4 ms·
This comment seems to show a pretty fundamental misunderstand of what CRT is (or isn't), or this article, or both. The article is a bit fluffy, but some of the
by ska 6y ago
This comment seems to show a pretty fundamental misunderstand of what CRT is (or isn't), or this article, or both.
The article is a bit fluffy, but some of the problems they are describing are well known in the industry (less agreement on what to do about it) and have been showing up in the medical literature for decades at this point.
- leet_coder_boi 6y agoska: everything in medical literature is fact and in no way fiscally motivated
- ska 6y ago> everything in medical literature is fact and in no way fiscally motivated It's hard to imagine a net financial benefit for many of the studies. Of course it's not perfect. But dismissing something like this out of had for what, (vague ideological reasons?) is irrational. There is good research in the area, and you are free to read it. There is some poor research in the area too, such is life. It's not even suggesting anything malicious, just that in many cases if you follow the easiest path in design and testing, you will end up biasing your inputs in ways that have impact. I have seen this play out.
- leet_coder_boi 6y agoA fiscally motivated piece of "journalism" is absolutely worth dismissal. solutions floated: #1 Double the diversity candidates in your testing pool (ie: use a testing group that it non-representative of any naturally occurring environment) #2 Use novel technologies like "real-time ultrasonic scanning" #3 "Transparency for medical algorithms" (sounds like a precept to industry regulation which is notoriously anti-competitive) Doesn't take a lot to imagine the biases at play here...