Ah! So it's my responsibility to teach you how to program properly! I must now police every possible new tutorial, framework, library release, and if the author didn't include accessibility I should ... Make my complete alternative version of that thing! With Accessibility included! This is ... super Scalable!
Or, you know, if you say "This is how you make a UI library" maybe you could think about ... what a USER INTERFACE actually is? Because blind people are users? and we need to interface?
Do you not see the irony? If it's not your responsibility, why should it be the responsibility of the author of this tutorial?
People write tutorials on what they are interested in, what they have knowledge of, and what they want to share.
Accessibility is an important topic, to be sure, and is clearly of particularly high importance to you. Others might complain that they didn't include how to create a high performance table view, or embed an OpenGL view. I think most people, however, will take it as what it is - a well written, helpful contribution.
Your comment specifically asked if you were being harsh, and the consensus appears to be "yes". Perhaps if you worded things differently you might get a different response.
You don't have to make a complete alternative. You can add calls to ATK (accessibility toolkit) on Linux/Unix platforms. I'm not sure what needs to be done on Win32 platforms though.
If developers have to static-link all their libraries to ship a Mac-native app, you're already doing most of the work to ship a cross-platform web runtime like Electron.
Therefore it's not super surprising that successful products like Discord/Slack/Spotify gave up on a good native experience decades ago.
one of the weirdest and most off-putting parts of macos for me was that dyld isn't aware of that standardized location. a lot of curious oversights the more you pick at it.
What do you mean? I can just tell the linker to link against something in the shared cache and it finds it. It’s been as simple as `-framework <FrameworkName>`
I’ve never had to do extra work to find a system vendored dylib in my decades of supporting cross platform apps.
They probably mean that they don’t like the way the “install name” (as it’s referred to) of a shared library is embedded in the library and then copied to whatever links the library, and is then used to find the library at runtime. I suspect they’d prefer to build the shared library with an arbitrary install name and then just have it found automatically by being in the Frameworks or Libraries directory.
Most platforms don’t have a concept of “install name” distinct from the library name; the value was originally the full path to the deployment location of the library, which was revised to support meta-paths (like `@rpath/LibraryName`) in Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 and is what the runtime dynamic loader (dyld) uses to match a library at load time. So an application’s executable can have a set of self-relative run path search paths, which is how it can load libraries from its Frameworks and Libraries directories.
Depends on whether you’re building with Xcode; when I worked on it, I ensured that the templates included with Xcode would have the right setup to declare appropriate run path search paths for applications, and appropriate install names for frameworks and (shared) libraries.
However when building with just command line tools and not passing all the same arguments an Xcode project and target causes to be passed, you have to do extra work to ensure the right run path search paths get into built executables and the right install names get into built libraries and frameworks.
That latter is to ensure that if you don’t pass those extra arguments, executables and shared libraries are built for Darwin-based platforms as much as reasonably possible like they are on other UNIX-like platforms.
I mean I had to manually patch the rpaths of macos binaries distributed as an app bundle, because dyld didn't have the relative location of the shared libs in the app bundle in its search path. Not a huge deal, since patching rpaths was also part of the other Unix pipelines, the reasoning was just different. Patching rpaths on other platforms was because we were distributing dependencies in the base directory of the application, which isn't the standard way to do things. On mac, it was because the dynamic linker wasn't aware of app bundle structure for some reason, which is a weird disconnect between an OS standard and a basic system component.
Some medications are prescribed with this taken into account actually.
For example if a medication has sedating effects (such as some antidepressants) it may be advised to be taken before bed so this side effect is turned into something generally beneficial (more sleep) and less prevalent during waking hours).
Statins (cholesterol lowering medications) are usually prescribed at night time as this is when your cholesterol catabolism is most active.
Pain relief is often varied around sleep schedules
Things like insulin may be driven by life events and as needed. But I'm talking about regularly scheduled medication.
Antidepressants may be advisable to take before bed as a rule, but it's an excellent example of drugs that are supposed to be taken at the same time every day. Irregularly moving around the hour you take the antidepressant makes them less likely to work.
That's why irregular sleep schedules aren't a good reason to move medication.
UK pharmacists are able to to do blister packs but this is a hugely labour intensive endeavour. Specific quantities of each medication need to be dispensed, placed in the correct pocket, checked and double checked. Compared to dispensing a factory sealed box of $X units. As a manual process it does not scale to providing this service for more than a small percentage of patients where the benefit is greatest (memory impairment, etc).
Also in my experience pharmacists dislike having to do this laborious process.
It's a different model to what you are used to and IMHO more flexible and powerful. If you try and keep operating in a manner learned on a different model you will inevitably be frustrated.
OK so now we have to issue a series of hotkeys (and then another series to undo them) in order to achieve what only requires half those actions on other systems.
There has been no evidence provided to show how this design is "more flexible and powerful," since all the same options exist on Windows, which ALSO offers other options that require half the steps to achieve app-switching.
That’s why I just cmd+(shift+)tab and cmd+(shift+)`. No need to use a mouse and it doesn’t bother me that the window stays in the background. Most apps run in full screen anyway. Same with windows: alt+tab (citrix…) is the way to go.
