|
|
|
|
|
by kalleth
2239 days ago
|
|
> the choice is between an unaffordable certified solution and not having any monitoring. No, this isn't _necessarily_ the choice. Without a "false sense of security" that an imperfect monitoring system might instil, you have nurses and doctors actually doing rounds and checking their patients. > Disruption always happens this way - same way Uber broke existing laws. Yes, few people will die. But this isn’t new when the alternative is even worse. This is an absolutely horrible viewpoint to have. People dying because of "disruption" so a few companies can make a few more dollars is _never_ acceptable. |
|
When it comes to solving technical problems? We are ever so happy to do exactly the same thing.
Any solution is better than no solution. Except when no solution causes people to stop trying to delegate an important responsibility. Which is quite frequently.
A crap solution crowds the problem space. If a better solution is possible, it now has to defend itself against the incumbent. Explain why it is more expensive, why people should be bothered to switch.
If you can't do something well, then for pity's sake let someone else try. Log away every cost of not doing it at all and then when you can justify doing it well, build your pitch.