Hank Hill's alt.

Just for fun, what are the volumetric losses of gas as it is piped to a house?

Brought to you by the Natural Gas Is Great association.

From your source:

Let’s not bury the lede: Research clearly shows that induction cooktops are more energy efficient than other cooking methods.
Gas cooktops are about 40 percent efficient.
Electric-coil and standard smooth-top electric cooktops are about 74 percent efficient.
Induction cooktops are 84 percent efficient.

On top of that, electric stoves run off the electrical grid. While there are places that have inefficient grids, the underlying power grid can be made more efficient by building better infrastructure. Your gas stove runs on gas, it will be shitty until the day you rip out that CO-producing piece of shit.

Talking about the efficiency of gas infrastructure is oil industry propaganda. There is no reason to install new consumer grade equipment outside of the Arctic circle, electrical is more efficient on a dirty grid, and more electrical on the grid encourages production of more green energy sources to improve the grid

Seriously dude are you even in STEM?

This is quite possibly the most cringe comment I have ever read.

Did you know that electricity grids can be run on sources not requiring combustion of fuels?

EDIT: holy hell, did you even read your source?

If you don't like my source then site one of your own. The loss factor for electric transmission and generation are well known.

But if you want better sources here is one. "More than 60% of energy used for electricity generation is lost in conversion"

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436

if the article is showing any bias i'd say it was pro induction. I saw nothing that says funded by the fossil fuel.

Some of us actually subscribe to consumer reports. And I read the article when it first came out.

But here it is for you:

https://www.consumerreports.org/appliances/indoor-air-quality/is-your-gas-range-a-health-risk-a6971504915/

Also just for the record i don't accept the "Not every study needs a control group". I worked for 30 years as a health physicist attached to the US army's primary standards lab. I reject your assertion that this study should be pushed in the public eye.

The people commenting in this thread seem more about pushing and agenda rather than evaluating a study.

You degrade the credibility of all science and give fuel to deniers by pushing badly done work into the public eye.

You realize the source you're citing relies on affiliate commission for funding? https://www.leafscore.com/about-us/

Not every study needs a control group or needs to examine mediators. That would be a great waste of funding.

Before this study, "no intervention studies have examined the impact of changing stoves on asthma control."

Their design was appropriate, and their findings are important and suggest that a more rigorous study would be a good use of funding.

Is your LLM able to provide citations for the study and Consumer Reports publication it included in its output?

And no need to remove hundreds of thousands of stove and send them to land fills just because you are too lazy to turn on a fan.

Who said anything about removing stoves in operation? The right policy is to never install another one of these and let them naturally age out of existence as they reach their EOL.

You do realizes that induction stove aren't organically grown in grassy fields. There are heavy industry manufactured items with the accompanying pollution.

Is the implication that gas stoves are not? Or the constant fuel input required to run them?

No need to actively remove NO2 if your stove does not produce the damn poison in the first place.

The future arrived a long time ago and it's called induction.

piss poor science.

No control group.

No accounting for ventilation use.

Independent research (including a 2024 study in Nature and data from Consumer Reports) has shown that while many people do under-utilize hoods, properly functioning, outside-venting range hoods can reduce nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels by 50–70%—comparable to the reduction achieved by swapping stoves.

And would it hurt to open a freaking window and get some cross ventilation in the kitchen???

Been awhile since I've seen a "doctor" as well. They're all PAs now.

The people I work with don't relay want an exact transcription, they like how it formats it into a SOAP or other standard way.

They are "supposed" to review each and every note but I see things in the notes I know are incorrect like for example it gets the gender wrong or there are health problems raised which I know the person does not have. Many other times I see things which may be wrong but I can't for sure tell. It could have happened that way. But it's a bit weird.

A responsible design trick might actually be to hide intentional errors in the provided text and then have the charts audited at a later date (by a human) to see if those were left in.

I have warned the people I work with that when the VC makes them go public, all the "agreements" made about confidentiality of data will be out the window, to say nothing of the so-far acceptable cost of services.

My hypothesis is that this is a way of getting training data. The business is not really doing ai scribe, it's convincing HCPs to make patients comfortable allowing ML on their visits. Especially in the set ups where the vendor can then review the note the clinician actually creates and digest that as well. Like how google is a search engine but it's really a business to profile people for targeted ads.

