ksynwa

Why?

It says as much as it does for an LLM but doctors have to have a lot of field experience after passing these tests before they get certified as doctors.

This research has been done a lot of a times but I don't see the point of it. Exams are something I would expect LLMs, especially the higher end ones, to do well because of their nature. But it says next to nothing about how reliable the LLM as an actual doctor.

Lots of people understandably jump to the idea of "free healthcare" when trying to understand this phenomenon. While that is somewhat correct, there is lot more that needs to be done to achieve what Cuba has in terms of public health. The mode and amount of payment by patients is just one aspect of it. They also have train doctors of the appropriate quality and in the adquate quantity. Then they have to invest in the infrastructure and products that the health system needs which they manage despite crippling sanctions. There are a ton of other things as well, like ensuring that the rural areas have access to clinics and doctors which is one of the biggest of the countless failings of the Indian medical system.

I guess that the point I am trying to make is that you need a government that gives a shit about the people and considers them people rather than expendable workhorses for the owning class. Cuba, emerging out of a people's revolution, had this checked off. I bring this up because I feel even if Bernie had won the nomination and presidency he would have been able to only make marginal improvements to the American condition with his promise of a single-payer healthcare system which tackles only one small aspect of a deeply rotten healthcare system that the USA has. If he was somehow able to make any noticeable improvement without getting assassinated, they would be rolled back by whatever administration followed his kinda like how UK's NSA is slowly being strangulated as we speak.

You cannot have "free as in free speech" healthcare when the reigns of power are held by a wealthy minority.

Nothing some duct tape can't fix

Wow so you don't think Xi abducted him in the middle of the night with the tractor beam on his spaceship

If anyone wants to read these comic (USE UBLOCK ORIGIN): https://getcomics.org/dc/fables-1-150-tpb-vol-1-22-2002-2015/

Don't believe in Russiagate but he was definitely cosier with Putin than other US presidents. It would have been interesting to see how he would have handled this "dilemma". My guess is he would have had no choice but to support Ukraine and alienate Putin. No way he would have been allowed to impede this war.

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Language

Their bug tracker but I don't think localisation stuff should go here: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/

The report says this:

First and foremost, as discussed above, employees own the majority of the Huawei’s shares issued, and Huawei has been an “employee-owned company” at least since 2011 according to the available Annual reports show. Second, the highest decision-making body in corporate governance is the Commission, comprised of representatives directly elected by employee shareholders one vote one share. Shareholders' representatives exercise voting rights on important management matters such as the election of directors and auditors, on behalf of employee shareholders. Third, BOD is the highest body in management strategy, business operations and customer satisfaction underneath the Commission. All directors and auditors are elected from employees. Currently, all of them are employee shareholders. Fourth, Ren Zhengfei has a right of veto.75 Ren Zhengfei himself responded to a reporter that “This comes with a time limit and when the new rules76 were passed this limit77 was extended. I do not exercise my right to veto unless there is a major problem78” (Bilibili Z Generation Paradise, 2019)79. In this regard, Jiangxi Sheng, the chief secretary of Huawei's BOD, told reporters at the Southern China Morning Post that “These rules were the Governance Charter” and went on to say that the Governance Charter strictly stipulates the important matters subject to the exercise of the right of veto, citing management personnel and capital increase as two such examples.

It's a representative system within the company. I think this is what you meant.

I really don't have any way to disprove this. There have been two English language studies into Huawei's structure. The earlier one by Balding et al tries to claim that it is employee owned in name only but there is a more recent one by a Japanese university that contradicts this fact. Interestingly neither of the studies raise issues about significatly unequitable profit sharing so there's that. The founder of the company owns about 1% of the shares.

It's definitely likely that they collaborate with the government in some capacity because of how important Huawei is but that was only one part of why sanctions the enacted. IMO the bigger problem for the US was that Huawei was catching up to western corporations in crucial technologies like 5G so the sanctions were put in place in prevent them from competing. It's just run-of-the-mill protectionism.