I don't think the commenter you are responding too thinks this is a good thing - they are just describing that it is. I read it as just a blunt summary of how absurd this situation is.
out of context that makes sense...but in the context of a case report how do you implement that? The patients have privacy rights and the authors/doctors have a responsibliity to protect them. That doesn't justify this but it does force a conversation about what 'every single data point' means. Does it mean the patient's real name and social security number? their complete medical chart?
Case reports are descriptive not determinative and should be treated as such by other scholars. They are 'I saw this' not 'this is generalizably true'. They can (and often are) replicated or countered but they are not per se research as you are thinking about it. Whether it is fictitious or not, other scholars should be cautious in citing them as proof/evidence in papers that fit into the 'research' mold.
From a legal perspective, journal article authors can implement this by following the official HHS guidance for de-identification. This applies to any use of protected health information (PHI), not just case reports.
not only that but they leveraged the 'compliance' mindset that comes with government institutions to do so.
This was first reported at least a week or two ago and only now are they getting aroun dto thinking about making it an actual rule (which takes time and process). The rules that aren't really rules for plausible deniability serve several purposes including normalizing compliance in advance.
I'll set aside opinions of the rule because people can really feel differently about the long and short term balance of security and soft power...but not rule rules is an approach to government I really struggle to see both sides of.
They are a private company they can largely sell or not sell they want. They aren’t saying they won’t build them because they are to effective they are saying they won’t build them because they aren’t safe.
> The President is hereby authorized (1) to require that
performance under contracts or orders (other than contracts of
employment) which he deems necessary or appropriate to promote
the national defense shall take priority over performance under any
other contract or order, and, for the purpose of assuring such priority,
to require acceptance and performance of such contracts or orders in
preference to other contracts or orders by any person he finds to be
capable of their performance, and (2) to allocate materials and
facilities in such manner, upon such conditions, and to such extent
as he shall deem necessary or appropriate to promote the national
defense.
That simply says if a company offers a service the government gets to cut the line. It doesn say I have to make them a hamburger if I’m a sushi restaurant.
Sure, but the contract in place forbids these things. So the contract is literally a non-performer and cannot perform such orders in the way it is written. So, I personally struggle to see outside of taking over the supply chain how Anthropics contract forces them to do this
He doesn’t need to refute it he just needs to offer an alternate claim.
The site provides no citations, no evidence, so there’s no need to defend the count argument or honestly even make it.
The sit isn’t just false, it is flat out disrespectful to all the workers, engineers, founders, and everyone else involved in the industries he says don’t exist that actually do exist. The site is basically “I think this is hard so no one else could possibly do it”.
Just because it’s in GitHub doesn’t mean it’s more credible than the stuff my mother posts on Facebook about mark zuckerberg not having permission to use her photos.
As just a statement of bias…the guys at that site have a pretty clear distaste for Tesla. They are industry experts and that’s where their analysis comes from, but it’s palpable. I would call it evidence versus politically based but noting it. The difference in bias though is ther snark has citations to primary sources not just wild generic claims.
reply