flatbield

They are absolutely part of the problem. Expecting crazy compensation, not knowing the cost of their treatments and being transparent and cost effective, managing medical school requirements and enrollment to create a shortage rather then surplus of practitioners, creating crazy cost schedules, building crazy expensive facilities. Medical people manage much of this system and are directly involved in a lot of this. Are they the only ones… no. But they are not without blame.

It is not about masks. It is about crazy prices throughout the industry. Lack of both quality and price transparency. Lack of competition.

There is also who wins and who losses and who has access and who does not and why. Not easy questions and not easy for people to hear even if it is sane. Add to that access is often just because and has nothing to do with fairness.

Add to that the medical community has basically burnt any good will they had from the public by crazy pricing and poor access combined with mediocre results. Not saying every medical partipant caused that but they all get lumped together.

Yes. I just wish they had been honest. Yes they are effective but please minimize use of certain classes of masks and leave for those that really need them until stocks catch up.

The whole messaging sucked. You had to know something to read between the lines. Not a problem for me but I am sure was confusing for others. Then you had those that wanted to make it confusing.

I totally do not get why people have to try to prove to themselves that masks do not work. More than likely they do especially if you have a new good well fitting mask changed frequently and you use and change it properly. There is also the question who it helps more, you or the people around you.

A huge problem during the pandemic was mask availability, and people using them properly even if they had a supply to do that which mostly no one did. So result of mask use is a good question but it may say nothing about how well masks used properly work.

How is this different then PERT or Monte Carlo project planning? In both you estimate uncertainty too. Or am I missing something.

Maybe I missed something, but I did not see that this was about poverty specifically. I suspect something like this runs across the spectrum not just poverty though of course it is probably worse in that case. For example in organizations, it is fairly well know that the over achievers can suppress the performance of people around them. This too has to be stressful.

Yes, for oral pseudoephedrine works. Not sure why people just do not ask.

The thing about pseudoephedrine, it does not agree with me at prescription strength (not sure I ever had a problem with over the counter version). One time years ago I took prescription strength, if affect my eye muscles, just couldn’t focus. Kind of freaked me out, so I avoid. Just me.

Thanks. I did not see that in the article. The NYT article that someone else posted was more explicit. So I think you are correct. Hate to loose the nose spray version.

Actually the nasal spray version works great. So they are idiots if they are talking about that. I use it all the time. Hope they do not discontinue that.

What do you think about the card industry that sells all these birthday and anniversary cards that people buy all the time? Not sure this is really much different.

Just curious because I usually buy a blank card and write my own stuff. Never can find a card that says what I want to say anyway.

I have heard too there are differences in available raw materials. Even our newer concrete is not as good as older.

Notice also they said common cement too. I suspect supply and demand meaning cost and obsolecense are what we design for. For that matter too cheap patio blocks are not as good as expensive ones. Sad but we do not build for even decades let alone centuries.

Keep in mind too that technology does not automatically improve. For tech to even continue at the same level we have to continually practice it.

Yes. They both should be set to same color temperature. If both set to same they both will look white. If not the lower color temperature will look yellow or maybe even orange. Eye color perception is largely relative and adaptive.

So my monitor has a setup menu. I open that. Select color adjust, then select the setting. My setting options are sRGB, 9300K, 7500K, 6500K, 5000K, and User white point setting. Lot of monitors are set by default to 9300K which is way blue. SRGB or 6500K is most color correct and both 6500K color tempetature. Mine is actually set to 5000K at the moment.

You mentioned flux. Screen brightness is usually set by the contrast control and the brightness setting is usually to set the black level. Yes, I know strange.

.

No. Typically the sun is brighter. Also if your device is set to 9300K color temperature then it has more blue then normal. The sun is about 6500K and all display devices should be set to 6500K or SRGB where possible for best color rendering. Pros actually have a color calibration device to do even better.

Color perception and maybe eye strain also depends on surroundings. That is why having a neutral background behind a display that has a similar illumination level is recommended.

It was always kind of a scam. Computers always had color temperature settings. It is a sad fact that they use to all be set to around 9300K color temperature which is very unnaturally blue. Best color rendering is actually 6500K and people like me always reset them once purchased. You can also set them lower then that too say 3400K too.

Reason device makers used high color temperature was showroom. Two displays side by side, the lower color temperature will look yellow and no one will buy it. All about customer manipulation and marketing. As an engineer this always bothered me. Sell something not configured correctly to get the sale.

The one way lower color temperatures are better is that the eye is not as well corrected in the blue so vision should indeed be sharper with Amber sunglasses for example. There is some science behind that. Same for sleep issues. Lot of the other stuff seems more marketing and questionable.

That is kind of my point exactly. The purpise of companies was not originally so. I is just a view heavily promoted by elites. Even the courts believe it now. Was not always so. Hence it does not always have to be so.

Some of this and maybe a lot of this is a reflection of ourselves. By this I mean the values we collectively espouse and that come to be represented in media, politics, education including what is learned in business schools, etc. When nothing is enough and competition and winner take all view points are highly valued, well this is what we get.

Reason I say this is that it strikes me that perhaps this is a lot more about ourselves than anyone wants to admit.

Nothing highlights this as much when your management actually says and believes that “the purpose of our organization is to make money”. Totally clueless people.

No… the purpose is to deliver value to all stakeholders including customers, and society at large and by doing it well make some money. So it maters what you do and how you do it and the vision around it.