The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, regulates how health information is used and exchanged among “covered entities” such as hospitals and doctor’s offices. But the law gives pharmacies leeway as to what legal standard they require before disclosing medical records to law enforcement.
HIPAA law and implementing regs include broad allowances for disclosure to law enforcement, some of which involve some degree of subjective judgement on the part of the covered entity (and most of which do not require a warrant), but, no, it does not allow pharmacies (or any other covered entities) "leeway as to what legal standard they require" (emphasis added) before such disclosure.
I work in this space, and your comment is completely wrong. Data covered by HIPAA is always covered by HIPAA. A covered entity would also include a health insurer, and all payment intermediaries, this is straight from the HHS faq (https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/covered-enti...)
I don't think you read the article or the links you provided. It clearly states the police are obtaining this information through subpoena and not warrants:
In briefings, officials with America’s eight biggest pharmacy giants — Walgreens Boots Alliance, CVS, Walmart, Rite Aid, Kroger, Cigna, Optum Rx and Amazon Pharmacy — told congressional investigators that they required only a subpoena, not a warrant, to share the records.
And in the link you provided:
When might it be permitted for a pharmacy to disclose PHI to law enforcement officers?
Bearing in mind that, once in a designated record set, PHI could be an individual´s name or physical description, a pharmacy (or pharmacy staff) is permitted to – but not required to – disclose PHI to law enforcement officers in the following six circumstances:
as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests
In this case, the leeway in the standard here is what the pharmacy chooses to comply with. They are choosing to comply with subpoenas. This article points out how that standard could be higher (warrants).
You keep dropping links for me to chase instead of just reading between the lines. Police cannot issue their own subpoenas. Police are not judicial officers. However, they are getting judicial officers to write their subpoenas. A judicial officer does not have to be a judge, therefore the standard is lower than a warrant.
HIPAA was never a law about privacy of medical data. It's a law that governs the management of medical data, with very limited protections for privacy. I think most people misunderstand that law, its purpose, and its implications.
Having read Work Rules! by Laszlo Bock, It does not seem that strange to me...
The Google culture and leadership, right or wrong, hold on to the belief that the spaces they cultivate, do more than just enhance productivity. For example, they believe that (regardless of how rare it may be) their spaces create opportunities for teams to bump into each other and build solutions/products out of that.
I think there is something to that - a lot of stuff used to come up from random encounter with other peopl in the company and yet that almost totally absent now. A lot of stuff seems like it is still coasting based on that momentum (eq. people you met at a conference or at lunch) yet new connections are not being made.
That could be a problem over time unless people can met at the office again in some form and go to conferences. Or some remote form of that would be needed.
Random encounters that lead to interesting things can happen when working from home. For example, I work on Jupyter and last week there was a "Jupyter realtime collaboration workshop" and at one point participants were randomly divided up into breakout groups. I ended up sharing and learning all kinds of interesting new things with a small group of random people I've never met before, and making important connections. It felt very much like the sort of random things that could happen in person, with the main difference being that it was even more efficient than it would be in an office or conference center.
Yeah, but that's the thing - you need to consciously organize such events. I'm sure remote only companies have always done such informal "mixer" events but companies that were not heavily into WFH might no be aware it's needed untill all the social inteaction based stuff thats currently coasting with inertia comes to a halt.
I personally believe that the "serendipitous random hallway conversations" thing is totally overrated. I don't deny that it probably once in a while leads to a great product, but how often? Quantify it! Moreover, if your business depends on this element of randomness to provide value, I'd argue the opposite: you have a process problem that needs to be addressed. Brainstorming and ideation should not be dependent on the roll of dice.
If you cure cancer, that's a gift that keeps on giving. Imagine knowing day-in and day-out your work was all worth it and you continually save N lives YoY.
And yet, it is a common criticism that Silicon Valley is focused on building cat photo sharing apps, or on demand services, or whatever is the current defining stereotypical trend, than tackling the “big problems”, such as cancer. So certainly our economic structure incentivizes frivolous wants, which make investors happy and founders wealthy.
Mythical Man-Month and all that, but progress would probably be a little less slow if more people and organizations are incentivized to work on the same problem. See the progress on self-driving vehicles.
Self-driving vehicles are complete hype - so far from a reality it's ridiculous that people here still seem so bullish on them.
Please show me a single vehicle that is anywhere close to being able to drive unassisted in all weather conditions and on any roads that a human would drive.
> unassisted in all weather conditions and on any roads that a human would drive
If that's your goalpost for impact then of course it looks bleak. A mechanical loom doesn't have to be able to handle every type of thread and pattern a human can to change the nature of production, goods, and employment. Likewise a truck that can drive on freeways on 80% of days (and nights) would already be huge.
A mechanical loom can be made so it doesn't kill people when it makes a minor mistake, and doesn't have to dodge unpredictable humans and random wildlife or other obstacles while working.
That freedom to mess up is a luxury that self-driving cars don't have, and makes all the difference.
People on here seem to think that a self-driving car only has to be safer than a human in order to be viable (which is bar that isn't close to having been reached in itself), but in reality humans are held legally responsible when their driving kills people.
If a self-driving car kills someone, then the manufacturer is responsible, not the owner of the car who wasn't driving so can't possibly be responsible.
Otherwise we need to have a conversation as a society on what liability we will accept, because I know that I don't want to be the one paying for the deaths caused by these car companies playing fast and loose with people's safety in order to capture the "autopilot" market.
