General > General Technical Chat

So very much this, for tech projects as well...

<< < (5/6) > >>

RJSV:
My Patent Attorney has his own project sequence:

   #1. client came up with idea
   #2. client hired Patent Attorney (myself)
   #3. Stated that EVERYTHING you touch, is patent-able.
   #4. Pay Attorney.
   #5. Abandon idea, as impractical.

vk6zgo:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on October 19, 2021, 08:48:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: tooki on October 19, 2021, 08:11:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on October 19, 2021, 07:35:30 pm ---I'm only saying that the world is full of ideas that were promoted, then later discovered that they weren't good.  Many were wholly evil, in fact.  Haven't you heard the old saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?  In order to not be an unwitting Kharon, one has to check every single one of ones ideas before promoting them.

--- End quote ---
Well, it’s impossible to predict every unintended consequence. The important thing, the duty abrogated by so many people, organizations, etc, is to recognize when something is no longer good, and to change it.
--- End quote ---
True.  My point is, do "sufficient" checking on the idea before promoting it.  What "sufficient" is, depends on the situation, and is not the point.  I'm not asking for perfect, because perfect is impossible.

I'm only asking that the checking that is done is done before the idea is being promoted, and not after.  Step 2, not step 3.


--- Quote from: tooki on October 19, 2021, 08:11:23 pm ---USA never approved it
--- End quote ---
Oh, they actually did, in 1998, to combat multiple myeloma (in combination with dexamethasone), by inhibiting angiogenesis –– suppressing new blood vessel growth so the tumours cannot grow.  This effect of thalidomide wasn't discovered until 1994, though.  (The thalidomide tragedy occurred in 1957-1961, causing miscarriages and birth defects.)

In the case of thalidomide, those that promoted first assuming the checking was either done by others or would be done as things progressed, caused a lot of dead and deformed babies.  Those that checked first, were unharmed.

I was tempted to use tobacco products as an example, but there the companies actually checked, and decided to hide the results for decades instead of acting on them, because their massive profits were threatened.  I believe it would be wise to recognize that drug companies have the exact same incentives, but that strays a bit from the topic.

My own experience and main reason for personally objecting to promoting first and then checking/testing, is that it is ubiquitous in software, including in commercial software.  Any real testing nowadays is done by the end users, with the vendor indemnity capped at the price of the product.  Checking done by paying customers who get no recourse
--- End quote ---




This has also been the case with a lot of "hardware" for many years.
Almost any older technical person you speak to will have anecdotes of badly engineered designs which had to be corrected at the Technician/Tech Officer level (or, just sometimes, EE).

In most of these cases, it wasn't "rocket science", simply a failure to consider likely failure modes.

To add insult to injury, following being advised details of the fix, some manufacturers have included it in their next lot of devices, with no acknowledgement of the original problem.
Nice, cheap, testing!


--- Quote ---–– except, at best, in rare occasions, their money back.
--- End quote ---

Duygu:
yeah,  it's bad but probably true  :-X :-X

GlennSprigg:
WOW!!!... I only answered the way I did about 10 responses back or somethin', because I 'thought' the original Post
was a round-about way of knocking certain recent Vaccination methods! Maybe it was or wasn't. Result the same!   :)

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: GlennSprigg on October 22, 2021, 01:42:37 pm ---I 'thought' the original Post was a round-about way of knocking certain recent Vaccination methods! Maybe it was or wasn't. Result the same!   :)
--- End quote ---
I get pressured and mocked by both sides, because I recommend the new mRNA vax for certain people, and not getting them for others, depending on their exact personal biological features (especially age, cardiovascular state, and past immunological responses), based on whatever statistics and published preliminary reports I've seen.  I thought that was the rational thing to do, but apparently I'm just stupid/evil/selfish/fascist, depending on who you ask. :o

It very much looks like because everyone is so deeply invested (emotionally and politically) in the matter, it is no longer possible to discuss it objectively at the factual level.  Even the statistics gathered are very, very suspect; many governments/institutions have already admitted to "massaging" the statistics, even changing the definition of "vaccine", to enforce their own view/belief/understanding.  Even discussion of the quality of the vaccines, as in findings of contamination as happened in Japan, is wraught with emotionality, crazy shouting, and government-level politics.

In that sense, the comic is spot on: mRNA vaccines were not subjected to standard clinical trials, and it looks like it is no longer possible (due to emotional and political reasons, not technical reasons) to do those objectively.  No matter what we do at this point, we will have failed (caused unnecessary risk, injury, and pain to) some people; we could do better.  We should do better.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod