Vitamins and painkillers: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
:— Huey Lewis, ''I Want A New Drug'' (1984)}}{{smallcaps|The theory goes}}, so say any number of [[Thought leader|thought-pieces]], that there are two kinds of technology business: ''painkillers'' — those that address acute immediate problems, and ''vitamins'' — those that invisibly guard against problems over the medium to long term.
:— Huey Lewis, ''I Want A New Drug'' (1984)}}{{smallcaps|The theory goes}}, so say any number of [[Thought leader|thought-pieces]], that there are two kinds of technology business: ''painkillers'' — those that address acute immediate problems, and ''vitamins'' — those that invisibly guard against problems over the medium to long term.


Seeing legal service as something that either masks a deep-seated malaise without addressing it — a “painkiller” — or a quick, cheap and hard-to-prove substitute for the boring work of living a healthy lifestyle — a “vitamin” — and in either case overlooks important functions like, you know, ''diagnosing'' ''and curing patients'' is the classic [[Legaltech startup conference|legal-tech take]].
Seeing legal service as something that either masks a deep-seated malaise without fixing it — a “painkiller” — or that is a quick, cheap and hard-to-prove substitute for the boring work of living a healthy lifestyle — a “vitamin” — but overlooking the importance of, you know, ''diagnosing and curing patients'' is the classic [[Legaltech startup conference|legal-tech take]].


This is a threadbare view of the medical profession, let alone the legal world. Still, let us extend what may be just a bad [[metaphor]].
This is a threadbare view of the medical profession, let alone the legal world. Still, let us extend what may be just a bad [[metaphor]].
=====Painkillers=====
====Painkillers====
{{quote|
{{quote|
Long-term or frequent use of certain pain medications can lead to issues such as gastrointestinal problems, kidney damage, and tolerance, where the medication becomes less effective over time. Additionally, some painkillers may interact with other medications you may be taking, leading to adverse effects.
''Long-term or frequent use of certain pain medications can lead to issues such as gastrointestinal problems, kidney damage, and tolerance, where the medication becomes less effective over time. Additionally, some painkillers may interact with other medications you may be taking, leading to adverse effects.''
:— ChatGPT}}
:— ChatGPT, showing it ''can'' speak more sense than humans sometimes}}
The appeal of Paracetamol: it is quick, generic, asks no great talent of those who prescribe or administer it, and, at first blush, it does the trick. This it shares with [[legaltech]], come to think of it.
The appeal of Paracetamol: it is quick, generic, asks no great talent of those who prescribe or administer it and, at first blush, it does the trick. A lot like [[legaltech]].


Painkillers work where problems are ''superficial'', ''baffling'' or ''terminal''.  
Painkillers work where problems are ''superficial'', ''baffling'' or ''terminal''.  


Patients with superficial or terminal conditions won’t pay ''much'' — at least, not for ''long''.  
Patients with ''superficial'' or ''terminal'' conditions won’t pay much — at least, ''not for long''.  


Where patients have baffling conditions either they are a freak, or you are a bozo. By definition, freaks are the exception, so — yeah.  
Where patients have ''baffling'' conditions either ''they'' are a freak, or ''you'' are a bozo. Freaks are the exception, so — yeah.  


So this is the JC’s main beef with the legal operations world: the whole thing presumes that you can solve deep-seated, difficult problems, with generic technology and cheap labour. If this were true ''law would not be such a persistently lucrative profession''.
So here is the JC’s main beef with the legal operations world: the whole thing presumes that you can solve deep-seated, difficult problems, with generic technology and cheap, low-skill labour.  


The cynical view — one, by the way, the JC largely shares — is that most sticky legal problems ''aren’t'' all that difficult, addressing not real-world risks, but the interests of legal nest-feathering. Lawyers tell their clients ghost stories and then charge them for formulating outcomes should their phantasmagoric contingencies come about.  
If this were true, ''law would not be such a persistently lucrative profession''. Everyone would have done this by now.
 
The cynical view — one, by the way, the JC largely shares — is that most sticky legal problems ''aren’t'' all that difficult, addressing not real-world risks, but the interests of legal nest-feathering. Lawyers tell their clients ghost stories and then charge them for planning ornate instructions for what to do should these phantasmagoric contingencies come about.  


But this being so, the challenge is not “optimising how one caters for absurd outcomes” — any bozo can do that — but demythologising, untangling knotted organisational threads, sorting wheat from chaff and delivering simple advice that clearly allocates risk and ''keeps feather-bedding legal eagles out of the picture''.
But this being so, the challenge is not “optimising how one caters for absurd outcomes” — any bozo can do that — but demythologising, untangling knotted organisational threads, sorting wheat from chaff and delivering simple advice that clearly allocates risk and ''keeps feather-bedding legal eagles out of the picture''.


Diagnosing this at the best of times is ''hard''. When the patient is a sclerotic institution, forged through countless regrettable mergers, siloed, recombined, spun out, reverse-merged; when it is riven by turf wars, wracked with ancient personal enmities, haunted by past catastrophes; when it silted up with decades of slurry from lackadaisical management, lazy tactics, bad process and superfluous policy — when all presents as persistent consumptive, hacking wheeze  — ''treating'' it is even harder.  
Diagnosing this at the best of times is ''hard''. When the patient is a sclerotic institution, forged through countless regrettable mergers, siloed, recombined, spun out, reverse-merged; when it is riven by turf wars, wracked with ancient personal enmities, haunted by past catastrophes; when it silted up with decades of slurry from lackadaisical management, lazy tactics, bad process and perfidious, reactionary policy — when all this presents as persistent consumptive, hacking wheeze  — ''treating'' it is even harder.  


This is no place for legal ops bozos who recommend popping a couple of tramadol and calling in the morning.
This is no time to pop a couple of tramadol and call your legaltechbro in the morning.


=====Vitamins=====
====Vitamins====
{{quote|Most people do not need to take vitamin supplements and can get all the vitamins and minerals they need by eating a healthy, balanced diet.<br>
{{quote|''Most people do not need to take vitamin supplements and can get all the vitamins and minerals they need by eating a healthy, balanced diet.''<br>
— ''[https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/do-i-need-vitamin-supplements/ NHS Common Health Questions]''}}
— ''[https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/do-i-need-vitamin-supplements/ NHS Common Health Questions]''}}
Painkillers, at least, make a quick, demonstrable difference. Vitamins are more oblique in their quackery: the instant appeal is that they ''sound'' technical. Since, by design, vitamins aren’t ''meant'' to work immediately, patients are usually not disappointed when they don’t. This is excellent news for bozo: it gives plenty of time to make good your escape.
Painkillers, at least, make a quick, demonstrable difference. Vitamins are more oblique in their quackery: the instant appeal is that they ''sound'' technical. Since, by design, vitamins aren’t ''meant'' to work immediately, patients are usually not disappointed when they don’t. This is excellent news for bozo: it gives plenty of time to make good your escape.