> What if, instead of having to reach out to the big players, the economics of having a software developer or 2 on staff make it such that you could build custom-tailored, bespoke software to work "with" your company and not against?
It's probably risk and liability and not development costs that keep things from moving in house. Not things AI is great at mitigating.
Hospitals are huge liability sinks. Doctors are constantly sued for killing, injuring, or traumatizing patients, because it's impossible to consistently save everyone.
Which is why they don't food liability when they can. Is it worth saving $100,000 a year if it allows the lawyer to say "if they had used industry standard software would the medical error have happened?"
The research hospital in my neighborhood has a whole biomedical engineering dept and regularly tries out new medical technology on me.
They consistently try non-standard approaches if they feel like it can improve the standard of care since their commercialization team can make more money. They can also iterate faster and deliver better outcomes.
I'm guessing either EHR software is uncompetitive or nobody has tried it yet. Or it's just because I live in Toronto and we have a really good healthcare system.
Improved EHRs would improve medicine by making doctors more productive. Increases the amount of time they can spend billing instead of on administrative overhead. More billing is more money.
I don't think this is bureaucratic maliciousness to kill innovative EHRs. My guess is it's a really hard and boring problem to solve due to the integration work which makes it hard to break the network effects.
That's not actually true. It might be for the bigger companies, but certainly not the smaller ones.
And "risk" in this industry could mean any number of different things. We, as a medium-sized provider, have a BAA with Microsoft for HIPAA. That means that I can utilize information I've gotten from my EMR and build line-of-business apps that bridge the gaps between other systems they may have to work in. In fact, our Microsoft tenant has a much higher level of security than the underlying EMR.
I'm quite literally living what I spoke about above. The reason why I was brought in was because teh current CEO has a very tech-focused mindset, otherwise agencies usually can't afford a full-time software developer. Now, those economics are changing.
Also, I haven't heard of an agency that didn't want custom reports built because they found the default ones unsuitable. So even something like the ability to mainline Power BI reports would be compelling.
But Apple under Steve Jobs had all the financial numbers to support it, it wasn't valued solely on Steve Jobs' personality, the products were there, and being loved by consumers. Revenue wasn't dipping while the stock was going up, revenue, market share, profits were consistently on the rise.
> Patreon gives creators the option to either increase their prices in the iOS app only, or absorb the fee themselves, keeping prices the same across platforms.
I'm curious what percentage of creators chose which
He made plans for a trip to Paris to read a specific book, but the librarians he had been corresponding with mailed it to him as a sign of respect for his time.
Freakanomics made that argument, but there is very little statistical evidence abortions were the cause. For one thing, abortions were legal in states like California and New York, which also saw crime drops.
What is the correct cost for a flight leaving in 3 hours with an empty seat? What is the correct cost for a scheduled flight leaving in 2 months with no seats sold yet?
Tickets aren't the same price for everyone, and planes fill to variable levels. Plus there are addons like luggage fees and beverages that have a huge markup. What is the best way to solve for that?
Besides, it averages something like 53L of fuel/passenger to make that trip. Hardly necessitating £500.
You can do whatever calculations and speculations you want, but the fact is that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not.
Another thing with flying is that it is so easy to go long distances as it takes limited time. A trip London-Barcelona is a 1.5-2 day trip one-way by car. You think twice before doing that. An intercontinental trip London-Bangkok is impossible by car, but creates more CO2 than all energy one person uses in a year (heating, cooking, going by car to work etc). Dirt cheap and in the blink of an eye.
If you look into the details, in the US, aviation fuel is taxed very low and for international flights not taxed at all.
"Kerosene-based jet fuel used for commercial aviation (transporting persons or property for hire) is taxed at a reduced rate of 4.4 cents per gallon." [0] That is $0.044 per galon.
For cars the tax is between $0.31-$0.74 per gallon depending on state + federal tax of $0.184 so in total somewhere between $0.494-$0.924.
That means aviation fuel is taxed 1/10-1/20 of what car fuel is taxed. So in essence aviation fuel is barely taxed.
For international flights it is tax free:
"The tax code provides statutory exemptions that result in zero or near-zero tax liability for specific fuel uses. Exemptions generally apply to fuel used in foreign international flights, military aircraft, governmental entities, farming, or by nonprofit educational organizations." [0]
Intent to commit espionage is not a crime (but committing or attempting to commit it is) Lying on the form is. It is probably easier to demonstrate intent to commit espionage than to catch them in the act.
> It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.
The liquids requirement was in response to a famous (at the time) plot by people in Britain to smuggle a two part liquid explosive onto the plane. So the context was, at the time, obvious and needed no explanation.
reply