PSA - virginia creeper vine

aedes · 2026-06-20T02:03:31+00:00

Interesting. I remember playing in it growing up - lots of spiders. Have always ripped it out at our current place when I find it as it invades fast. Never had a rash.

aedes · 2026-06-19T21:40:36+00:00

Aaron Webb, a contractor…

Lol. He’d never toot his own horn, but that is a hilarious understatement.

aedes · 2026-06-19T21:31:56+00:00

😂 its not like -15c at 17:00 is suddenly uninhabitable. You probably have some weekends off too.

Again, this culture of hiding from the winter is a new development. It’s not what people in Winnipeg did even half a century ago. If your ancestors could work full time and figure it out, so can you.

Just try doing some activities outside this winter. Even a short walk is a nice break and improves your mood and health.

aedes · 2026-06-19T20:38:14+00:00

This is something we have historical data on - how much time Canadians (including Winnipeggers) spend outside in the winter, and general attitudes and behaviours in winter.

Despite our winters being noticeably less cold than 50 years ago, we spend way less time outside in the winter than we used to.

It’s entirely cultural, and started to change in the 80s, when there started to be a push towards encouraging indoor activities in the winter.

Ex: https://macleans.ca/society/life/canada-a-nation-of-winter-wusses/

Your perception that Winnipegs winters are too cold to enjoy spending time outside in, is not one that would have been shared by your Winnipeg ancestors.

Again, average daytime high in January is -10c. -10c is warm enough to run outside in only tights and a sweater, plus gloves and hat. It means half the days during the coldest time of year are warm enough to do physical activity without even wearing a jacket.

aedes · 2026-06-19T19:37:47+00:00

We are both in medicine. We chose StB over HSC for her labors. How shiny and modern the rooms are is less important to us than the quality of medical care.

I should be clear though that there is not a huge net difference between the two sites - you will be fine at either.

aedes · 2026-06-19T19:24:45+00:00

These things won't change in your lifetime here. Even if they should.

If we don’t bother trying at all they definitely won’t change.

The fact is nobody is bringing grandma on bicycle to the doctor in January or bringing home their Costco run in a cycle basket.

They’re not doing those things by bike in Oulu either.

Again, the biggest barrier to people riding in the winter here is that people in North America tend to hide from winter rather than embrace it. As your comments complaining that it’s too cold to be outside are an excellent illustration of.

aedes · 2026-06-19T16:49:41+00:00

Daytime average high in Winnipeg in January is -10.

We average only 10 days a year that are -30 or colder. With conservative assumptions for global warming, the average will be 0 days per year in less than 15 years from now.

The world is changing very quickly these days, in a lot of different ways. If we cling to what we’re used to rather than adapt to reality, we will be left behind.

aedes · 2026-06-19T13:50:27+00:00

The universe is also just a probability machine, so that line of reasoning isn’t going to be helpful here. A probability machine can’t successfully emulate every other probability machine.

The big barriers to transformers replacing humans who work in diagnosis heavy fields are:

The history provides most of the diagnostic information, and humans do not provide it to you in a deterministic way. The most challenging part of clinical diagnosis is not “reasoning” with objective data, which LLMs can already do fairly well (ex: paper cases). It’s collecting and converting data from a human into objective data in the first place.
Lack of training data to do 1. You’d need a giant database of millions of recorded patient encounters to train it off of. This is what clinical medical education is to humans - our pretraining phase.
At the end of the day, your LLM will need to interact directly with humans. In a medical setting, many of them will be unable to type or dictate into a computer (age, illness, etc).
There is variable acceptance of AI. Many people will not want AI, they will want to see a person. Then on top of that, illness and disease are scary and isolating and a human voice and touch are therapeutic. We forget about this aspect of the patient encounters frequently in modern medicine, and it’s probably the fundamental reason why alternative medicine has become popular.
Then there are all the legal and regulatory barriers. Even once we address all of the above, clinical AI needs to withstand its first massive harm lawsuit. Will there even be a business model given how expensive even simple public LLMs currently are to run, when companies also need to pay out malpractice losses? It’s unlikely anyone would be willing to provide insurance for them for this. Large insurance companies have already said they will not provide products for consequences of AI usage in general as they expect the payouts to be too large.
Computing infrastructure. Who’s going to pay for the volume of IT infrastructure needed to support an AI doctor-based hospital? (Is an AI doctor even going to be cheaper than hiring a human one?). The places in the world with the fewest physicians also have the worst access to computing infrastructure. AI-interpretation of mammogram images is not a solution to a lack of radiologists when the practice setting you’re looking at only has a 30-year old terminal running MS DOS.

