« Snow Queen | Main | Domestic Mystery #1 »

December 11, 2021



While "mainstream media" is vastly more factually accurate than most things people prefer while deriding "mainstream media" - there is a lot to fix about the entire model, including coverage of *more stuff* and also more nuanced information instead of repeated soundbites, then people blathering about the soundbites.

(also I wish there were different tracks on the CDC website, where you could read the "hi, I've never learned anything about covid" summary or you could read the "I know the basics, can you catch me up from [month/year] on [diagnosis, variants, treatment, vaccine efficacy] with particular focus on [age group, pre-existing condition, geography, etc.]?" or you could read/search the whole firehose of nitty-gritty information. But that would be a *lot* and we also don't have content filtering models like that yet, in general.

(I want there to be a content filtering model like that for medical records, though, where doctors can pull up different filters of information. The current method really just doesn't work once a patient gets too "interesting" medically - but if we could do XML that then can be filtered by view - please show me all tests that have to do with [x] body system, please show me the weird symptoms no one has linked to anything yet or all tests that have come back abnormal, please show me all tests where results have varied [sometimes come back normal, sometimes abnormal], please show me all symptoms to do with [y] body system, please show the history of this particular symptom's progression alongside of this other symptom's progression. Anyway. A girl can dream, right?)


KC - that type of custom training sounds great. I think I might try to implement that idea at work.


People do not always correctly identify how familiar they are with a topic, but otherwise, yes, work training being bucketed would be really nice! (depending on the sort of thing, you could have a pre-quiz that automatically sorted people into categories, maybe? Or each training description could say what it covers, so people can pick the one that sounds plausible?)

(I once took a class entitled Microcomputer Applications, expecting to learn something new about computers or software. The class was instead a "go through a click-by-click tutorial on how to make part of a sentence bold in MS Word" class. I do not recommend this labeling system.)


KC -I have tried to take an on-line course that evaluates my knowledge and adjusts the topics accordingly. I was surprised to find what a joyless experience it was.


Online courses are sometimes joyless experiences in general, which leads me to ask: Do you think it was the adjustment specifically (or the lack of surprises, or the annoyance that it was telling you *this* even after evaluating your knowledge, or anything else identifiable)?

In other words, do you think it was coincidental - a bad course that had this ought-to-be-useful feature - or due to the feature either directly or indirectly (indirectly would include "they had enough time to make one course, and they instead split that time among 5 levels of course so obviously it all came out terrible")?

(this stuff fascinates me; the way ideas sound vs. the ways they can go horribly, horribly wrong)(a la the discussion of Russian vs. Japanese, where the language is definitely not the only variable at play)


KC - the joyless course turned into an exchange in which the computer gave me info, asked if I was confident in what I had learned, and then skipped to more difficult info, and because I never said I was not confident, I kept being pushed without a breather into harder and harder stuff.


Aha. Efficient, but yes, one's brain gets full and unhappy very fast that way. They should at least have given you a "is it time for a break?" option somewhere in there! Or a (skippable) video of otters, maybe, at intervals.....

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)