

Why? Because ultimately it is your name on the line making life and death recommendations.

<quote><p>No, this is about improving health for more people. Full. Stop.
Better outcome means better profits.</p><p>"There are hundreds of thousands of deaths every year in the US due to medical error"
False.
Not that I expect actual thinking and data to change your incorrect narrative, but in case I am wrong(and I hope I am) here you go:</p><p><a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/">https://sciencebasedmedicine.o...</a></p></quote>

You are incorrect on several points.

Your first point is such a nebulous poorly quantifiable point - a)improving 2)health 3)more people = all three of those have significant conotations and room for debate among many on all sides ... it is not just your definition

Better outcomes do not equal more profits. Example: we could do a CT AB/PELV on every single person in the US beginning at say ... age 30? Deaths 1)mostly eliminated: kidney 2)significant reduced: small/large bowel, urothelial cancer 3)somewhat reduced: pancreas

But it would be enormously expensive. Health care is a cost/benefit calculation. If you don't make enough to keep the lights on, you can't serve your primary mission.

This is the most insane line of reasoning I've seen from a technophile in a long time. We should expect the exact opposite. Don't go messing (with chemicals in the real world as opposed to rooting around in software settings) with technology components unless it is specifically outlined as maintenance.

Does it over diagnose clinically insignificant cancers?

Not all cancer screening is *find all cancer*. In medicine the more important goal is to find clinically significant cancers. Not all lung cancers are clinically significant (think the slowly changing GGN (ground glass nodules that are low grade indolent lung cancers).

This concept is a hot topic and contentious across multiple cancer disciplines. While initially appealing to *find moaaar cancer*, there is a cost associated with that. Direct cost to the patient financially, emotionally, risk of procedures etc, and cost at the epidemiological level.

CT colonography is one of the acceptable equal alternatives to colonoscopy.

Yeah, it is. Kind of the point.

Sex is pretty awesome and intimate for a woman, too. IF it's consensual. If not, not so much, eh?

I'd settle for some sign of HI (Human Intelligence) from this administration.

Otherwise the reader might think something was edited out of the quote for brevity.

Yeah, so this fits in 100% with Avago....excuse me....Broadcom's normal strategy.

On behalf of the rest of the goddamned planet that has to pick up after shit stains who quip about this, please feel free to go fuck yourself. Too bad short sighted fuckwits aren't the only ones hurt by their asinine and selfish behaviors.

I, too, love to chuckle about committing felonies (depending on the price of his amp) based on my complete misunderstanding of regulations and my rights and responsibilities under them. Hee hee, ho ho!

My company explicitly states that it's our job, as senior developers, to farm the crop of new junior developers. And FWIW, we've seen enormous success from hiring inexperienced (but talented and eager) new engineers and mentoring them in the ways of our world. The main difference between me and a new kid out of college is that I've made a lot more stupid mistakes than they've had time to. I share my experiences with them, and they share their excitement and willingness to try new things with us. If I can play a small part in helping them graduate to a senior role - either here or elsewhere - I'll consider it a personal accomplishment.

We did our time as juniors. Now it's our turn to help the next cohort learn the ropes.

Gotta agree. I was ready to be all offended by a super restrictive list, but there's nothing there that seems likely to every be accidentally crossed.

Probably OK:

• Sorry I didn't look at your patch earlier. Someone ran over my dog.
• Aww, hugs!

Probably not OK:

• What do I need to change about this PR to get it merged?
• Hugs
• Yeah, I'm still not interested. Please stop.
• Hugs
• Seriously, I'm getting pissed off.
• Aww, hugs!

I think all those rules are there so that if someone won't quit being an ass then they have an explicit rule they can point to. That seems reasonable.

The first problem is that there's provably no way to reconcile "only the One True Protector should have access to a backdoor" and "any backdoor can be, will be, and has been exploited by third parties". It's like hoping desperately to find some value of A such that "A & ~A == true". It won't (and can't) happen.

The second problem is that encryption only makes it more convenient for criminals to do the things they've always been doing anyway. If I wanted to communicate secretly with you, we used to meet in the woods and talk privately. If we didn't want to be seen going into the woods, we sent emissaries to chat over coffee in a busy restaurant. Criminals are using encryption today. They are also meeting in woods and restaurants and behind barns and in churches and above taverns and on boats. There is no question that intercepting their woods / restaurants / barns / churches / taverns / boats communications would play in huge part in stopping there schemes, maybe saving lives. That point is just not debatable.

But what is debatable is whether it's worth bothering to live in a society where you and I can't talk in private, or where I can't exchange pillow talk with my wife without someone listening. If it came to that, fuck it - the experiment's over. I'd rather burn it all to the ground and start over than live in a society where laws and technology mean it's impossible to communicate without eavesdropping.