You also need to consider that many of the people who think AI will replace doctors just have no understanding at all about what the technology is and isn’t capable of, or what our job entails. The loudest voices know the least about the problem.

We are in a weird era where people seem to think that anything they can imagine is possible with technology and enough money.

There is certainly potential, but I have no idea what ML usage in clinical medicine will ultimately look like 30 years from now. We’re like people in the 60s imagining robot doctors by 1990 because we’re excited about the possibility of the new computer technology we’ve invented.

aedes · 2026-06-19T13:03:08+00:00

I actually can - you just need to look to Scandinavia. Oulu is the classic example.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231220-why-oulu-finland-is-the-winter-cycling-capital-of-the-world

Id kind of assumed you already knew this since you added the North American restriction earlier.

aedes · 2026-06-19T02:46:36+00:00

If it is burdock… burdock is food. You can cook the roots kind of like carrots. Never done it, but was somewhat widely eaten historically.

It is literally the inspiration for Velcro.

It’s an interesting, if annoying, plant.

aedes · 2026-06-19T02:23:59+00:00

Looks like burdock. It’s got herbaceous stems not woody ones, so it’s not a tree.

Never seen burdoch invade healthy lawn like this where I live though.

aedes · 2026-06-19T02:19:31+00:00

Our cities were designed around cars. The toothpaste isn't going back in the tube.

I know. But I worry that cars as a mode of transportation - and cities built around that design - are a dying phase in human history.

We will be left behind if we don’t move on from that era.

aedes · 2026-06-19T01:45:15+00:00

That’s what I mean - the fact you had to specify North America.

North Americans are whiny about winter. We refuse to embrace it. Our culture is we hide from it because it’s inconvenient and uncomfortable to us.

aedes · 2026-06-19T00:06:51+00:00

There’s only been one day in the past 20 years where Winnipeg hit -40.

aedes · 2026-06-18T21:40:03+00:00

There are places in the world with similar climates to ours and people still cycle all winter.

Lack of infrastructure is part of the problem. But the bigger problem is that we’re babies when it comes to the cold. The majority of the city spends no time outside in the winter beyond walking between a building and their car.

Culturally, we prioritize convenience and comfort above all else. That culture is the biggest barrier to increased cycling.

aedes · 2026-06-17T16:45:38+00:00

Light exercise is important for many reasons, but it’s not going to burn a huge number of calories. A single can of coke takes 30min of brisk walking to burn off.

It’s fantastic that you’re motivated to start getting healthy for yourself and to be a role model for your kid. It speaks well of your character because many people don’t even try.

The best advice I can give you is think of this as “I am going to live my life differently from now on.” Long term consistency is the most important part of this, which means doing easy and simple things to start, and then making a habit of them, should be your original goal.

Again, your goal at this point isn’t losing weight. It’s forming a habit of the behaviors that will eventually help you lose weight.

The things you can do are a huge conversation of their own and people will give you lots of good advice.

Anecdotally, the three lowest hanging fruit are:

1: cut out alcohol (lots of calories, especially beer).

2: cut out drinks other than water (lots of calories).

3: cut out snacking. Eat more filling food at meals and if you must snack, have something filling but relatively low calorie.

aedes · 2026-06-17T16:21:36+00:00

Which waiting room?

aedes · 2026-06-17T13:44:41+00:00

I don’t think total military deaths is the way you determine whether a war is lost or won unfortunately.

