precisely! he’s only sorry you know how he thinks. the reality is he means it and would take every opportunity he can to squeeze and optimise away human labour for his own benefit
Companies are cutting headcount to fund AI projects, not necessarily because of the gains they are getting from it. And frankly in many companies, cutting layers and reducing team handoffs will be a net gain - even if AI didn't exist.
Most disruptive start-ups don't come from a giant pile of cash, but from new ideas that the old players can't or won't adopt. It did not take $500B to build a digital camera.
No but the first one was the result of Sasson’s R&D while at Eastman-Kodak, a massive company that failed to capitalize on it years before anyone else was near it. They easily could’ve been the big player if they didn’t fear the impact on film sales. They had a solid decade head start and blew it.
The way digital cameras developed (hyuk hyuk) is arguably exceptional, definitely not a clean example.
I've been wondering - Is there any possibility that Nation States had AI models busy finding this stuff several years before we see things like Mythos or Opus showing up? Or are those models not only consumer but also cutting edge?
Nation State actors would have been using fuzzing tools and reverse engineering for years to find useful zero-days.
AI models likely don't give them anything new, rather it accelerates their current process a lot. But that's not to say that an AI may not discover some novel new technique.
Speaking as someone with kids, many people I know rejected all of these. The eye ointment that they gloss over is to protect from gonorrhea. Which presumes that everyone having a kid has it in the first place. This is easy to test for before the baby comes though - what about Vitamin K?
Per the article: "All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts." Even vitamin fortified formula may not be enough to provide infants with enough vitamin K to prevent bleeding. The open question in the medical community is not which newborns lack vitamin K (they all do), but why some vitamin K deficient newborns develop bleeding while others don't.
I guess I don't see the point in rejecting the shot. It's a vitamin, it has a clear benefit, and no drawback.
> Even vitamin fortified formula may not be enough to provide infants with enough vitamin K to prevent bleeding.
Whoever told you that is selling something. Vitamin K is fat soluble and even the cheapest, lowest quality formulae can deliver enough of a dosage for an elephant. Unless the newborn is already bleeding, immediate supplementation is unnecessary. (Unless you're expecting to injure the newborn, in which case please get in the back of the squad car, sir, and don't bump your head.)
I suppose it's possible the newborn is already bleeding, in which case somebody should probably figure out why and address that first.
> I guess I don't see the point in rejecting the shot. It's a vitamin, it has a clear benefit, and no drawback.
Please don't give medical advice. You're not good at it.
A big whack of K (either form) in a shot can't be pulled back if it turns out to be too much for the child. If the placental diffusion just so happened to be higher for a particular child, and their levels were not so very deficient, now you've got an overdose condition to deal with.[1] Normally that's not the end of the world, but to say there's "no drawback" is just wrong. Further, it's entirely unnecessary when there are safer, titratable methods that don't involve poking a hole in the newborn, such as adding K to pumped breast milk or painting the mother's nipple. Oral dosage can be spread out over many feedings, and at the slightest indication of excess (jaundice, for example) can be discontinued without further risk.
But of course, this requires the mother to have the wherewithal to remember to do the supplementation, and modern hospital protocols are designed with the assumption that the mother is incompetent at her job. Some of us have higher opinions of women and their ability to do what women have routinely done for millennia. A cynic might also point out that the hospital can't charge you as much for a bottle of cheap gel caps as an injection.
By the way, K1 is the plant-derived form, which some of us feel is a bit better to supplement with than K2, particularly when coupled with fat intake. On the other hand, if you do intend to let the hospital shoot up your newborn instead, maybe ask to see the vial first.
> Vitamin K is fat soluble and even the cheapest, lowest quality formulae can deliver enough of a dosage for an elephant.
Vitamin fortified formula can supplement vitamin K, though my understanding is that most formulas still contain insufficient vitamin K. Maybe parents who plan to formula-feed can have that conversation with their doctor. Oral administration still comes with the risk of vitamin K deficient bleeding, so I would encourage parents going this route to still carefully consider why a shot is considered the best standard of care.[1]
> now you've got an overdose condition to deal with.[1]
Funnily enough, I've read the same article, and didn't come away with the idea that vitamin K excess was a possibility warranting much concern. The symptoms of vitamin K overdose can be concerning, but typically require large repeated doses of vitamin K. I guess, if I am making an assumption, it's that since we have been doing this for decades with no real negative consequences, that doctors and nurses are well aware of the doses required to boost infant vitamin K without harming them. My understanding is that allergic reactions are the most common complication, and even those are rare.
