4 ms·

What an ironic comment - I tell a software developer that medical science isn't as easy as measuring weight changes, supporting the point that doctors need to d

What an ironic comment - I tell a software developer that medical science isn't as easy as measuring weight changes, supporting the point that doctors need to do a lot more than that to come to a diagnosis, and then a doctor (I assume) tells me to STFU because.. oh, of what I originally said in the first place. What was your point here? I hope you don't make these kind of mistakes with actual patients.

killjoywashere 9y ago
This is what I was responding to: > Do you think all weight spikes simply equate to having CHF? You can't just rely on such a basic measurement when dealing with an incredibly complex system such as the human body. Considering you were knowingly addressing someone who worked in the space and blew right past something you obviously knew within seconds (not all weight spikes equate to CHF), thinking there was even a remote possiblity they hadn't thought of that, despite having a physician on staff to discuss with. Your response here (as quoted) is exactly why doctors throw their hands in the air and wait for someone else to come along. You actually thought you had an insight and despite remonstration, you persist in thinking you outwitted everyone on this thread. That's the point. You're lack of humility coupled with your snowflake sensitivity is why we don't want to work with a lot of computer people. The sad fact that a lot of doctors also equate computer science with IT is another problem.
- hacker_9 9y ago
  You would think OP would know that, but the original comment basically tells us all to measure our weight simply to check for CHF. If it were that simple we'd all do it I presume, but of course weight change can be a range of things. Many of which are not problematic. Hence why I pointed out that better measurement devices are needed. I've also got a feeling that it may just be you in particular that 'IT' don't like dealing with.
  - ncallaway 9y ago
    You're still missing killjoywashere's point. Their point was that _of course_ everyone involved (including the person you were originally replying to) knows that a weight-measurement is not sufficient to diagnose CHF. Literally everyone in the conversation has already presupposed that point. However, blhack working with a physician learned that it would be a super useful medical tool to have an automated mechanism for taking those weight measurements because it's a useful early indicator. Your response was exceptionally dismissive, given that there were people in that space who knew what they were doing and knew it was useful. Yet, you came by and in 10 seconds decided it wasn't useful and wasn't worth doing. So, what makes you more qualified to make that decision that blhack and the physician they were working with? Why are you so arrogant to assume that the physician who stated that would be useful was just wrong? Your insight wasn't particularly insightful, and you presented it in a way that was condescending and dismissive of others in the space.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    OP said that CHF always causes sudden weight gain; they never said that sudden weight gain always indicates CHF. You're the only person here who implied that.

killjoywashere 9y ago

This is what I was responding to: > Do you think all weight spikes simply equate to having CHF? You can't just rely on such a basic measurement when dealing with an incredibly complex system such as the human body. Considering you were knowingly addressing someone who worked in the space and blew right past something you obviously knew within seconds (not all weight spikes equate to CHF), thinking there was even a remote possiblity they hadn't thought of that, despite having a physician on staff to discuss with. Your response here (as quoted) is exactly why doctors throw their hands in the air and wait for someone else to come along. You actually thought you had an insight and despite remonstration, you persist in thinking you outwitted everyone on this thread. That's the point. You're lack of humility coupled with your snowflake sensitivity is why we don't want to work with a lot of computer people. The sad fact that a lot of doctors also equate computer science with IT is another problem.

hacker_9 9y ago
You would think OP would know that, but the original comment basically tells us all to measure our weight simply to check for CHF. If it were that simple we'd all do it I presume, but of course weight change can be a range of things. Many of which are not problematic. Hence why I pointed out that better measurement devices are needed. I've also got a feeling that it may just be you in particular that 'IT' don't like dealing with.
- ncallaway 9y ago
  You're still missing killjoywashere's point. Their point was that _of course_ everyone involved (including the person you were originally replying to) knows that a weight-measurement is not sufficient to diagnose CHF. Literally everyone in the conversation has already presupposed that point. However, blhack working with a physician learned that it would be a super useful medical tool to have an automated mechanism for taking those weight measurements because it's a useful early indicator. Your response was exceptionally dismissive, given that there were people in that space who knew what they were doing and knew it was useful. Yet, you came by and in 10 seconds decided it wasn't useful and wasn't worth doing. So, what makes you more qualified to make that decision that blhack and the physician they were working with? Why are you so arrogant to assume that the physician who stated that would be useful was just wrong? Your insight wasn't particularly insightful, and you presented it in a way that was condescending and dismissive of others in the space.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  OP said that CHF always causes sudden weight gain; they never said that sudden weight gain always indicates CHF. You're the only person here who implied that.