Also I agree with you that making notes is not purely an administrative afterthought. Documentation is part of the cognitive work. That's why there are so many forms, tools, scales, flowcharts, acronyms, standards, templates, and such. It isn't just about recording what happened. It is about structuring your thoughts prior, during and after the visit. And being able to compare them over time.

I agree but someone (?) needs to get that app out and certified and known ASAP because the ones already in the market

If you want to give your health care provider a small panic attack, just mention the word "migration" as is "migrate to a new computer system". Nobody wants to do it. Once something "works" (using the broadest definition of the term) it will be kept as long as possible.

they are very good at being human. and using the human side of tech, like social media, chats, zooms.

they are not good at being technicians. or selecting someone else to be a technician on their behalf.

Summarization is known for being one of the things weaker models can handle competently, and there are LLMs with very low system requirements:

239 tok/s decode on AMD CPU, 82 tok/s on mobile NPU. Runs under 1GB of memory

I don't know exactly what the minimum performance a model would have to have to do this specific task, but it seems very likely it could be done by something that can run on a phone, or other low powered hardware.

Wellllll.....

I'm fully against these systems, and fully against my data leaving the doctors office, but the "summarization in particular don’t need powerful hardware" is a bit of a stretch to put it mildly, especially when you start looking at what computers most doctors have to work with. The average doctor computer that I see still uses VGA cables for crying out loud, you won't see any AI on those machines ever.

My trust in the medical community as functioning humans ebbs ever lower.

Smaller emrs for small behavioral health practices tend to have text only LLM - headway has scribe, therapynotes has therapyfuel, simple practice has one too and I forget the name. All of these work by taking written session notes and generating a proper progress note, e.g. “client reports more positive mood, anxiety remains triggered by x, practiced breathing exercises” gets extrapolated out into “the client presented with improvements noted in mood and session focused on mindfulness strategies to manage anxiety related to x” (more in depth than that but you get it)

In my evaluation the LLMs worked fairly well but not always, they tended to shift “writing the note” to “evaluate the note”. I don’t use it for my practice for several reasons, primarily the allure of skipping the evaluation step and ending up with notes that potentially have irrelevant hallucinations/outright falsehoods that get included because a clinician got lazy. As the article states I also believe the process of writing the note serves for reflection on the case and a time to consider conceptualization, eliminating that is certainly convenient but a potential harm to successful outcomes

When it comes down to it I simply don’t trust this in a server sided application. The only way I would consider it is if I could run a local model, generate the note on a pc that has no internet access, and then upload it. It’s granted that bc it’s entered into the EMR it could certainly be harvested for llm training because AI fucks are without ethics and above the law, but the chances of that are far lower. A workaround for this that solves both of my issues actually came from the psychotherapy subreddit back when I still used reddit: just use a local speech transcription (though confirm it happens locally, which is the case on apple devices post ios 16 or so)

WRT Israeli companies twofold scribe is currently the one that bothers me the most about signing up. They are headquartered in NY but a subsidiary of Ravel Technologies, an Israeli company. If you look up the developer info on the Google play store the given address for the twofold app is “4 Gordon REHOVOT, 7629112 Israel”. In my experience it’s often done like this and you have to dig a bit.

They also bring up the other issue: these services are often expensive as shit. Therapynotes adds $40 onto your subscription for theirs, twofold is like $70/mo, etc and all charge additional user fees on top of that. The exception is headway and I think grow, which are free, but that passes on the cost to the consumer (and imo they’re currently propped up by VC capital, once that runs dry and they’re forced to be “profitable” this could change drastically). In a field where reimbursement rates are relatively high (80-130/hr ish) and yet still most clinicians make 40-60k/yr without benefits because of overheads it’s pretty foolish to add even more monthly costs, though tbf the overwhelming majority of overhead for 99% of clinicians is outrageous commercial real estate pricing

I think at this point you could probably even do it as an offline mobile app, no extra technical competence needed to use. If it needs syncing with other devices have third party servers, but it's end to end encrypted and all processing is clientside so they don't actually see anything. But they want to see it, because that data is a valuable asset, even though ethically they really should not have it.

There are models for this that are better in theory, they require you to type rough notes which are refined which sidesteps the gigantic issue of transmitting such sensitive audio.

I have never seen anything that starts with typing?

Also for some reason many of the companies offering systems that audio record sessions, transcribe, and summarize (over just summarizing text notes) are Israeli and that is sketch to me.

have also noticed it. I have on my to do list to look into these. hmu if you find anything. fuck knows what the training data is for. We have campaigns to divest HOOP from israel and I think AI should be included.