The benefit of this is that articles would be dynamically synthesised from the latest data when the user requests them, and not actually created and added to the wiki. This would prevent the creation of a potentially infinite number of articles on subjects not significant enough to merit a write-up by a human author, so could be a way to combat the 'bot inflation' of article numbers.
I don't think anyone's started work on it yet, but if someone fancies it...
Depneds on the company - best to do some research. Are there any clues from photos on the company website/at events? If you know someone (who knows someone etc) who works there, ask what the informal dress code is, but probably go a little smarter.
Also, although this is more the case overseas rather than in Westeros itself, slaves. Ancient Greece and Rome certainly had the knowledge and ingenuity to have industrial revolutions, but with the availability of mass forced labour, there would have been a much smaller cost saving in mechanising tasks. Serfdom kind of does the same thing to a lesser extent.
Not sure about the identifier used in England and Wales, but in Scotland most boards use the 10-digit CHI number. From this you can determine the patient's date of birth and sex.
For this reason it is not used as a patient identifier for information visible beyond staff cleared to view this personal information. Either data is aggregated to a point where it's not individually identifiable or an anonymised ID is used, and the most distinctive fields removed. I hope that's what's happening here!
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
- Douglas Adams
This is very like what happens in the book World War Z, which was probably inspired by government responses to SARS and other epidemics. A mysterious disease arises in China, and the government strongly censors reporting of outbreaks. This and other factors (people smuggling, illegal organ trade) contribute to its spread worldwide, and it is only when it cannot be contained that the world is aware and can start to understand and fight it.
As downvote-prone as that comment seems like it could be, I would like to add it it by saying that this can't be the right way to handle diseases. There has to be a sweet spot between telling everyone immediately, insighting a panic, and holding back all of the information.
I'm not too incredibly concerned with managing the information from the general public; but, the WHO and other people should always be immediately informed. In fact, if they were rapidly informed and we can get a cure out quickly, then the loss of life from these new diseases wouldn't be as bad, I would like to hope.
>There has to be a sweet spot between telling everyone immediately, insighting a panic, and holding back all of the information.
What if there's panic? It's not with a, say, earthquake prediction, where people would evacuate cities etc.
Rather, they'd stay at home more, avoid crowded places, avoid people looking sick, and wear those white mouth/nose masks more when out -- in all, that should help reduce the spreading of the dicease.
I was imagining my mental panic response for THIS instance:
- companies refusing to fly people back from Saudi Arabia to the United States
- us putting all people of the interested groups, for example, all Muslims and family members of anyone Arabic looking, into special hospitals to make sure they don't spread the disease, even if we don't have it.
- violent outrage if our family members end up sick, and there is a mosque down the road.
This particular article seemed to make it pretty clear that the yearly pilgrimage often results in illness from all the populations coming together with their own unique resistances. This particular pilgrimage, with these numbers, tends to be with a single population. That population could be seen as the source of the disease, and bad things happen.
That's the sort of 'panic' I'm thinking of and it's not good. Oh, and the reason I'm saying this level of panic is due to the currently estimated 56% death rate after extreme signs are shown.
> There has to be a sweet spot between telling everyone immediately, inciting a panic
I disagree. Perfect transparency is always the right way to go with epidemic diseases. That information will go through all kinds of natural filters: scientific journalists who can dispense useful advice, foreign governments that can refer to quarantine policies, and every day people who can make tradeoffs about the risks they're willing to face. Far worse is having a bunch of seemingly arbitrary restrictions imposed because of--in the minds of citizenry--some vague but clearly terrifying disease is killing people, but about which the populace has no useful information.
Cures don't really come out quickly, or even vaccines. The main way you stop a disease by preventing its spread, not curing it. So what ideally comes out quickly is guidelines and simple preventative measures. Watch for these signs and report them. Don't spend time around people coughing. Wear a mask. Etc. And people have to know that stuff if they're going to be part of the solution, not to mention the everyday medical professionals at your local hospital (with no connection to the WHO) who need to know who to isolate and what preventative measures to take. And of course they need to know how bad it is in order to prioritize it relative to other concerns. Concealing from people what's happening makes all of that harder.
We saw with SARS in the West that epidemics can be overblown, but there wasn't widespread panic and the widespread availability of information allowed people to choose how much to guard against it. I'd go so far as to say it's your right to overreact to accurate information. And in the end, it wasn't some magic cure that stopped SARS; it's was fast response and quarantine.
Anything other than complete transparency about public health issues is immoral.
Long term, I think the goal should be to improve the general public's response to information to the point where it's okay if everyone knows right away because they won't be stupid about it.
There's a problem with "getting a cure out quickly". For most diseases that's simply impossible - is there a cure for SARS yet? The best you can do is slow down the spread. If you detect it quickly enough hopefully you'll stop it.
Interesting that having a daughter makes CEOs more mindful of equal pay, when they already had a woman close to them that they should be looking out for - their wife/partner (I'm assuming gay CEOs with kids don't form a significant percentage of the sample).
Is there any data on how CEOs and their partners share childcare responsibilities? I'd guess that most of the load is shouldered by their other half, given the kind of hours CEOs tend to work (especially in early stage companies).
At least it's not a load of non-technical founders of 'pink' startups (fashion, kids etc) and tech tv presenters, as these things tend towards. Found some cool people to follow on Twitter, anyhow.
I had similar feelings when I started to use 'programmer' and 'developer' on my CV, and when I started my first IT contracting job. I had done programming in my previous job, but it was in no way acknowledged in my job description or grade. Similarly when I started to earn more than I had previously, I questioned whether I deserved it.
The chicken-and-egg situation with job experience and employability makes it inevitable that you will be in positions where you 'don't know what you're doing'. But if you have the determination to seek out answers and fill the gaps in your knowledge, you'll become that expert you think you aren't.
The benefit of this is that articles would be dynamically synthesised from the latest data when the user requests them, and not actually created and added to the wiki. This would prevent the creation of a potentially infinite number of articles on subjects not significant enough to merit a write-up by a human author, so could be a way to combat the 'bot inflation' of article numbers.
I don't think anyone's started work on it yet, but if someone fancies it...