prostheticvamp

https://github.com/landakram/kiwi

I don’t know when it was last updated, but as far as I can tell, it’s feature-complete for my needs (with zero lock-in).

I actually just tried out OP’s Obsidian and ... it’s nice. In my workflow it would replace Sublime, as the desktop wiki editor sitting on my existing folder of wiki files.

There isn’t any of the lock-in I was getting concerned about from peoples posts here, and personal use is free. I’ll continue to play with it.

Counteroffer:

I use Kiwi to create a personal wiki on my phone. It sits in a Dropbox folder I always have open as a project in Sublime. It’s also the folder that my NotePlan app uses - so my todo list, calendar, and wiki are all the same set of markdown files.

It’s super portable (just a pile of markdown docs in a Dropbox folder), does knowledge base management, and ties my knowledge base directly into my todo/project management/time management. And it costs peanuts (kiwi is buy-once; I don’t remember what I paid for NotePlan).

People remember wikis, right? “Interconnected markdown” isn’t some new feature, and sure isn’t worth a monthly subscription fee.

18 microRogans.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t mean it as an insult.

I have the strong suspicion this person doesn’t participate in book clubs. Or much in the way of social events.

Mistaking “book club” for “book class” isn’t a small category error.

But a big part of how it’s doing that is using technologies to unbundle functions, that used to be bundled for practical reasons, to create new efficiencies and value.

So...

On the other Hand people like Dr. Erickson get censored, because they simply dare to question the lock down

Erickson, among other things, makes provably false statements about the prevalence and mortality of covid19. You’re allowed to be misinformed as a private citizen; you’re not allowed to grandstand in public as a physician and spread misinformation. He’s lucky he only got deplatformed, rather than have his license taken.

You make it sound like he was expressing an unpopular interpretation of the data, rather than actively spreading untrue assertions.

I read the linked article and it was terrible. It kept playing a sleight-of-Hans between him being an example of what monopolies empower (which he is), and he as somehow the cause of monopolization (which it doesn’t support at all, it just makes meaningful glances in that direction). Quite a lot of its arguments boil down to “he’s rich,” as though that were a sin in itself.

No one who went into that article without a pitchfork in hand is likely to emerge with one.

Sorry, I was unclear.

I meant that aside from the conflict over PPE - which has happened more than once - I am not aware of instances of the state and federal government working against one another.

CMS, as a regulatory agency, does have a high priority in making sure it’s got the legal right to make regulations pertaining to a thing. Because otherwise those regs are illegal, which causes lawsuits and chaos.

You make it sound like they spent months trying to finagle a way out of working.

I mean... your example is /true/, but I’m hard pressed to think of a second one. One example isn’t a trend.

As someone who was involved in the evolution of HL7 from the policy/medical side, I can tell you:

EMR systems lock us (healthcare systems) into proprietary formats to make migration to new clients difficult; likewise, we don’t (didn’t) push for interoperability because exporting data to other healthcare systems cost us more than it benefited us (we didn’t fight it, we just weren’t gonna spend our money to make it happen).

HL7 and other interoperability tech only emerged because CMS reps made their way to -a lot- of conferences and, with varying levels of bluntness, said “find a way to improve interoperability on your own, or you’ll see it show up in federal regs 12 months from now.”

This is a change that came from active regulators doing their jobs correctly, in spite of the active efforts of the tech industry and the indifference of the hospital industry.

So, I rarely say this but, thank you CMS.

That’s one of the dumbest platitudes ever deployed to deflect criticism, and I wish people would use it correctly.

“This thing has absolutely no evidence of reliability or safety in a critical environment” is not criticizing it for being less-than-perfect. It’s criticizing it for being possibly inferior to the status quo.

Here’s one simple example:

Staff gowning up for routine rounds are much more careful, and safe, than staff rushing into an emergency code. If this thing throws up even the occasional false alarm, its cost to staff (in exposure) could easily outweigh, massively, and reduced rounding requirements.

That’s not “oh, well that’s not perfect.” That’s “oh, that might be worse, masquerading as better.”

“Perfect is the enemy of the good” is a wildly irrelevant comment.

If you mean airport screenings, one presumes the usual pre-gate screenings.

If you mean visas and the like, also yes; to go from Egypt to Israel requires both an exit visa from Egypt and a tourist visa from Israel.

