• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023
  • LordPassionFruit@lemm.eetoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Single payer/socialized heath care vs private vs combined
    6·
    3 months ago

    Part of the time scale was how low risk the issue ended up being. We knew from the first few months that even if it was a tumor, so there was no “rush” to get me in to see people.

    One of the ‘mindsets’ of single payer is that more severe/risky issues can get fast tracked over less severe/risky ones. Ultimately, all that was happening to me was that my vision was slightly affected (because my eyelid wouldn’t open fully). But had it been a tumour, I likely would have been on the surgeons table within a month of them finding out.

  • LordPassionFruit@lemm.eetoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Single payer/socialized heath care vs private vs combined
    15·
    3 months ago

    I also live under single payer healthcare, and I have experience with a much lower stakes “hail mary” type event.

    A number of years ago, I developed a growth on my eyelid that no one was sure what it was.

    We started with the optometrist, who thought it was a duct blocked by dirt and suggested a medicated cleaning regimen where they assumed it occurred. This didn’t help.

    So I got recommended up the scale to my GP, who took one look at it and said, “Yeah, that ain’t right. Here’s a recommendation to an eye specialist at the hospital.” which took ~1 month to get an appointment.

    A month later, I have my first appointment with the eye specialist, who isn’t quite sure what it is but knows that it’s an internal problem and not a blocked duct. After the third appointment (3 months after the first) she says that she’s narrowed it down to either a benign tumour or a blood clot, but isn’t confident in her eyelid surgery capabilities and recommends me to an eyelid specialist in a neighbouring province.

    6 months after the first optometrist appointment, I have my first appointment with the specialist who identifies it during the appointment as an internal scab that will decompose itself, but the wound isn’t healing. He says that surgery is an option, but there’s a chance I go blind and a smaller chance that I straight up die. He tells me that I’ll come back in 3 months because it’s not life threatening, and if it starts getting much worse, we’ll discuss removing it.

    After an appointment with him every 3 months for almost 2 years, it finally cleared up.

    The issue itself was relatively low risk, but it wasn’t until 6 months in that it was deemed “not cancer.” At every step, the risk was evaluated, and ‘hail mary’ options were discussed. But they were always discussed as “if it gets worse, we can do this, and the decision is yours”. So (at least where I live) there are hail mary options and you can take them, but only if the risk to your health is significant enough that the rewards outweigh the risk.

  • LordPassionFruit@lemm.eetoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•What's your best "sticking it to the man" story?
    4·
    5 months ago

    I had an almost opposite scenario to this happen to me in middle school.

    I was done of my classwork for the day, so I was playing games on my iPod Touch. Teacher notices it, confiscates it, and tells me I can get it back at the end of the day at the front office. Not so much getting an earful, just trying to get me to focus.

    At the end of the day, I go to pick it up and the teacher says “I didn’t realize this wasn’t a phone. I would’ve let you keep it if I’d known”

  • LordPassionFruit@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.world•Google AI making up recalls that didn’t happenEnglish
    23·
    5 months ago

    This was with regards to Air Canada and its LLM that hallucinated a refund policy, which the company argued they did not have to honour because it wasn’t their actual policy and the bot had invented it out of nothing.

    An important side note is that one of the cited reasons that the Court ruled in favour of the customer is because the company did not disclose that the LLM wasn’t the final say in its policy, and that a customer should confirm with a representative before acting upon the information. This meaning that the the legal argument wasn’t “the LLM is responsible” but rather “the customer should be informed that the information may not be accurate”.

    I point this out because I’m not so sure CVS would have a clear cut case based on the Air Canada ruling, because I’d be surprised if Google didn’t have some legalese somewhere stating that they aren’t liable for what the LLM says.