> People who get inaccurate diagnostics get scared.
That's only true if those people always follow up with a second test using traditional means. If they don't follow-up and instead immediately go past diagnostics into some sort of action, then it could be catastrophic in a manner exceeding being scared.
Now you can argue that if the patient is working with any medical practitioner worth their salt, that med will surely ask for a second test. But is it obvious that that will always be the case?
additionally, the "get scared" is only if the theranos test incorrectly gives a "something is wrong" diagnosis. What if the theranos test incorrectly gives an "everything is ok" diagnosis? Then the patient does not get scared when they should be, and potentially get significantly harmed
i think what's going on here is similar to why celebrities are often curt with people that come up to them. Some celebrities are actual douchebags, but others are not necessarily so but just get so many people coming up to them and saying the same thing to them.
It comes down to two mismatches: first being the famous person's own patience, which is just a normal amount, but instead of usual number of others going up to them now it's 100 or 1000x the number of others.
The second mismatch is the information asymmetry: the famous person him/herself knows that they have gotten 100x people going up to them and saying / asking the same thing, and they know that they will continue getting this for the rest of their life, so they respond with annoyance, which is completely understandable. However, the average person going up to them isn't gonna think that many logical steps and realize this; they're just saying "oh cool, it's a celeb, I never see celebs. Let me try to talk to them!"
> By standard semantics, if you state that believing with certainty that the proof is incorrect is stupid, then you surely believe with certainty that it's correct.
you might want to think a little bit harder on this
i think what they are saying is that if you really so certain that the proof is incorrect, you would put on that claim and rest assured that you would win. Especially since the position you are claiming is currently at less than 10%, you stand to win a large amount of money.
The person you are arguing with made no such claim of certainty either one way or the other, so they have no reason to bet anything.
I understood what they were saying but if they're not willing to bet any money then they should refrain from commenting entirely since that seems to be the bar they are setting for others.
I think you misunderstood. His mouth was not at "the proof is correct". His mouth was at "you are not really certain that the proof is incorrect". Those two are not the same thing, so flipping the accusation back at him and saying "you should've bet on the proof being correct then" does not actually make any sense.
edit: in other words, if there is anything that he should bet on, it's "the other guy wasn't really certain that the proof is wrong, he is just bloviating". That's a different bet than "the proof is correct".
my guess is so that the company can say on the earnings call that they are going digital / going ai or whatever, "and here's 10 products we have that are taking active steps in that direction".
ah sorry i should clarify what I mean. I meant to say that it's probably true that very few consumers care about or want this feature, but this feature was desired by the company manufacturing this to sweeten the picture for their own investors
recently i noticed logging into vanguard that if I use firefox autofill password, vanguard always says my password is incorrect, but typing it manually it works. I could clear my password from firefox, type it correctly and login, select "remember my password", log back out and back in, and then have it rejected.
so I figured that the way to make it work is to have it autofill, then select my username and press space then backspace, which is a no-op. That way, the javascript knows i've entered something, and then it works.
reply