I’m generally skeptical of content marketing that is mostly comprised of vague self-praise. I don’t know why this is on the HN front page. Though I guess arguably that’s a point in favor of their marketing competence.

Speaking as a mental health specialist:

No that is not. We treat disease. Pretending we can fine-tune personality traits is quackery, and no respectable mental health specialist would lay claim to that.

But don’t worry - quacks abound, and they even take your insurance.

I couldn’t tolerate this writing long enough to get through more than half the article. There’s the “history is cyclical” trope, the “I have learned how to read history” repeated self-aggrandizement without any specifics, despite going on long enough to repeat himself, and really obvious statements meant to read like profundity (“when there’s great inequality of wealth, there will be social tensions”, paraphrasing only slightly.)

I read a book by him once. It was short and vapid and full of pseudo-profundity. It was cheap and highly rated on Amazon, so I’d given it a try. I didn’t realize he was banking on his name as an investor. Now I understand why anyone would bother reading his writing once, but not why they would read it twice.

Yes, if you focus on that imagery, sure.

Human tears also have antibacterial properties that have been explored for antibiotic purposes. The tears of grieving parents used to save future children from death!

Or, you know, it’s just a protein, and the tear is just the fluid where it was initially found, and you’re adding all the extra meaning yourself, which is a reflection strictly on you.

I spent hours on the phone today with labcorp trying to acquire these for our healthcare center staff. Not a single employee knew how to sell them, or that they were even something labcorp offered.

Instead, the government could institute price controls and distribute directly to those in need or allow all private purchases to go throug

Every country in the world is hunting for N95s right now. For the US to institute price controls just means the supply will shift to another country that doesn’t.

For most healthcare workers, it is unknown to them. N95 is the standard.

And P100s were sold out early into this adventure.

No. Last time I worked shifts in a pulm/sleep medicine clinic was about 18 months ago.

Hahahahah. Oh man.

The vast majority of patients take months or longer to get acclimated to the machine. Most will say they feel /worse/, because the machine gets in the way of their sleep at first.

I look forward to hearing more medical pearls from the web design community.

Because (a) there are problems that are not sleep apnea that should not be missed, and (b) the cpap pressure needs to be titrated to your need, it’s not a binary device.

Admittedly, (b) is now less of an issue since there are a handful of auto-titrating machines on the market now. They’re less reliable than a sleep study, but they’re better than nothing.

No, THAT’s untrue. Look at your own link. You can sterilize the mask to preserve its filtration ability, but no one has shown it maintains fit. A poorly fit N95 is no protection at all, which is why hc workers get formally fit tested when starting a new gig. Which is why That link makes “no one knows what it does to fit” one of its top line bulletpoints.

Because best data to date is that sterilization procedures damage the mask in ways that render it unsafe.

When someone comes up with data finding a safe way to do so, the masks won’t go in the trash. In the meantime, I’d you have the masks to spare, you -should- be using them safely. Masks are pointless if you use them in a way that will get you sick.

Hospitals don’t generally buy line items. Tiny healthcare centers do. Hospitals get tied into group purchasing organizations (GPOs), which control the supply pipeline to hospitals in exchange for buying at scale.

But that’s beside the point. Almost all disposable medical supplies are cheap in isolation. They build contracts for a whole bunch of supplies, in massive quantities, over time.

Those pennies add up.

Again, operating margins <2%.

Until you’ve internalized what that means, I don’t see a high value in going back and forth.

Just gotta like my nose in, as a medical professional involved in procuring PPE for my small health chain:

We run into fraud and scammers trying to take advantage of our desperation on a daily basis. Probably about 20% of our supply leads. So, yeah, there’s a definite element of wariness - we don’t just take anything from anyone at random. Lives depend on us sourcing actual equipment, rather than squandering limited resources on falling for a scam. And, you know, not being the FBI, for many of us this falls to a lone harried admin plus-or-minus their boss talking it over and making a gut call before moving on to put out the next fire.

These articles always omit the most interesting part:

Montell and lead author Nicole Leung, who recently completed her predoctoral studies at UC Santa Barbara, suspected opsin molecules might be at work in detecting subtle chemical signals as well, via a signal amplification process.

Yeah, but why did that formulate that hypothesis? What was the line of reasoning?

You keep saying the same irrelevant thing. It doesn’t matter how hard it is to showcase 5M apps, /if you’re taking 30% of the cut from all of them, in exchange for promoting them/.

Fraud at scale is still fraud. This isn’t a difficult concept.