The cases I've heard of where AI doctor notes went badly, is in recording numbers that another doctor relies upon. If it's just a casual conversation, it's probably okay. If it's about cancer treatments, maybe ask for manual notes.
I've had doctors write horribly-incorrect notes in my digital chart after appointments, so please don't think I'm trying to be a Luddite.
Should this ever happen again, I would suggest the Institute for Justice (www.ij.org). They take on cases that do not make economical sense if it helps set precedent to help other people in the future (example: spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight a one thousand dollar civil asset forfeiture case). They have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court several times, and they rely on donations.
Weird, I didn't see Trump mentioned in the article. Do you still have it in your cache? Can you please post the version of the article that they showed you?
Trump is not mentioned in the story at all. I'm making a comment on how his entire administration is corrupt to the core.
I'm saying that I am considering how to tell my kids that lying and cheating and graft are the way America works now, and that this cop did exactly that.
If you are making a clever comment to expose my snarkiness, feel free to down vote me and maybe others will follow you down that path.
I'm not AI so it will sting a little bit and maybe I'll be more civil next time.
What if you don't refuse, but just barely blow into the device or otherwise have a medical condition such as asthma that prevents the machine from getting a good sample?
Also, my mom's house was burglarized, unknown if they had guns. After that, she got a home alarm.
My mom moved do a different part of the city, and her home was broken into at night while she was asleep. The home invaders continued as the home alarm was going off, and only stopped when a group of male neighbors started shouting at them. Presumably the criminals had weapons to conduct their home invasion.
All Cops Are Basterds, nothing asinine about pointing out normalized system of corruption. The cops across the country can stop protecting their bad actors then then the public will stop calling them basterds. They did this to themselves.
You've met every cop, everywhere then, wow! Please tell me how you met all of those cops, I would love to have the ability to travel all over the U.S. and meet every single one and talk with them and observe them work. That's a monumental task, congrats on you for doing that! That is so selfless of you!
I see your username is "righthand", did you know I met every single left-handed person in the U.S. and they're all bad! They cover for each other, including the one who is the only left-handed person in a small town in Washington state, I just know he's covering for all of the left-handed people in Florida.
I almost forgot: All Tow Truck Drivers Are Bad. They should be towing each other for parking in illegal spots. All Doctors are bad too, they should be ratting each other out left-and-right for all the malpractice they commit. All HN users are bad, we are enabling all of the bad things in tech companies etc.
> You've met every cop, everywhere then, wow! Please tell me how you met all of those cops, I would love to have the ability to travel all over the U.S. and meet every single one and talk with them and observe them work. That's a monumental task, congrats on you for doing that! That is so selfless of you!
It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime".
You did say that, or rather implied it. You claimed this person must know every single cop, but you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system.
So it's sort of self proving, or proven by definition. By definition of what cops are and what they are allowed to do, all cops must be bastards. If they weren't, they wouldn't be cops!
> you just admitted right now that actually you don't need to know every single cop to prove that all cops commit crimes. Because covering up for someone else is also a crime, and all cops presumably cover up. Arguably, just the simple act of existing as a cop is perpetuating injustice of the system.
???
No, that is not a logical at all. Nor did I admit that. Please stop. You keep assuming things that are not true about what I've clearly written.
Yes, you did admit that, by implication. To replay what exactly happened in this conversation.
Person A: It's almost not worth commenting on the irony of someone using the name "rationalist" failing to understand basic concepts like "covering up a crime is also a crime".
Reduced: "you do not understand that covering up a crime is also a crime".
You: I did not say or imply that.
Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value. What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing. So, if what I'm saying sounds stupid or obvious... uh, okay, reflect on that.
Regardless, you're missing the forest for the trees here. You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
The ACAB viewpoint comes from the preposition that policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice. Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
It's sort of how all jesters are silly. To be a jester, you must be silly, so by definition of a jester all jesters are silly.
Sorry, I rarely look at usernames and assumed you were the same person as earlier.
> Implication: I do understand that covering up a crime is also a crime, and do not imply otherwise.
> Implication: since covering up a crime is also a crime, you admit that you do not need to prove every cop has committed a crime themselves to be a criminal.
The first implication is reasonable. It also assumes facts not in evidence, however I will say this: I do understand that covering up a crime is criminal in places where I am familiar with the law. I am not familiar with laws everywhere. I will also say this: a cop covering up a crime of another cop is bad, thus that person would be considered a bad cop. I think we can both agree on that last statement.
The second implication is a bad take. That assumes that all cops are covering up crimes. I posit that not every cop has done that, but an unknown percentage somewhere better 0 and 100, have.
