Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#91

Post by DanBC »

uzakov wrote: post #33
rapsey wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about health care costs. Education costs. Amount of vacation time. Pension.

Not sure if your comment is asking about those things or implying that what I said is incorrect. Healthcare costs: I personally do not have experience with USA healthcare system. In terms of UK healthcare system I have mixed feelings: key reasons(short list): 1) While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms. It's much cheaper and better for…

> While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms.

I feel like you've misunderstood this.

If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm.

https://www.gov.uk/topic/population-screening-programmes/pop...

Here's a blog that explains why testing people who don't have symptoms causes more false positives. https://www.jackiecassell.com/moonshot-moonshine-and-false-p...

> It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible

This is often incorrect.

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#92

Post by DanBC »

reader_mode wrote: post #83
DanBC wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> meanwhile I just saw a report how in eastern Europe women are doing surrogate pregnancies as a paid gig because of their living conditions I agree that EU vs US discussions can be tedious, but surrogate pregnancies for cash happen in some US states too. https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/12/paying-gestational-carri...

It's not the fact that it can happen but that there are agencies and it's a growing business in the region shows you how bad it is

Yes, and these things are also true for the US.

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#93

Post by uzakov »

DanBC wrote: post #91
uzakov wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if your comment is asking about those things or implying that what I said is incorrect. Healthcare costs: I personally do not have experience with USA healthcare system. In terms of UK healthcare system I have mixed feelings: key reasons(short list): 1) While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms. It's much cheaper and better for…

> While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms. I feel like you've misunderstood this. If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm. https://www.gov.uk/topic/population-screening-programmes/pop... Here's a blog that expla…

>I feel like you've misunderstood this.

>If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm.

Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people." People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.

> Here's a blog that explains why testing people who don't have symptoms causes more false positives.

The link you provided talks about Covid19 situation, don't think that was part of the discussion.

>> It's much cheaper and better for the health to treat things at the earliest stage possible

>This is often incorrect.

Last time I checked that was the thing suggested, can you please clarify and elaborate why you say so?

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#94

Post by DanBC »

uzakov wrote: post #93
DanBC wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While it's free, getting many basic things(like blood, urine tests, ultrasound scan) is complicated if you have no symptoms. I feel like you've misunderstood this. If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm. https://www.gov.uk/topic/population-screening-programmes/pop... Here's a blog that expla…

>I feel like you've misunderstood this. >If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm. Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people."…

> Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people." People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.

This sentence doesn't make much sense.

> Blood/urine test =/= testing.

If the patient has symptoms then it's a test. If the patient does not have symptoms then it's screening.

> People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues.

But this is screening, and screening is often harmful, which is why it's strictly controlled.

The blog is not only about covid-19, it uses Covid-19 testing as an example. But the information about screening, especially false positives, applies to the type of blood testing you're talking about.

If you want a different blog: https://understandinguncertainty.org/node/1279

> Last time I checked that was the thing suggested, can you please clarify and elaborate why you say so?

The problem is of "over testing", "over diagnosis", and "over treatment". https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/1/1

Your claim is that early detection means that treatment can start earlier, and that this reduces side effects and prolongs life.

My claim is that often screening sometimes does not prolong life, and sometimes causes harm.

https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/early-detection-prostate-can...

Take 1000 men aged 50. Give them yearly screening for prostate cancer. Take another group of 1000 men and don't give them prostate cancer screening.

In both groups about 7 men will die from prostate cancer, and about 210 men will die from any cause. But in the screening group 160 men will have a false alarm and needless biopsy, and 20 will have needless treatment. (And the treatment for prostate cancer can leave people incontinent or impotent).

See also this for a discussion of 5 year survival rates and why they're problematic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24022426

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#95

Post by uzakov »

DanBC wrote: post #94
uzakov wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I feel like you've misunderstood this. >If you don't have symptoms but are asking for testing then you're asking for screening. We have strict criteria for screening because it has potential to cause harm. Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people."…

> Blood/urine test =/= testing. Also from the link you provided: "Screening is the process of identifying individuals who may be at higher risk of a disease or condition amongst large populations of healthy people." People who are not at risk might want to do blood/urine test to check if they currently have underlying issues. This sentence doesn't make much sense. > Blood/urine test =/= testing. If the patient has sy…

Interesting links! Thanks for sharing

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#96

Post by unionpivo »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #82
jannes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM is a joint venture that Apple started with Acorn and VLSI. Article from 1990: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-28-fi-4993-s...

Wow I had no idea, now a lot of things make more sense to me about why Apple is going the route they are. I honestly wish them nothing but success. Part of me hopes they license their own chips down the line. The Intel monopoly over desktop systems needs to end.

Not under current market.

Apple got as big as it is by vertically integrating everything and creating walled gardens.

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#97

Post by jlokier »

toyg wrote: post #61
OJFord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume Nvidia bought (by obligation) those commitments too? Otherwise it would be pointless having them in the first place, you'd just get out of it (if you wanted to) with some creative corporate governance. [I used to work at Arm, but not on creative corporate governance.]

Uhm, no...? The obligation was on Softbank, not on ARM. > you'd just get out of it (if you wanted to) with some creative corporate governance ... aand you've just "discovered" how large companies routinely get out of their commitments to politicians.

> The obligation was on Softbank, not on ARM

Plausibly the obligation on Softbank could require them, when selling, to require the new buyer agree to the same obligation.

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#98

Post by tonyedgecombe »

petercooper wrote: post #58

I've been doing a lot of thinking out loud today about the UK's lamentable state with regards to its technology industry today without much disagreement in my back channels – perhaps HN will have more interesting things to say? It feels like the UK's failings in the technology space are entirely cultural. Looking back at the 70s and 80s when the UK punched above its weight in the microcomputer space, UK tech companie…

The US has a big advantage with its large home market. It's always going to be hard to compete against that.

Also it doesn't help that we have such a large financial services sector. This sector soaks up a lot of graduates that might otherwise be working in technology. It also makes it harder for other sectors to compete. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

Add a government that spends all its time pandering to the over 60's (hence Brexit) and you can see where we are going wrong.

Re: ARM: Can 'crown jewel' of UK technology be protected?

#100

Post by declnz »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #98
petercooper wrote: post #58

I've been doing a lot of thinking out loud today about the UK's lamentable state with regards to its technology industry today without much disagreement in my back channels – perhaps HN will have more interesting things to say? It feels like the UK's failings in the technology space are entirely cultural. Looking back at the 70s and 80s when the UK punched above its weight in the microcomputer space, UK tech companie…

The US has a big advantage with its large home market. It's always going to be hard to compete against that. Also it doesn't help that we have such a large financial services sector. This sector soaks up a lot of graduates that might otherwise be working in technology. It also makes it harder for other sectors to compete. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease Add a government that spends all its time pander…

> Also it doesn't help that we have such a large financial services sector. This sector soaks up a lot of graduates that might otherwise be working in technology.

Historically - yes, but I'm not so convinced any more; young people / grads here just don't want to go into banking now (understandably IMO), and not sure the Fintech firms (that aren't pure tech) make up that much in terms of grad numbers.

Post reply on HN