I don't really get what this means. A false positive causes issues inherently - you don't know if it's right or wrong. It's noise which is bad for care, and it's anxiety-inducing for patients which is also bad. It produces worse outcomes for everyone. There isn't a "choice" or assumption here, you respond to a positive as if it's accurate until you know it isn't. This is a known issue. Hell Scrubs did an episode about the negative impact of full, generalized body scans on a patient's wellbeing decades ago.
The medical industry should NOT be paternalistic towards patients. People have a right to decide for themselves and be treated as adults capable of informed consent. Thankfully that model is starting to change, although there is much inertia.
Any test that is approved for use would have a better-than-random outcome distribution. Preconditioned on that, a test result is still useful no matter how uncertain. It is never the case that more information leaves you in a worse position.
I have personal experience here:
Every year I have elected to have ultrasounds done of my major internal organs. In the past two visits, the technicians spotted multiple developing growths in my liver and now kidneys. These are very likely to be benign cysts, but one piece of blood work that could be a marker for cancer is inconclusive. The odds are still high that this is totally benign and will either clear up on its own, or at least stop growing and cause no further issue. Still:
1. I'm getting my blood work done now far more frequently (twice per year instead of every other year), with specialized/not typically ordered screening tests;
2. I am redoing the ultrasound every year to track progress; and
3. I am actually taking advice about losing weight and exercise far more seriously than I otherwise would, as these issues often resolve with weight loss.
I am actually healthier now than I was two years ago, and feel better about my physical and mental well-being. All while staying on top of what could have be a life threatening issue if left untreated and ignored.
I look forward to the day when I can go get a monthly MRI-like scan. That would be wonderful.
Almost half of the US population doesn’t even have $1000 saved away nor do they have insurance that covers these tests. It’ll be far more expensive unless insurance deems it necessary, which none of what you’re suggesting would be by definition.
> I don't really get what this means. A false positive causes issues inherently - you don't know if it's right or wrong. It's noise which is bad for care, and it's anxiety-inducing for patients which is also bad.
No its not. This is extremely paternalistic. Humans know how to understand noise and statistics. You don't get to decide that for me. I want more lives saved with more information.
It’s not paternalistic. It’s reality. Most people are not equipped to vet all the medical information that comes their way. That’s why we should talk to our doctors about results.
I don’t think my mechanic is being paternalistic when he talks through my car and what is/isn’t important. I like that helps me prioritize things. Why is this any different? In the end a person can tell a doctor “I don’t care run the test” or whatever so what’s the big deal? You can still do what you want. Get that biopsy if you need the peace of mind.
I agree but do you want your mechanic to hide information from you for any reason? For instance, that information can have false positives.
Like, your mechanic hides the fact that your engine may be broken but he's just 70% sure of it. Since he's not 99% sure, he hides it from you. Do you think its a good thing to do?
P.S. The responses ignore what I actually responded to, which was a claim that "The false positive thing is a nonissue" -- where the "thing" is 99% false positives. The only way to respond to information such that "the false positive thing" becomes "a nonissue" is to never respond to it at all. The responses to my comment all address some strawman.
You could repeat the test, perhaps on a more frequent interval to keep an eye on it. You could follow up with a more specific test, or do confirming blood work. In the meantime you can adjust your diet as a precaution, or get motivated to get in shape just in case.
There's plenty of room between "go under the knife" and "ignore altogether."
Or only consider it a positive once the confidence is high enough that false positives are not a problem anymore.
Getting a test good enough to still make it useful (detect enough of the true positives) would of course be a challenge, but the more data is available, the more feasible that might be.
I remember the Print Shop as a kid! Yah I guess specialization won out. We don't even have to see our holiday cards now. Upload a photoshopped picture and mail merge and start getting compliments from friends and family a week later.
You don't start there, but you can get there as you level up. A lot of that would be because the stock on your RSU grants goes up while you work there though. I don't think many SWE have 7 figure targeted comp (highest levels, yes). But plenty get there with refreshers and stock appreciation.
Many people top out at a lower level because they don't play corporate politics games or because the L7s aren't moving on, so there's no real room for promotion among the L5s and 6s.
Microsoft in the Ballmer years (early/mid 2000s) had this problem. Promising L65/L66/L67 (probably equiv to L5/6 at AMZN) would leave because the next step was full. All the "partners" were hanging around and not making room for the next gen of leaders.
> Does a customer care if you shave off 2% of the final cost or do they care about having world-class customer support?
Times and times again, they'll tell you the latter and actually choose the former.
The same bargain as paying more to have no ads: people vocally push for no ads, some will ponny up the money, and the vast majority will make do with the ad supported model, while ad blocking or giving up on the service when they're fed up with it.
> Does a customer care more about how long payment processing takes or do they care that it takes their local mobile payment app?
I'm curious how you find the people to ask that ? If your current service doesn't provide support for the payment app, who would you ask if it was a deal breaker for them and refused to become your customer, not giving you anybof their information ?
> Times and times again, they'll tell you the latter and actually choose the former.
I don't think this is as true anymore.
There was some time between 1990 and 2015(ish?) where physical widget prices was falling faster then the quality decrease, software and computing hardware got better, where the quoted strategy made sense.
Nowadays you will get dropshipped crap (or any service sector equivalent) if you go for the lowest price.
We need a new "appeal to customer" logical fallacy. Talking to the customer is not a panacea for running a business, and the failed company graveyard is full of products that "delighted customers" but still couldn't cut it in the long wrong.
Part of running a business is having to explain to your boss how you spent millions of dollars, and building confidence that you're making sound decisions and not just shooting from the hip. Many times that will mean making decisions in the best interest of the company over the customer, and there's nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing perfect about A/B testing, and like any tool it can do both good and harm. But when I have to explain to my boss about how I'm spending their money, there's a limit to how much lip service I can play up about the customer journey before I have to put my money where my mouth is and demonstrate that I'm putting their cash to good use. A story that includes A/B testing along with qualitative customer research is better than a story that just includes one or the other.
