Don't know about doctors, but for statistics, optimization, and ML, a lot of stack/quora answers are just flat out wrong.

Even experienced person could easily fall trap to this.

I learned this lesson the hard way. But now I resort back to books and obscure sources for my stats training. It's slow and painful, specially when you're alone and there's nobody to answer questions about this weird aggregation function you're learning.

Or perhaps less insidiously, a lot of answers are out of date. I remember that when I did AI game programming, I wanted to build a behavior tree, so in a recent project I Google for that. I get tons of great resources for behavior trees, libraries, examples, etc.

Except there's a lot more on the cutting edge I should be considering. Maybe GOAP is the right fit. Maybe HTN. Maybe something else. Sometimes these searches turn up results that are too specific to the old way of doing things and don't lead me to the latest and greatest.

The latest and greatest?

If that matters put in whatever subject and a year like 2019.

Be warned the latest is rarely the greatest.

True, but this isn't really case for optimization problems and results about theorems or lemmas.

I think one of YouTube’s strengths compared to SO is that you can find a few useful creators with good information on a topic and learn a lot from them.

On SO it’s the luck of the draw on each individual question.

SO also allows you to browse all answers (and questions) from a specific contributor.

I so don't like when DDG presents me with SO links and previews at the top, instead of Github issues and official library docs. 95% is garbage.

I've seen some terrible code in codebases that I just know has come from Stack Overflow (often I can trace back and find it). Some of it's for security related code, so it's fairly critical to get it right.

Doctors aren't magically smarter than developers.

There's no magic to it - There's a lot more gatekeeping, training, board certification, etc. It's not perfect, but it's a darn sight better than the complete lack of professional standards that we developers are held to (myself included - I'm shipping code today that I wish I weren't, that I believe is unsafe at any speed, but thankfully I don't believe it'll be getting above .1MPH)

You can hire a developer off the street who just happened to be the CEO's nephew. You can't do that with doctors.

Would you prefer we had to get a license like a barber?

There's a growing shortage of developers. What would that look like with more barriers to entry?

It would look pretty good for the developers.

Putting gates around something as basic as medicine has only resulted in the price going up.

You can hire the CEO's nephew for any role. Doesn't mean you are getting anything done. That nephew can buy a medical degree abroad or locally at Harvard.

In this case, I welcome putting gates around medical hiring practices. Lives are at stake.

Twitter/FB going down, realistically, is not going to kill anyone.

Risk management is very real with people's very lives. The price going up is expected because of the filtering needed, but it shouldn't go up as fast as it does in America.

> In this case, I welcome putting gates around medical hiring practices. Lives are at stake.

Note that lives are also lost (and much suffering is caused) by the extremely restricted and expensive medical environment. I actually expect that we'd be better off (utilons wise) if we relaxed some of the restrictions.

100% agreed on the suffering caused. Separating the rising cost and the restrictions can be done.

Socialized, single payer, gov mandated caps, etc etc. There are lots of options. Each come with their own poisons, but far more effective in terms of overall coverage than what we have available in America without material change to the restrictions.

The gates begin before the hiring level at the college level.

>Putting gates around something as basic as medicine has only resulted in the price going up.

Citation required. This is pure bullshit. Those gates aren't there just because someone said 'hey there should be a gate there.' Those gates are there to solve problems, and while they also create their own problems, that doesn't change the fact that the underlying problems are still there.

Limiting the supply of doctors by limiting enrolment is an example of a gate the increases prices.

Those gates were put in place to solve a problem but in time gets abused.

>Limiting the supply of doctors by limiting enrolment is an example of a gate the increases prices.

It also has an effects on quality of instruction. Limiting the number of students tends to increase the quality of instruction, something I believe is extremely important in medicine.

I'm not saying that there are abuses. But you made the claim that the only effect it has is to raise prices, and that is completely wrong.

Doctors are “magically” smarter than developers. They have to clear a huge amount of training before they get to call themselves “doctors.” It’s like if someone had to reach L7 at Google before they could call themselves “developers.”

Alternatively, patients are turning to youtube to fill in the gaps in their doctors' training.