If your newborn is bleeding in their brain, you may not realize something is wrong until there are irreversible consequences. Preventative supplementation with vitamin K seems to be the best thing you can do to address it before it happens.
> Women have been delivering babies without needing to poke holes in them for as long as there have been women and babies.
Yeah, and I'm sure that there were deaths from VKDB back then, too. I'm not sure what this obsession with "poking holes" in babies is, either. It's an injection, they're not scary or traumatizing; it's a routine way of administering all kinds of medicine.
Roche and Teva Pharma are the other 2 big ones, but I couldn't find promo or datasheets quickly so I'll leave it up to you.
> I'm not sure what this obsession with "poking holes" in babies is, either. It's an injection, they're not scary or traumatizing; it's a routine way of administering all kinds of medicine.
Tell us you know nothing about healthcare without using "health" or "care".
Did you forget that the totality of this discussion revolves around newborns who may need their vitamin K levels boosted to help them deal with injuries that cause bleeding? What, precisely, do you think happens when a doctor sticks a needle into a newborn? Magic?
You know, during the whole Covid debacle I used to seethe every time I heard some self-righteous twit talk about "misinformation" and "disinformation", because they were selectively using those terms to silence and attack legitimate, independent scientists and medical professionals who were trying to advance the public's understanding and ultimately save lives. At the time I wanted those terms stricken from the dictionary and anybody who used them fired from public service.
Thank you for giving me a whole new perspective. I now understand the urge to silence someone who is completely full of crap and is likely to cause harm to others if one listens to them.
Stop this. We asked you not to fulminate on HN barely more than a week ago. Phrases like this are completely unacceptable here:
How cheaply disingenuous of you
Tell us you know nothing about healthcare without using "health" or "care".
Did you forget that the totality of this discussion revolves around*
What, precisely, do you think happens
I used to seethe every time I heard some self-righteous twit
I now understand the urge to silence someone who is completely full of crap and is likely to cause harm to others
I can't imagine there would be many people on HN or indeed anywhere who don't want babies to have the best health at the start of their life. It doesn't make us “good” people to use that to justify being so hostile, indeed aggressive, to others in a discussion forum.
Please have a good read of the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here.
I am completely at a loss. We've administered these injections for something like 60 years. They've saved lives. I don't see why this is controversial.
> What, precisely, do you think happens when a doctor sticks a needle into a newborn? Magic?
A small amount of bleeding? That, if uncontrolled, can be quickly treated because it's administered in a hospital setting? I don't think bleeding from injection sites is the cause of VKDB fatalities!
> You know, during the whole Covid debacle I used to seethe every time I heard some self-righteous twit talk about "misinformation" and "disinformation", because they were selectively using those terms to silence and attack legitimate, independent scientists and medical professionals who were trying to advance the public's understanding and ultimately save lives.
Is this some attempt at praising the anti-COVID vaccine crowd? Because those people aren't the unjustly silenced "independent scientists and medical professionals," they're quacks who were wrong.
This was unfortunately a waste of time, because you don't seem to be interested in hearing about benefits of lifesaving medical interventions; instead, you just want to peddle conspiracies and invoke a fear of doctors. I am only glad that I made you so angry that you're hopefully done talking.
Yes. We have an effective medical intervention that saves the lives of babies. Halting this because of some imagined big pharma conspiracy to make more money from new parents by charging for Vitamin K shots creates more infant headstones. I find it reprehensible.
California is not in any drought right now and our reservoirs last 10 years in the absolute worst case. Most of our water goes into the ocean.
I have no dog in the race in terms of what trees there are but if you take them down it'll be invasive South American pepper trees or mustard grass. As long as it's used and sequestering carbon it's all gravy.
You can see the water level there for Lake Orville which is the source for the California aqueduct system that feeds part of the Central Valley and the 20 million living in Southern California. Given that non-residential accounts for 92% of all the water use California is never in any danger of not being able to provide water to residential. That would require 20 years without rain and that also assumes we don't build new reservoirs.
California is the size of a country. The North is in an area more like the Pacific Northwest than any desert.
We just lived through a worst case scenario that lasted 3 years and only on the 3rd year of that did we even bother to start water restrictions. For the past two years we've been full to 100% and having to let it go in the spring.
I did a ton of research on this cause I own a property supplied by this system.
reply