0/0

https://youtu.be/ltgi2nv9CHk?is=aNpUuBi8kTTfnvGN مُحاضرة قيمة حول فن مغمور: أدب الرسائل.

The paradox of easier life and greater anxiety Life became palpably easier for humans in the last few hundred years, yet complaints of depression and anxiety¹ seem to be rising more than before. This probably arises from the change in our concepts and expectations. Struggle and hardship were seen as part of normal life and they were to be expected. Therefore, a certain degree of anxiety and depression was normal and to be expected too. Most cultures of the past grasped and accepted these as aspects of Life itself and of human experience. It's only in recent times that hardships and difficulties (both in personal life, and in human existence in general) came to be seen as anomalies and mistakes to be corrected. Thus anxiety and depression (or melancholia) were transformed from normal human experiences that can become problematic if extreme, into diseases by the very definition. Living an easy life surely was desired in the past, but was not considered the norm, nor was the inability to achieve it considered an anomaly or a failure. The death of one's child, for example, as tragic as it was and will always be, was always around the corner; a possibility never forgotten in one's mind. Most of our grandmothers already lost one or two children in the course of life and moved on. Anxiety was not seen as an illness, but a sensible precaution. Depression was not a disease, but an attitude towards the evidently hard life. They were viewed either as personal traits, attitudes towards life, or matters of ethics, and they were ameliorated through religion, community ties, ethical teachings, and poetry. ¹I am specifically talking about depression and anxiety in their milder forms, so to speak, not of major depressive episodes, for example, and certainly not of mental illnesses that cause severe dysfunction like schizophrenia.

إعلان غير مدفوع الثمن

أذا أكو أحد بطب إبن سينا مرحلة سادسة ياريت يتفضل هنا: @contactzero_bot

Medicine and AI Modern medicine works like everything else modern: first, it's a system designed to function as independently as possible from the individual running it. Second, it's a system with highly specialized parts. The doctor is no longer the most critical component in delivering healthcare. He is merely a node in a vast network of experts which are all supposed to work in unison and high efficiency to deliver the required result. The division of healthcare institutions into primary, secondary, and tertiary is an example. For a correct diagnosis, a modern doctor builds on the efforts of doctors in lower divisions of the healthcare system, and relies quite heavily on lab tests, imaging technology, and histopathology whose reliability, in turn, rely heavily on the lab technician, radiologist, and pathologist respectively. For treatment, the doctor will be dependant upon nurses, pharmacists, surgeons, physical therapists, and many more. The role of the doctor is being more and more transformed into something similar to an orchestra conductor; he has enough and necessary knowledge to mark a path to diagnosis and treatment, but doesn't have the knowledge and skills necessary to walk the patient through that path himself. His job becomes, in some regards, an administrative one. In this context, where a doctor becomes more and more integrated into, and reliant on, a network of other experts, it might be reasonable to add another expert: artificial intelligence, which is an expert in indexing, navigating fetching, and summarizing the immense library of human knowledge; the internet. Since the volume of medical sciences and its related fields are simply too big, and growing bigger by the day, for the human mind to encompass, AI might eventually be a useful tool for the doctor if used properly.

.

.

The shift in names reflects a shift in medicine itself: the physician of bygone days had barely anything other than his own senses to aid him in diagnosis; He would listen to heart and lung sounds, smell, or even taste, the urine to diagnose diabetes, and he would look, with great diligence and attention, to catch any abnormality or cue. Modern medicine still relies heavily on the senses to make a differential, and sometimes even a provisional, diagnosis, but the definitive one is usually only confirmed by a lab test or an imaging technique, or a combination of both. A modern doctor might correctly conclude that a patient has pneumonia, but he has to confirm it with a chest X-ray. Another doctor, treating a stroke patient, needs the CT result to know whether the stroke is ischemic, in which case thrombolysis can save his life, or hemorrhagic, in which case thrombolysis will either kill or worsen the patient's condition.

A Physician Examining a Urine Flask

Cancer is one of those diseases that retained their old name, but built over it intricate –and sometimes incomprehensible– classification systems. The words cancer (and tumor) derive their name from the physical look of the disease, but only recently have we realized that even cancers of the same organ (and sometimes the same tissue type) can be very different from one another in genetics and, therefore, response to treatment.