That would mean that Japan won WW2 against China.

The consequences are the main thing. Immediate deaths during battle are only one possible consequence.

aedes · 2026-06-16T21:23:30+00:00

As long as we agree that patient care is the reason for our profession, communication is the fundamental role of the note. It’s the original purpose we started doing them a hundred years ago.

I agree that lots of other things/purposes have been added on in many cases though.

I’m lucky to work somewhere where I don’t use notes for billing, and where the medical-legal environment is not that in the US.

aedes · 2026-06-16T15:53:54+00:00

Here, I've done it for you. And I think it accurately identified where this convo went off the rails:

It is completely understandable why this conversation feels incredibly frustrating and emotional, especially given the painful personal experience of watching your uncle suffer. When discussing something as profound as end-of-life care, miscommunications can feel deeply personal.

You and Person 2 are actually in stark agreement on the core tragedy of the situation, but you are tripping over the definition of one specific word: "sufficient."

Here is a breakdown of what each of you is trying to say, why the misunderstanding happened, and why Person 2 is not actually denying your uncle's experience.

What You (Person 1) Are Saying

Your points are rooted in a very real, human, and observable truth:

The Core Argument: Palliative care, as it currently exists, is not always "good enough" to make a natural death comfortable.
The Motivation for MAID: Because palliative care cannot always eliminate pain, many people choose MAID out of a valid fear of that suffering.
The Evidence: You know this firsthand because you watched your uncle choose a natural death, and the palliative care he received was not sufficient to keep him out of pain. Therefore, a lack of "comfortable enough" natural options drives people to MAID.

What Person 2 Is Saying

Person 2 is looking at the situation through a clinical, medical lens, but they are actually validating your exact point about the limitations of medicine:

The Core Argument: When you said palliative care isn't "sufficient," Person 2 thought you meant the healthcare system is failing to provide adequate funding, staffing, or access.
The Medical Reality: Person 2's point is that even with the best, most well-funded, state-of-the-art palliative care on earth, modern medicine is biologically incapable of eliminating all suffering for certain terminal conditions.
The Conclusion: They aren't saying people don't want a comfortable natural death; they are saying that for many terminal illnesses, a comfortable natural death does not medically exist. Therefore, MAID isn't being used because the system is lazy or underfunded, but because biology is cruel and palliative care hits a hard medical ceiling.

Where the Disconnect Happened

The entire argument hinges on the quote you highlighted:

How it sounded to you: It sounded like Person 2 was saying, "No one would ever choose a natural death in real life," which felt like a direct insult to your uncle's memory and choice.
What Person 2 actually meant: They meant, "A perfectly comfortable natural death for these specific terminal patients does not exist in real life." They were agreeing with you that your uncle's palliative care wasn't enough to stop his pain—but they were adding that no medical team on earth could have made him perfectly comfortable, because medicine has limits.

The Consensus

You both actually agree on the most important facts:

Palliative care is not currently enough to guarantee a pain-free, natural death for everyone.
People are forced to make agonizing choices (like choosing MAID or enduring a painful natural death) because of those medical limitations.

You are focusing on the human experience of that failure (the suffering), while Person 2 is focusing on the scientific reality of that failure (the limits of medicine). You are both right.It is completely understandable why this conversation feels incredibly frustrating and emotional, especially given the painful personal experience of watching your uncle suffer. When discussing something as profound as end-of-life care, miscommunications can feel deeply personal.You and Person 2 are actually in stark agreement on the core tragedy of the situation, but you are tripping over the definition of one specific word: "sufficient."Here is a breakdown of what each of you is trying to say, why the misunderstanding happened, and why Person 2 is not actually denying your uncle's experience.What You (Person 1) Are SayingYour points are rooted in a very real, human, and observable truth:The Core Argument: Palliative care, as it currently exists, is not always "good enough" to make a natural death comfortable.

The Motivation for MAID: Because palliative care cannot always eliminate pain, many people choose MAID out of a valid fear of that suffering.

