My kid wasn’t progressing quite as well as their older sibling at a young age. They would trip over things and not be as interested in certain play activities. Dark under eye circles were also more pronounced (straining).
During a checkup, they had the option for an eye screening (basically an iPhone app) that takes pictures and flags possible issues. The concerning part was that the nurse’s default was to offer to “skip” this exam since it wasn’t covered by insurance and many parents chose to for financial reasons.
We didn’t skip it, and it found the need for a correction. The first time with the glasses on still brings tears to my eyes rewatching the video. “I see everything!” as they went to look at everything they were missing. The under eye circles also resolved immediately after.
The developmental delays aren’t even the biggest issue. Your eyes learn to work together at a young age, and skipping the glasses can lead to permanent eye issues if not addressed early. Many children likely have a permanent disease that a checkbox and cheap pair of glasses would have prevented.
This is long overdue and in no world should we be training health care providers that early age eye health is “skippable”.
Yes, I read the 5-7 paragraph article :). I'm not sure what part of it you could possibly consider a rebuttal...? It's just talking about one devs decision to keep working on their purist software despite their anxiety; basically no broader points are made at all, and certainly none are made with any sort of rigor. It didn't seem like that was his goal.
They will be instantly bought out by companies, not individuals. The consumer bubble won’t pop for quite a while yet. Production also won’t ramp up while lack of real competition keeps the demand high.
Right, the opinion shifting to the people being unworthy of uncorrupted data unless they’re wealthy enough to pay the artificial extortion price for integrity.
What you're actually saying is that I shouldn't be allowed to determine what kind of RAM my application needs. Instead, you are saying that someone with a gun should dictate this choice to me.
That's what we mean when we say that people with your point of view are promoting nanny-statism. It amounts to infantilization of adult consumers and subsequent disempowerment.
Occasionally such legislation can be justified, as when genuinely hazardous products are involved, or products whose use involves wide-ranging externalities, but usually not. People can and should be educated -- and expected -- to make their own decisions about things like whether they need ECC RAM.
How do YOU propose doing this when most computer "experts" have never used ECC RAM and when it's only available in high end specialist systems that aren't on sale in regular computer stores?
I think my knowledge of the topic is pretty good but I learned from this discussion that almost all AMD CPUs support ECC RAM and you apparently just need a motherboard to match. When accompanying people who were buying "gamer" PCs (after they rejected my recommendation for a second hand workstation grade computer with ECC RAM) I never witnessed store staff saying "hey you could get a motherboard with ECC support".
It's simply none of my business whether or not someone does the homework to understand what kind of RAM they should buy. I bothered to inform myself; they can, too.
Next up. CPUs that will spit out the wrong calculations 1/1M times. You’ll have to pay more for the enterprise version to get uncorrupted processing. The spare traces cost 5 cents, but we can charge 20% more for the privilege instead.
Just because you can allow it, doesn’t mean you should. I don’t want to live in a world where you need a PhD to avoid being scammed by increasingly sophisticated ploys. Data isn’t free anymore and the right questions are becoming harder to ask.
It's none of their business whether or not others choose to use ECC. It's absolutely his business whether or not authorities force them to use ECC RAM or else.
> People can and should be educated -- and expected -- to make their own decisions about things like whether they need ECC RAM.
So you think its realistic to expect the average consumer to assess the pros and cons of using ECC RAM?
We could solve this by better information which addresses your concerns about it being nanny statism. We would need it to be something that consumers understand - e.g. We could require all computers without ECC RAM to have a warning label saying something like "this computer uses cheap memory so is prone to crashing and losing your data". I strongly suspect the impact of that would be very similar to that of just banning non-ECC RAM.
I would also argue that having reliable RAM is a reasonable extension of existing legal requirements for consumer products: e.g. that they are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose (to use the current UK terminology).
There are two issues with nanny statism, the first is poorly informed kneejerk overreactions, the second is immediately jumping to heavyhanded policies. In your example even the absurd warning label is significantly less of an issue than flat out banning non ECC RAM.
reply