> I'm not assuming anything, I'm only taking your words at face value.
Based on your second implication, I believe that statement to be incorrect.
> What's happening is you're writing things without using your brain to think about what you're writing.
I would say that is more applicable to you.
> You didn't bother to actually reply to anything I said, probably because you thought this sad little response would be easier.
Please reread the HN Guidelines.
> policing in the US is systemicly or institutionally broken and fueled by injustice
I am open to agreeing with this, because some percentage greater than 0 but less than 100, is.
> Thereby, any willing participation in it is, by definition, an act of injustice.
Again, no, please stop. Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships.
It is impossible to have a reasonable argument with a person who cannot reason, therefore I will not continue this discussion with you (with someone else, sure).
If the system itself is set up such that it covers up the crimes of cops, which I would argue it is, then yes - simply by knowing that information and choosing to participate in the system, you have just helped cover up crimes, which is a crime.
Consider: is it possible to be an ethical member of the mafia?
> Somewhere your thought process is broken. You do not appear to have a strong concept of causal relationships.
I don't think you even believe this is true, you're just short circuiting like a poorly built robot. You can't respond to what I'm actually saying so it's just "uhhh uhhh you're not logical! I can't respond to illogical people!"
But think about it, for like longer than 5 seconds. If you know the police do bad things, and you want to join anyway, doesn't that mean that you must want to do bad things? And, if you're in the forced, doesn't that mean that you're helping and abetting said bad things?
If your brain really can't comprehend why that doesn't compute, then okay remove the world police. Replace it with mafia, or pirates, or gang, or Nazis. The concept itself makes sense, no?
I think the problem is that you intrinsicly view the police as good guys, they fight crime. But that's not really true, one because good guys and bad guys don't exist, that's comic book stuff, but also because the police are systemicly, institutionally, evil. Like, from their conception as slave catchers in the south.
You might view the police as good guys who sometimes do bad things. Others view them as essentially a gang. Except a state-sponsored gang, which is much much worse.
In that light, do you understand how ACAB might come to be? Even if you don't agree with it?
It has nothing to do with the cops as individuals and some of them being “nice” or not. It has everything to do with the normalization and systemization. If you come to Nyc and live here you will see that the “cops are bearueacrats with guns” stigma is pretty much true. A lot of the lower crime areas have cops looking for a minor infraction to write up a ticket (often a desk appearance ticket that usually gets thrown out by the courts). They will attempt to stop and frisk you even though you can deny it and even though it’s illegal. So here we have a system of pointless ticketing because stops and tickets are how they get a promotion. In high crime neighborhoods they take this tactic to new levels.
So no, I dont consider cops good people because as soon as one gets caught they back each other up. As I stated previously they soured their own image with decades of backing bad actor cops up and normalizing bad behavior.
Left handed people (I’m one of them) don’t have a history of systematic violence and abuse of peoples rights as enabled by the government. Left handed people dont have a union to corral around and get protections when they murder someone. Left handed people often don’t kill someone or steal their belongings then turn around and say “I was just doing my job, give us $1B more to build a surveillance dragnet and bail out our bad actors”.
Left handed people don’t violently kettle and beat protestors asking for basic reform of left handed people.
> All Tow Truck Drivers Are Bad. They should be towing each other for parking in illegal spots.
My doctor does his best to double dip on telehealth + “come in for tests”. Because a lot of clinics have devolved into sending health data to labs. What should be a “come in for tests” ends with an additional $75 telehealth call where my doctor reads the results over the phone.
I personally don’t think you’re going to convince anyone saying ACAB that “cOpS ArE aCtUaLlY nIcE gUyS oNcE YoU sHrUg oFf SySteMatIc StAtE VioLeNcE aNd vIoLaTiNG RiGhtS tHeY eNAbLeD fOr DecADes! jUsT iGnOrE tHe pOliCe stAtE.”
And we havent even begun to discuss “civil forfeiture” theft scam that is relative to this article.
It seems like you are very invested in this, and a discussion here is probably not going to change that, nor my opinion.
Yes, there are a lot of bad cops. No, not every single cop is bad.
(You should see my other comment about Civil Asset Forfeiture, where you will see that I am aware of it, and it is used in evil ways.)
I would never condemn a good lone cop in a small town who has not seen any illegal, corrupt, or otherwise anything less than professional behavior by neighboring jurisdictions, as you seem to.
My default opinion of people is not that of hate.
Nor do I judge people by prejudices.
Since another user here (who made up something to try to make me look bad) picked on my username, I think it is more rational to judge individuals by their own actions and not judge people you've never met by the actions of others.
reply