The names of diseases in medicine reveal an interesting observation: a lot of the diseases discovered in the last century or so have technical names derived from the fields developed in those times, like biochemistry/electrophysiology/histopathology: IgA vasculitis, SIADH, T-cell lymphoma, minimal change disease, non-convulsive status epilepticus, seronegative arthritis, STEMI. The terminology of old diseases evolved too: many have retained their old names, known from antiquity, which usually describe the physical signs or subjective symptoms of the condition; think of epilepsy, pneumonia, ascites, migraine, syncope, diabetes mellitus/insipidus. Even though these old names have been preserved, yet they have either been relegated into mere signs of other diseases, as in ascites, or have been further classified (according to, say, genetics) into subtypes, as in diabetes mellitus types MODY and LADA, and nephrogenic vs central diabetes insipidus.

هل ترغبُ في أنْ يمدحكَ إنسانٌ يَلعن نفسهُ ثلاث مراتٍ في كل ساعة؟ هل تودّ أنْ تُرضي إنسانًا لا يستطيع أنْ يرضى عن نفسه؟ كم تعجّبت من أنّ كل إنسانٍ يُحبّ نفسه أكثر من أيِّ شخصٍ آخر، بينما يضع رأيَه في نفسِه موضعًا أدنى من رأي الآخرين فيه. حقًا، إذن، أننا نبالي بما سيراه فينا الآخرون أكثرَ مما نراهُ في أنفسِنا —التأملات لـ ماركوس اوريليوس إذا أنبأكَ شخصٌ بأنّ فلانًا يتحدّثُ عنك بما يُسيء فلا تُدافِع عن نفسكَ ضدّ ما قال، بل قُل: «إنّه لا يَعرفُ بقيةَ عيوبي، وإلّا لَما اقتصرَ على هذه.» — المختصر لـ إبكتيتوس

إذا رماك رامٍ بزور وسعى بك ساعٍ بوشاية، فلا تطفق تدافع عن نفسك كالذي استيقن في نفسه التهمة، بل قلِّب الوشاية على وجوهها، فإن وجدتها تنال من الواشي، وتكسوه ثوب الحمق، وتظهره في صورة الغرِّ الجاهل والغمر الغافل —وذلك شأن أكثر الوشايات—، فتلقَّها بالقبول، فإنها مدحٌ في لباس الذم، وزيادة في الهيبة، وشهادة بأنك الألمعي الفطين، والمجرب المكين، ودليل على أنك موضع الغيظ والحسد، فالجبان العاجز يذمك ويشي بك من جهة أنك أمضى ذهنًا، وأعظم مكرًا، وأجلُّ خطرًا. فاحفظ عليك وقتك، ولا تدافع، فإن أكثر الدفاع ريبة، واعلم أنَّ مَن استمال الواشي سمْعه، وصدّقَ به أول الأمر، فلن يعدل عن رأيه ولو مشيتَ فوق الماء، وفوق ذلك فإن هذا الجنس من الناس ليس أهلًا للصحبة، فالصاحب الخاذل ثغرٌ يدخل عليك خصومك منه، فلا تطمع بصحبته بعد ذلك.

.

صار عدنا موقعين محترمات واحد للمعلقات والثاني للمتنبي

.

https://ten-poems.com/ من طرائف اقتراحات خوارزمية social media هذا الموقع او القناة هي شرح تفصيلي ىلمعلقات العشر وكل ما يتعلق بهن وباصحابهن. او كما يصف صاحب القناة "مشروعٌ يجمع المعلقات العشر في تجربة قراءة متقنة، تضم الأبيات، والشروح، والمفردات، والتحليل، في تصميم جميل ومريح. ومن التأمّل والإنشاد إلى الحفظ والتصميم، إلى محاكاة التحدث مع الشعراء الجاهليين عبر تقنيات الذكاء الاصطناعي، صُنعت الموسوعة لخدمة محبّي الشعر العربي، وعشّاق اللغة العربية.