This GPT(human)bot was responding to the engineered prompt: >>why do you think telehealth won't work over LEO services?
As it's Friday, this GPT(human)bot bandwidth has been fully utilized for the week. Our servers will be back-on line come Monday. Wishing everyone (human or machine) a wonderful weekend ahead! On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:10 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > I don't disagree with anything that you say below, but the discussion was > on the > topic of starlink vs fiber, with the person I was responding to claiming > that we > needed to have women in charge of the Internet companies because of > telehealth > as well. > > I'm a remote worker and VERY aware of how limiting video calls are > compared to > in-person meetings. > > David Lang > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, David Bray, PhD wrote: > > > There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO as long > as > > it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious listserv > founder > > Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via > > ground-based connections too. > > > > That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether mental > health > > services can be delivered effectively over video in general - regardless > of > > LEO or not. The concern is two fold: > > > > * video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a > > patient developing a relationship with a health provider > > > > * 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative ideation. One > > might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the evidence > > showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s actually > a > > continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls prompted by > the > > body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are friend or > > foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we don’t > know > > if they’re coming to attack us or not. > > > > So future generations may look back and decide that with video calls we > > were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological processes? > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain < > > nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > > >> why do you think telehealth won't work over LEO services? > >> > >> I've used it personally. > >> > >> Even if women use telehealth more than men, that doesn't say that women > >> have any > >> particular advantage in moving the bits around that make telehealth > >> possible. > >> > >> David Lang > >> > >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: > >> > >>> Women are the primary users and providers of telehealth services. They > >> are > >>> using broadband to care for our population. They also run most of the > >>> addiction services across our country, whatever the addiction may be. > So > >>> gender actually matters. Ask them as providers. Telehealth doesn't work > >> over > >>> LEO (nor does it matter much for men on boats.) Same for distance > >> learning. > >>> > >>> > >> > https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/women-more-likely-telehealth-patients-providers-covid-19-pandemic/608153/ > >>> > >>> As Washington considers which virtual care flexibilities should remain > >> in > >>> place post-COVID-19, experts are flagging that paring back telehealth > >> access > >>> and affordability will disproportionately affect women, even as a > >> growing > >>> share of startups emerge to address women’s unique health needs. > >>> > >>> While women are more likely than men to visit doctors and consume > >> healthcare > >>> services in general, telehealth seems to be uniquely attractive to > women. > >>> > >>> Bob > >>>> who exactly do you think is calling for there to be no Internet > >>>> access? and what in the world does the sex of individuals have to do > >>>> with shipping bits around? > >>>> > >>>> Starlink (and hopefully it's future competitors) provides a way to get > >>>> Internet service to everyone without having to run fiber to every > >>>> house. > >>>> > >>>> As for the parallels with rural electrification, if that problem were > >>>> to be faced today, would the right answer be massive public agencies > >>>> to build and run miles of wire from massive central power plants? or > >>>> would the right answer be solar + batteries in individual houses for > >>>> the most rural folks, with small modular reactors to power the larger > >>>> population areas? > >>>> > >>>> Just because there was only one way to achieve a goal in the past > >>>> doesn't mean that approach is the best thing to do today. > >>>> > >>>> David Lang > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi All, > >>>>> > >>>>> We're trying to modernize America. LBJ helped do it for electricity > >>>>> decades ago. It's our turn to step up to the plate. Tele-health and > >>>>> distance learning requires us to do so. There is so much to follow. > >>>>> > >>>>> A reminder what many women went through before LBJ showed up. I'm > >>>>> skeptical a patriarchy under Musk is even close to capable. We > >> probably > >>>>> need a woman to lead us, or at least motivate us to do our best work > >> for > >>>>> our country and to be an example to the world. > >>>>> > >>>>> A Hill Country farm wife had to do her chores even if she was ill – > no > >>>>> matter how ill. Because Hill Country women were too poor to afford > >> proper > >>>>> medical care they often suffered perineal tears in childbirth. During > >> the > >>>>> 1930s, the federal government sent physicians to examine a sampling > of > >>>>> Hill Country women. The doctors found that, out of 275 women, 158 had > >>>>> perineal tears. Many of them, the team of gynecologists reported, > were > >>>>> third-degree tears, “tears so bad that it is difficult to see how > they > >>>>> stand on their feet.” But they were standing on their feet, and doing > >> all > >>>>> the chores that Hill Country wives had always done – hauling the > >> water, > >>>>> hauling the wood, canning, washing, ironing, helping with the > >> shearing, > >>>>> the plowing and the picking. > >>>>> > >>>>> Because there was no electricity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Bob > >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Frantisek, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:46, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain > >>>>>>>> <nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages of > satcom > >>>>>>>> such as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, to > >> overcome > >>>>>>>> the 'tangled fiber' problem. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, not really. Starlink was about to address the issue of digital > >>>>>>>> divide - > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I beg to differ. Starlink is a commercial enterprise with the > goal > >> to > >>>>>>> make a profit by offering (usable) internet access essentially > >>>>>>> everywhere; it is not as far as I can tell an attempt at > >> specifically > >>>>>>> reducing the digital divide (were often an important factor is not > >>>>>>> necessarily location but financial means). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Every Inernet company " commercial enterprise with the goal to make > a > >>>>>> profit by offering (usable) internet" don't dismiss a company > because > >>>>>> of that. Starlink (and the other Satellite ISPs) all exist to > service > >>>>>> people who can't use traditional wired infrastructure > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> delivering internet to those 640k locations, where there is > >> literally > >>>>>>>> none today. Fiber will NEVER get there. And it will get there, it > >> will > >>>>>>>> be like 10 years down the road. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is IHO the wrong approach to take. The goal needs to be a > >>>>>>> universal FTTH access network (with the exception of extreme > >> locations, > >>>>>>> no need to pull fiber up to the highest Bivouac shelter on Mt. > >> Whitney). > >>>>>>> And f that takes a decade or two, so be it, this is infrastructure > >> that > >>>>>>> will keep on helping for many decades once rolled-out. However > given > >>>>>>> that time frame one should consider work-arounds for the interim > >> period. > >>>>>>> I would have naively thought starlink would qualify for that from a > >>>>>>> technical perspective, but then the FCC documents actually > >> discussion > >>>>>>> requirements and how they were or were not met/promised by starlink > >> was > >>>>>>> mostly redacted. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> what do you consider 'extreme locations'? how long a run between > >>>>>> houses is 'too far'? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> we've seen the failure of commercial fiber monopolies in cities with > >>>>>> housing density of several houses per acre (and even where there are > >>>>>> apartment complexes there as well) because it's not profitable > enough. > >>>>>> When you get into areas where it's 'how many acres per house' the > cost > >>>>>> of running FTTH gets very high. I don't think this is the majority > of > >>>>>> the population of the US any longer (but I don't know for sure), but > >>>>>> it's very clearly the majority of the area of the US. And once you > get > >>>>>> out of the major metro areas, even getting fiber to every town or > >>>>>> village becomes a major undertaking. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is running fiber 30 miles to support a village of 700 people an > >>>>>> 'extreme location'? let me introduce you to Vermontville MI > >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermontville,_Michigan which is less > >>>>>> than an hours drive from the state capitol. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Lang > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list > >>>>>> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > >>>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> Nnagain mailing list > >> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > >> > >
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
