Loved the part on variation in rationality (something my wife and I talk about occasionally) as it seems so spot on. There's a great Freakonomics podcast about this (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-do-broken-hearted-knitters-urinating-goalkeepers-and-the-cia-have-in-common/) that captures the power of superstition in our society which was pretty good. I think the key is to leave enough "outs" that something is bound to cross the border into believability so that it is as much a law of large numbers issue so that something will appear to be true even if it isn't.
Quite interesting on the robo pharmacists, I feel the big issue here is how do you have quality control and legal control. I know there are a lot of human errors in dispensing medication, but that has its own legal trail responsibility, where would it be for robot pharmacists (even though I think this will probably have many fewer errors and be more efficient there will still be errors).
Loved the part on variation in rationality (something my wife and I talk about occasionally) as it seems so spot on. There's a great Freakonomics podcast about this (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-do-broken-hearted-knitters-urinating-goalkeepers-and-the-cia-have-in-common/) that captures the power of superstition in our society which was pretty good. I think the key is to leave enough "outs" that something is bound to cross the border into believability so that it is as much a law of large numbers issue so that something will appear to be true even if it isn't.
Quite interesting on the robo pharmacists, I feel the big issue here is how do you have quality control and legal control. I know there are a lot of human errors in dispensing medication, but that has its own legal trail responsibility, where would it be for robot pharmacists (even though I think this will probably have many fewer errors and be more efficient there will still be errors).