They should just give the user some control over this

Just to be precise. The sepsis alarm was not blocking x-ray or antibiotics but rather suggesting them.

“”” Agyare had instructed Banerjee to hydrate Sam right away but to wait for the results of Sam’s lab work before ordering a chest X-ray or the strong antibiotics used to treat sepsis. “””

Most sepsis alert implementations ironically do block review of the data to see if the sepsis is real, what triggered the alert, and what treatments are appropriate. Part of the sepsis recommendations always proposed by the EMR is to give lots and lots of IV fluids, even if the patient is in decompensated heart failure which would make it worse

but then "He couldn’t figure out how to navigate the template to make some but not all of the auto-populated orders."

The question should be why was he trying to disregard the orders that were part of the standard protocol for a possible sepsis situation - just accept them all as intended.

The system was poorly designed; as pointed out elsewhere: ordering antibiotics before lab results come back is a bad practice. However, the particular sepsis popup required antibiotics to be ordered, and lab results hadn't come back yet, but another procedure (x-ray) needed to be ordered immediately.

People dramatically underestimate how much sepsis protocols and antibiotic stewardship are in tension.

The problem is that people gravitate towards more impersonal relationships themselves because it frees them from the complexity of social calculations. We escape small organisations, we try to be independent from each other and prefer to depend on impersonal institutions.

I think our minds don’t use novelty - but salience and it also might be easier to implement.

Zuck poaches AI devs and places them under Wang - how does that work? Wang doesn’t make impression of being a brilliant researcher or coder just a great deal maker (to put it diplomatically).

There was no typeface change for “ż” - the other typeface is sometimes used now as it was 30 years ago. See the foto at Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BB

Early primary schooling in the early 90s and some preschool teaching in the late 80s taught me to write "ż" as a "ƶ"[0].

> It represents the same sound in the Polish alphabet, remaining in active usage by some as an alternative for the letter Ż (called "Z with overdot").

> In Polish, the character Ƶ is used as an allographic variant of the letter ⟨Ż⟩ (called "Z with overdot") although once used in Old Polish.

Funnily, there's a counter-argument to "Straż Miejska" from article you linked, with "Straƶ Miejska" in another Wikipedia entry[1] :)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_with_stroke

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Straz_plakietka.svg

I started school in 1980 and I don’t remember this. Also books don’t use this typeface no matter how old.

And yet, you can see the "Straƶ Miejska" logotype linked in my comment above, with a crown on the eagle, so post-December 31, 1989[0].

It may depend on the region (I was raised in the eastern Poland) but I also remember that in the primary school we used a different symbol for the letter "s". But only in hand-writing while any printed "s" looked like it does currently. I'm unable to find the UTF-8 character resembling the hand-written version.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Poland#

They can do the milking without selling - don’t they?

If they are planting a million trees a month why "worry" that they might be getting paid, sorry "milking", to do their jobs?

The company is doing the work to earn that money.

Nobody would call it "milking" money if they were a billionaire owned company rapaciously leveraging their trapped customers for every dime. I don't think its the right word to use here.

A practical rephrasing of LSP: subclasses should be subtypes.

This is exactly the behaviour that I would expect from a human teleported into a project and given a similar task.

After some time humans would gather some background info needed to be more productive and we need to find out how to copy that.

You're saying a human would also offer bullsh*t suggestions that seem right but are in fact wrong?

Humans who make lots of mistakes with confidence that they aren't mistakes usually get fired or steered into a position where they can do the least amount of damage.

It's not that AI needs more background info for this type of of thing. It needs the ability to iteratively check it's own work and make corrections. This is what humans do better.

Ok, maybe that was exaggerated - there are differences, but they are shrinking.

Personally I would not hardcode the discovery process in code but just gave the llm tools to browse the code and find what it needs itself.