A space for sharing and discussing news related to global current events, technology, and society.
69452 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
A space for sharing and discussing news related to global current events, technology, and society.
69452 Members
We'll be adding more communities soon!
© 2020 Relevant Protocols Inc.
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
Relevant
Hot
New
Spam
3
3
No matter where you look, it seems that automation is on the cusp of creeping into all kinds of industries today. Already we are familiar with industrial robots replacing humans on the factory floor, or self-driving vehicles making their cautious debut on some roads. But we are less familiar with robots in fields such as medicine, where we are still inclined to trust the skill of a human doctor over that of a machine.
No matter where you look, it seems that automation is on the cusp of creeping into all kinds of industries today. Already we are familiar with industrial robots replacing humans on the factory floor, or self-driving vehicles making their cautious debut on some roads. But we are less familiar with robots in fields such as medicine, where we are still inclined to trust the skill of a human doctor over that of a machine.
I find that the framing of this article passes the Dystopian Futurism test, in that its summary of the most likely implications of the development of the computer-aided surgical incision machines that it is discussing does not claim that we will soon be able to do all our own surgery without depending on real human medical professionals to supervise or anything crazy optimistic like that...which makes it easier to be excited about the prospect that this technological development presents for more precise and more humane and thus more successful surgery. In the high-tech full-employment future of Democratic Socialism that I envision, in which capitalism has been tamed and incorporated into the economy as a crucial layer of gamified feedback to ensure the success of underlying social (and planetary) welfare targets, more HUMAN and financial resources could then be freed to make the whole hospital experience much less stressful on the patient than the current austerity of the set and setting of most hospitals as we know them tends to be: ‘Even if robotic surgeons don’t completely replace their human counterparts, robot-assisted surgeries would nevertheless be good for human doctors too, as they help to alleviate some of the physical strains that hours of performing these delicate procedures might bring upon a human surgeon. These include eye strain, hand, neck, back and leg problems, and carpal tunnel syndrome — all of which can cause a surgeon to make mistakes or take on retirement much sooner. These problems of physical strain are even more pronounced when it comes to doing minimally invasive procedures such as those found in laparoscopic surgery, where tiny incisions must be made and surgical procedures are done with the help of small video cameras and instruments that are inserted into the patient’s body. Since they are often looking at a video screen for these procedures, human surgeons do not have that direct “hands-on” experience that would be helpful during the operation. For a robot, this would be less of an issue, meaning that it’s quite likely we’ll be seeing more autonomous machines in our operating rooms in the future.’
I find that the framing of this article passes the Dystopian Futurism test, in that its summary of the most likely implications of the development of the computer-aided surgical incision machines that it is discussing does not claim that we will soon be able to do all our own surgery without depending on real human medical professionals to supervise or anything crazy optimistic like that...which makes it easier to be excited about the prospect that this technological development presents for more precise and more humane and thus more successful surgery. In the high-tech full-employment future of Democratic Socialism that I envision, in which capitalism has been tamed and incorporated into the economy as a crucial layer of gamified feedback to ensure the success of underlying social (and planetary) welfare targets, more HUMAN and financial resources could then be freed to make the whole hospital experience much less stressful on the patient than the current austerity of the set and setting of most hospitals as we know them tends to be: ‘Even if robotic surgeons don’t completely replace their human counterparts, robot-assisted surgeries would nevertheless be good for human doctors too, as they help to alleviate some of the physical strains that hours of performing these delicate procedures might bring upon a human surgeon. These include eye strain, hand, neck, back and leg problems, and carpal tunnel syndrome — all of which can cause a surgeon to make mistakes or take on retirement much sooner. These problems of physical strain are even more pronounced when it comes to doing minimally invasive procedures such as those found in laparoscopic surgery, where tiny incisions must be made and surgical procedures are done with the help of small video cameras and instruments that are inserted into the patient’s body. Since they are often looking at a video screen for these procedures, human surgeons do not have that direct “hands-on” experience that would be helpful during the operation. For a robot, this would be less of an issue, meaning that it’s quite likely we’ll be seeing more autonomous machines in our operating rooms in the future.’
[@dsegonds](/user/profile/dsegonds) seems like you don’t like this type of repost functionality :) - any particular reason why? Do you feel like it detracts from original post?
[@dsegonds](/user/profile/dsegonds) seems like you don’t like this type of repost functionality :) - any particular reason why? Do you feel like it detracts from original post?
I would prefer comments on the original posts and avoid duplicates. What is the point of seeing the same post over and over again.
I would prefer comments on the original posts and avoid duplicates. What is the point of seeing the same post over and over again.
I see your point. The idea is that someone may provide additional insight to the article and generate additional attention. It would only show up again in the New section with the option to swipe right to see the original post as well. In Trending section the post would retain its standing and show the most relevant post. But I agree - it can be a problem if the repost happens too quickly and overshadows original post. In which case a downvote is a fair penalty.
I see your point. The idea is that someone may provide additional insight to the article and generate additional attention. It would only show up again in the New section with the option to swipe right to see the original post as well. In Trending section the post would retain its standing and show the most relevant post. But I agree - it can be a problem if the repost happens too quickly and overshadows original post. In which case a downvote is a fair penalty.
A fair penalty?! I beg to differ! Tee hee heeee...these game dynamics are getting complicated! My question is, under the current setup, where it is possible to repost in the New feed by commenting, does the original poster earn coins and relevancy not only from the upvote that is invested when the commenter posts, but from the ‘revenue stream’ of upvotes that accrue to the commenter’s new post? As a user, I like to repost not only to earn views, relevancy, coin, but to make my feed into a digest of the posts that I consider most relevant, which I value not just for their currency in the game, but for the ideas they contain, which is why I consider them relevant. I like to be able to look back over my timeline and ponder what it taught me and how the various posts I imbibed and appreciated play off of school other intellectually. It’s the same reason why I still value having a large collection of important books in my bookshelves at home — so I can scan the spines and be reminded of what I think and know, ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’!
A fair penalty?! I beg to differ! Tee hee heeee...these game dynamics are getting complicated! My question is, under the current setup, where it is possible to repost in the New feed by commenting, does the original poster earn coins and relevancy not only from the upvote that is invested when the commenter posts, but from the ‘revenue stream’ of upvotes that accrue to the commenter’s new post? As a user, I like to repost not only to earn views, relevancy, coin, but to make my feed into a digest of the posts that I consider most relevant, which I value not just for their currency in the game, but for the ideas they contain, which is why I consider them relevant. I like to be able to look back over my timeline and ponder what it taught me and how the various posts I imbibed and appreciated play off of school other intellectually. It’s the same reason why I still value having a large collection of important books in my bookshelves at home — so I can scan the spines and be reminded of what I think and know, ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’!
In the example above each user earns rewards only from their own post.
In the example above each user earns rewards only from their own post.
What happens if someone who downvoted your post comments on your post, rewards-wise? Anything?
What happens if someone who downvoted your post comments on your post, rewards-wise? Anything?
That’s a good question! Right now comments don’t impact rewards, but they will in the future so will have to think of this case.
That’s a good question! Right now comments don’t impact rewards, but they will in the future so will have to think of this case.
And just to clarify — do you get rewards when you upvote something and it goes on to get upvoted more?
And just to clarify — do you get rewards when you upvote something and it goes on to get upvoted more?
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.
Some low-ranking comments may have been hidden.