I haven’t minimised a window in months. For those special needs, there’s expose.
Many of these structures have concrete channels downstream of the weir which means that the stopper/keeper/recirculating water is equally strong across the width of the river. It can also be extremely hard to swim with any sort of accuracy due to being constantly recirculated and not-very buoyant due to the entrained air.
There are other subtleties in 3D as well; some weirs form a downstream-pointing V when viewed from above the dam - these are generally considered safer as the currents will (generally) move you to the middle of the river and downstream where the water is more likely to be escapable - see [1].
Others can form an upstream-pointing V which has the opposite effect where the currents will move you towards the middle of the river but upstream back towards the stopper/keeper/hydraulic.
What a bizarre comment. Every patient who goes under general anaesthesia for surgery (life saving or otherwise) is ventilated and usually without issue.
“Laying tubes into the trachea” I presume refers to tracheostomy.
Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell. A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio. If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator. No ECMO = you die.
I think there are a significant number of general anesthesia patients who don't get intubated, but the big issue is that being intubated for four hours is very different from being intubated for two weeks, which is very likely to kill you. (And, yes, not breathing will also kill you. But intubation was working so badly that hospitals developed proning protocols for covid patients as a less fatal alternative which was less likely to kill them.)
If squirting oxygenated perfluorodecane up your ass for two weeks can keep you alive more often than proning or intubation, that'd be a great improvement. Could save a lot of lives. Buy Dow Chemical stonks.
In general it's true that being on a ventilator for two weeks carries a high mortality, but that's largely due to being sick enough to require ventilation for that duration. Presumably without effective oxygenation or airway protection, these people would have died before the two week mark. COVID pneumonia presents a special case. Early on the thinking was that noninvasive ventilation with bipap etc would promote spread of the virus, so the recommendation was to proceed earlier to intubation. In retrospect this did appear to lead to higher mortality, likely related to ventilator associated pneumonia and sedation and paralytic drugs. So we've returned to a more ordinary stance where intubation is a last resort. So, intubation is bad, but for most circumstances, it beats a trip to the morgue.
Getting in a car is fraught with peril. Every time somebody gets in a vehicle they're dicing with death.
I think it's important to contextualise the risk. The risk of dying from an anaesthetic is about 1 in 100,000. Compare with risk of dying in a car accident in a given year for example.
And again, it comes down to risk:benefit. Anaesthetics are not given out willy-nilly. The reason for the anaesthetic is considered along with the patient's co-morbidities and personal physiological parameter where relevant. Based on this a reasonable estimate of the personalised risks for that patient for that operation can be given for the patient to choose if they wish to proceed or not.
> Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell.
Obviously. So why use these invasive procedures if a less invasive one could do the job with less risk?
> A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
Did you come straight from the 19th century or something? Hospital acquired infections kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. That's hardly a small worry.
> As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio.
No shit. That's why there's interest in alternative procedures with less risk for the same benefit.
> If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator.
Unless… there's a new method that bypasses the lungs. Did you read the linked article?
Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.
My comment was regarding your expletive laden derision of devices which save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And you seem to have missed the point. I did. It say hospital acquired infections are not prevalent or problematic. My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit. If you need ECMO you will almost certainly die without it. If you have ECMO there is a compratively small risk of infection that may kill you.
And yes thanks, I did read the article. I’m also a doctor and have spent many months working in ITU, anaesthesia, and operating theatres, and managing acutely unwell COVID-19 patients.
Let us all be glad you’re not making any treatment decisions.
> Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.
Could've fooled me with how dismissive you were.
> My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit.
Then there should be no problem with highlighting the risks so people realise that alternatives are worth it not just as somehow inferior "second standard" as implied by the person I was replying to, but as equal or better solution.
To clarify for you (again), my comment was regarding your unfounded derision of existing, proven, lifesaving technologies—I was not dismissing of the technique proposed in the article.
I don't think _"F### ventilators. They damage the patient's lungs, and laying tubes into the trachea requires traumatic surgery and carries significant secondary infection risk"_ is really offering an informed or balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of intubation and ventilation hence my initial reply.
On the contrary, this offers an emotive, highly negative, and uninformed opinion with no balance. We are in a time of a global pandemic with the general public now aware of intubation, ventilation, ECMO, CPAP, BiPAP, and other respiratory interventions. Many people and/or their families are having to face or consider these interventions. Your comment is potentially harmful.
Against to be clear, the medical profession is (spoiler alert) acutely aware of the risks and negatives of ventilation, including extended ventilation, ECMO, surgical and percutaneous traches, and every other intervention that is offered. These risks are discussed with patients and families who often lack the domain expertise, it therefore being part of the role of the doctor to explain to the best of their knowledge what options the patient has before them and likely outcomes of the different options. Ultimately (ideally) the patient makes a decision for themselves based on this information.
You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
If someone gets their health advice off Hackernews comments I'd say they need a psychiatrist first.
Yes, they're the least bad treatment options we have right now, I can still be hyped about potential improvements.
> You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
I'd rather hope so. I've had to ask "so what health risks were you supposed to inform me about according to the form you want me to sign?" way too many times.