You seem to be bringing up the danger and uncertainty around liability as an obstacle for the adoption of self driving vehicles, thus making them "far from a reality" / "complete hype", right?
As sad as it is, I'm not so sure that the economic incentives around automating truck drivers won't win over a few lives in the end. I'd be curious what vegas odds would be on self driving cars. I wouldn't bet against it.
People are bullish on them because they don't need to get anywhere near that bar to be useful. A car that can drive itself only on well maintained freeways during the day in good weather is still incredibly useful.
All we've seen so far is tarted-up driver assist systems that sometimes suddenly decide they don't want to be in control anymore, killing the actual driver or whoever happens to be unlucky enough to be in front of the vehicle.
It's all hype.
The problem is too difficult to solve with current technology without drastically changing the roads and removing humans altogether.
Rio Tinto was able to get it working with a drastically limited scope on closed roads with infinite money.
>Autonomous haul trucks are operated by a supervisory system and a central controller, rather than a driver. They use pre-defined GPS courses to automatically navigate haul roads and intersections and to know actual locations, speeds and directions of other vehicles at all times.
Regardless of their product viability, doubtless an immense amount of advancement has occurred in the last five years because of interest- economically driven- in the field. Imagine if similar incentives existed for other hard problems.
I would add Education to the forefront of accountability. Police officer careers require no more education than a high school diploma/GED and the police academy, which is roughly 27 weeks. Imagine if being a police officer meant having a deep understanding of ethics, psychology (not just tactics) and law.
Stop accepting any physically fit hothead off the street because they can be trained into the role. Lastly, as a citizen, be willing to pay more in taxes knowing that the person who pulled you over cares, is qualified, and will not shoot you and try to cover it up.
Police have also gained the hard-fought-in-court prerogative to screen candidates on the basis of intelligence, excluding anyone unusual in any direction. It creates a monoculture as opposed to an ecology of diverse intellectualism.
I don't think training on ethics is required, nor would it be sufficient if not accompanied by a substantial change in accountability. Today's police are virtually untouchable. They know it, and act accordingly.
I agree with this mostly. However, the data coming from MoviePass may be flawed. I'm much more likely to see a movie I would never normally pay to see with a MoviePass subscription.
> I'm much more likely to see a movie I would never normally pay to see with a MoviePass subscription.
That is the exact thing that makes the data actually interesting: it removes the risk factor, aka "do I want to see a movie for $12/person and risk that it's trash?", from the viewer's decision process.
There's a lot more interesting data to mine there.
I'm a lot more willing to walk out of a movie I didn't pay for. There's not really a way to capture this data right now, but the MoviePass system requires you to have an app on your phone, and check in shortly before the movie, at the theater.
If I was them I'd be looking at putting audio fingerprinting on the phone to determine whether people leave before the movie ends.
Sapiens opened my eyes to social constructs and human behavior and forced me to think about the vast timeline of humanity and how small our time is within it. Personally it provoked a re-visit to the philosophical questioning of life.
:) I was rather hoping that reading a single page (instead of a couple of pages) and then stopping would qualify.
Anyway, what I meant was that the plan was tentative. (I have read Guns, Germs and Steel and a few reviews seemed to liken Sapiens to that book. So was looking for some other perspectives.)
Does Apple have a messenger that can support both messages and video? They have Messages and FaceTime but they are separate apps and only if you have an apple device
But it's not really. It's primarily focused around text, and chime is around videos and meetings. That's the use case. Chime is built around meetings. Slack is built around chat.
This is not true. We use Chime for text every day. It doesn't have all the 3rd party integrations that Slack does, but it give you the same basic functionality.
Chime is definitely better than Lync, but I stand by my statement that it's not very good at text. It's missing basic UI features like threading or merged comments, profile pictures/icons, not to mention more advanced integrations.
I love using it for meetings... but text functionality is still lagging behind Slack, or even Mattermost (also used within Amzn)
It's definitely true. My team also uses Chime for text every day. The client has virtually no options, even basic formatting stuff that has been available on dozens of IRC clients for decades.
Chime's main use is video. Slack's main use is text/chat. While both have components of the other, they are optimized for different primary use cases. Pretending otherwise is silly.
> I do not recommend Python 3 to any beginner due to serious issues with the design of strings, destruction of dynamic typing in strings vs. bytes, ...
He still doesn't seem to be a fan of Python 3. Not sure if it's a good idea to write a book about a language that you don't like..
It seems like he does not like programming in general:
> I've been programming for a very long time. So long that it's incredibly boring to me. [...] Programming as a profession is only moderately interesting. It can be a good job, but you could make about the same money and be happier running a fast food joint.
This is the biggest problem I have with any of Zed's content. To me it feels like he is saying "learning this stuff is fucking useless. Get a job running a KFC as programming sucks". I mean for God sake how patronising. If I want to learn something I don't need to be told it's pointless and to rub a fast food joint. I really dislike his attitude. Also I hate his "I can't be arsed to explain this bit as I'm bored of teaching you so Google for x y z and read about it yourself. "
This has been my biggest problem with suggesting LPTHW to people. Not just that it was Python2 oriented, but that it was explicitly opposed to Python3.
Bluetooth 4.0 maxes out at around 25Mbps. Bluetooth 5.0 is supposed to double that speed. As far as latency, that should depend on how far away the devices are from each other and how quick the movement is from device to device. You would encounter the same issues with wifi, but 802.11 ac allows for 500Mbps for a single link and up to 1Gbps for multiple links.