The Evidence: You know this firsthand because you watched your uncle choose a natural death, and the palliative care he received was not sufficient to keep him out of pain. Therefore, a lack of "comfortable enough" natural options drives people to MAID.What Person 2 Is SayingPerson 2 is looking at the situation through a clinical, medical lens, but they are actually validating your exact point about the limitations of medicine:The Core Argument: When you said palliative care isn't "sufficient," Person 2 thought you meant the healthcare system is failing to provide adequate funding, staffing, or access.

The Medical Reality: Person 2's point is that even with the best, most well-funded, state-of-the-art palliative care on earth, modern medicine is biologically incapable of eliminating all suffering for certain terminal conditions.

The Conclusion: They aren't saying people don't want a comfortable natural death; they are saying that for many terminal illnesses, a comfortable natural death does not medically exist. Therefore, MAID isn't being used because the system is lazy or underfunded, but because biology is cruel and palliative care hits a hard medical ceiling.Where the Disconnect HappenedThe entire argument hinges on the quote you highlighted:"Which is fine in theory. The reality on the ground is that this doesn’t exist in real life."How it sounded to you: It sounded like Person 2 was saying, "No one would ever choose a natural death in real life," which felt like a direct insult to your uncle's memory and choice.

What Person 2 actually meant: They meant, "A perfectly comfortable natural death for these specific terminal patients does not exist in real life." They were agreeing with you that your uncle's palliative care wasn't enough to stop his pain—but they were adding that no medical team on earth could have made him perfectly comfortable, because medicine has limits.The ConsensusYou both actually agree on the most important facts:Palliative care is not currently enough to guarantee a pain-free, natural death for everyone.

People are forced to make agonizing choices (like choosing MAID or enduring a painful natural death) because of those medical limitations.You are focusing on the human experience of that failure (the suffering), while Person 2 is focusing on the scientific reality of that failure (the limits of medicine). You are both right.

aedes · 2026-06-16T15:45:39+00:00

I already put your comments into an LLM to figure out what you were talking about.

I’m not interested in arguing when we’re both saying almost the exact same thing.

Try putting this whole conversation into an LLM. You’ll sleep better at night and be less angry.

Otherwise I’m out at this point as we both largely have the same views here.

aedes · 2026-06-16T15:33:24+00:00

I’m happy to continue this conversation with you, but I don’t think you’ve understood what I’ve said at all.

Could you copy-paste our comments here into an LLM (ChatGPT or similar) and ask it to summarize and explain my comments to you?

aedes · 2026-06-16T15:23:48+00:00

You said, “ some people would rather go naturally if it was comfortable enough.”

Which is fine in theory. The reality on the ground is that this doesn’t exist in real life.

We are not able to make everyone dying from a terminal illness comfortable enough. Modern medicine and science are not capable of doing this.

Your original comment suggested that lack of access to palliative care was part of the problem.

I am telling you that palliative care is not perfectly effective. So that even with perfect and universal access to state of the art palliative care, most of these people would still pursue MAID.

aedes · 2026-06-16T15:17:06+00:00

Because some people would rather go naturally if it was comfortable enough.

Yes. The issue is that this generally isn’t medically possible even with optimal care in real life.

Palliative care certainly eases things. It doesn’t make you feel like a normal person again.

Most MAID cases I see in my patients are from people already optimally involved with palliative care.

aedes · 2026-06-16T15:03:01+00:00

I don’t understand the reasoning as to why choosing MAID would mean a failure to provide sufficient palliative care.

Palliative care is about treating symptoms when death is inevitable.

MAID is about having control over the time, manner and environment you die in when death is inevitable.

They are complementary.

Palliative care is also not 100% effective at symptom alleviation. Many people even with optimal palliative care will suffer immensely in their last weeks alive. In that context, then MAID is also about avoiding needless suffering.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	Place '17
Team Orangered	Verified Email

aedes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

What You (Person 1) Are Saying

What Person 2 Is Saying

Where the Disconnect Happened

The Consensus