If there is any chance that human error contributed to this disaster (either via the people there or maintenance deferred or done less than perfectly), then "a more humane work schedule" would have made that less likely due to everyone involved being well rested.
It's funny yet sad at how differently HN reacts to a company making its employees go into the office than this. Maybe that's how we should frame it - "railroads force employees back into office, even when sick" might garner some more sympathy.
Not OP, but you could have a priority queue where you acknowledge each element as up/down/neutral and the change in score that you provide would affect it's location in other people's queues.
Optimal isn't the right way to think about it. It's a tradeoff. Hub-and-spoke is usually better at getting you to your destination in less absolute time given the same number of total flights since you can have more frequent "shuttle flights" that travel to the hub, exchange goods/passengers, and shuttle back. Point-to-point on the other hand, is better for minimizing travel time since you go directly to the destination.
I heard it’s optimal for staffing though because you can just have people on standby living near your spokes, which would be important if you’re dealing with cancellations, which can severely cascade with point to point
It's scary because HIPAA puts a lot of restrictions on what it can be used for and also puts a bunch of requirements in place for its safekeeping. My point is that once it's been shown that those issues can be dealt with profitably, others will see that as a new growth sector and follow.
Regulations are often implemented as a set of specific hard rules based on specific values (so it's easy to rule about them). The systems they regulate are almost always never so clear, and are based on competing gradients. Where these rules interact with natural systems (such as a free market) are often some of the most lucrative places for companies to develop new strategies.
Where some people see rules that prevent or kill existing businesses, other people see an opportunity for a new type of business. The whole financial sector is rife with companies that do just this. A simple example of how it could happen in this case is that there may be some non HIPAA covered data (that people may or may not think of as health data at this point in time) mixed in with the HIPAA data, and very carefully harvesting and monetizing that could be lucrative. Maybe later laws are updated to change this, or maybe it becomes the new normal.
Basically, any given health record is covered by HIPAA if it 1) includes personal health information, 2) includes personally identifiable information, and 3) is used by a Covered Entity or Business Associate for some health care purpose. Just being "data with health-related information in it" doesn't make it covered by HIPAA; it has to actually be used by a specific set of organizations for a purpose related to health care.
If Fitbit just stored your personal fitbit data in a data lake in the cloud, that's not covered by HIPAA. But if it then shared that data with a service that made suggestions about your health, now it's covered by HIPAA. But if Fitbit allowed your smartphone to download your data, and gave you an app that allowed you personally to see health-related information about that data, that is (afaik) not covered by HIPAA, because you and your phone alone are not a Covered Entity or Business Associate.
Fitbit has a "health solutions" department which seems dedicated to healthcare solutions based on Fitbit data: https://healthsolutions.fitbit.com/ My guess is anything HIPAA-related is solely done through that arm of the company. Example: https://healthsolutions.fitbit.com/healthsystems/ I take this as them saying, "Hey Covered Entities, sign a Business Associate contract with us, and you can hoover up Fitbit data directly from us". By writing some glue code and doing the HIPAA hokey-pokey, they make a tidy profit.
There should be some punctuation in the title. The tool is named "Help". A quick skim doesn't make it seem like the author is in need of urgent assistance.
Bob seems to be using pronouns that are associated with both genders. Seems to be their thing. In any case, Bob seems like a fairly competent hacker and that's all that really matters here.
>they are not enforced ... widely, rigorously and thoroughly
That's a major source of the danger. If they were being consistently and equally enforced, then it would be obvious when there were issues. In the case with selective enforcement, the government can point to the law and say they're in the right, but only apply it when it suits them. This lets the people making the rules and the people who are in their good graces do what they'd like due to selective enforcement and not face the consequences of their actions.
Yes, like I said it does not excuse it, and for some laws especially those with severe punishment, it's a serious concern.
However in the case of certain types of policies it's not about intentional selectivity, it's about selectivity due to infeasibility, a type of selectivity that is not completely effective against any individual. For instance this one i'm pointing out: it's not possible to hold every single food source hostage in any country... but seriously, we are talking about food... in China... i'm running out of ellipses...
"UAV" has stronger military connotations for me. I'm not sure it's inherently better. Maybe something entirely new is better? "AAV" Autonomous Ariel Vehicle, or something similar?
Or just UAS, since the UAM air taxis that are coming and are largely being lumped in with these deliveries aren’t very small at all.
For what it’s worth, at NASA the official term is (s)UAS, but we use that and UAV, drone, etc interchangeably has in day to day conversation. As long as it’s clear what you’re talking about, the exact word is really not that important.
One thing that does bother me about the Bechdel test is that it is represented as "passing is good enough". The Bechdel test intentionally sets a laughably low bar. Just because a piece of media passes, doesn't automatically mean that it is good representation for women, just that it is not so horrendously obviously unbalanced.
Continuity seems like a good reason. If you have a team that has expertise in mainframes and need a new service, it is potentially cheaper to build a new mainframe than it is to hire a new team to run your new service.
