It was mandated because, in some cases, getting data from the patient is actually harmful. A CT scan is not benign. So to ensure that CT scans from manufacturer A could be read on a review station of manufacturer B, the DICOM standard was created.
But there is a real health element to it. Although I perfectly agree that standards are good for the consumer, the incentives here are not as strong.
Yes, but their production volume is limited (imho) compared to the two companies I mentioned. Good callout regardless. I'll have a post put together to share here enumerating and comparing.
(i track global fossil generation production capacity as a component of tracking the overall rate of global energy transition to clean energy and electrification, but some of my resources are simply an excel spreadsheet)
> USB-C charging—no more scrambling for AAA batteries
Bear with me if you’ve already seen this comment, but I dug out my old TI-89 a while ago for some reason, and all I had to do was plug in four AAA batteries and it worked.
If it had been fitted with a rechargeable battery, 30 years ago, even assuming it was still functional, I would have needed to recharge it... but with what?
Now we have USB-C rechargeable AA/AAA batteries, so there’s really no excuse.
I haven't seen that comment, but please keep making it every time it's relevant.
Non-user-replaceable batteries are terrible. It turns devices into e-waste. I wish device manufacturers would understand that. I wish consumers would understand that.
Alkaline batteries also create e-waste when they leak and destroy the contacts. Only a few people will be able to repair it.
I agree with you, also for things like radios alkalines are great as a battery that stays outside of the radio and is used when you need it, and doesn't leak much charge at all.
The reason it would be a problem is because USB didn't have a suitable port in 1998.
Upgrade to 89 Titanium and it already has a USB (mini) port built in. Mini is not ideal but it's fine. You can get a whole pile of mini and micro adapters for a couple dollars.
The fact that batteries wear out is a significant issue for longevity. Backwards compatibility is a solved problem if you use USB.
There must be a law of system design about this, because this happens all the time. Every abstraction creates a class of users who are powerful but fragile.
People who build a system or at least know how it works internally want to simplify their life by building abstractions.
As people come later to use the system with the embedded abstractions, they only know the abstractions but have no idea of the underlying implementations. Those abstractions used to make perfect sense for those with prior knowledge but can also carry subtle bias which makes their use error prone for non initiated users.
> Those abstractions used to make perfect sense for those with prior knowledge but can also carry subtle bias which makes their use error prone for non initiated users.
The shell thinks that you're trying to run the portion before the & (command) in the background and the portion after the & (2>&1) in the foreground. There is just one problem. The second part (2>&1) means that you're redirecting stderr/fd2 to stdout/fd1 for a command that is to follow (similar to how you set environment variables for a command invocation). However, you haven't specified the command that follows. The second part just freezes waiting for the command. Try it and see for yourself.
$ command 2>1
Here the shell redirects the output of stderr/fd2 to a file named 1. It doesn't know that you're talking about a file descriptor instead of a filename. So you need to use &1 to indicate your intention. The same confusion doesn't happen for the left side (fd2) because that will always be a file descriptor. Hence the correct form is:
$ command 2>&1
> I think shell language is simply awful.
Honestly, I wish I could ask the person who designed it, why they made such decisions.
I like abstractions when they hide complexity I don't need to see nor understand to get my job done. But if abstractions misdirect and confuse me, they are not syntactical sugar to me, but rather poison.
(But I won't claim that I am always able to strike the right balance here)
> What would be the equivalent number in, say, the US if you were to include all this?
Isn't it the point OP is making - France has much higher taxes compared to US because the state provides pensions, healthcare and higher education and US don't?
Yes, we need a posix of productivity tool. You want to work with a EU government, you have to use this and that open standards. This is the way to break that particular monopoly.
But there is a real health element to it. Although I perfectly agree that standards are good for the consumer, the incentives here are not as strong.
reply