The use of "exponential" without qualification in Mathematics is X^n where "n" is an integer greater than 1. Yes, it can be qualified to be something else, but we are not talking about a qualified use.
When used in advertising unqualified, and next to a term that is qualified (annual in this case), the brain will provide the qualifier given to the unqualified term. It is psychological trickery to provide an impression that is not real. While not as nefarious as the "get women smoking" campaigns of Bernays, it is in the same line of brain washing. Subtle trickery to provide a false reality to the unwary.
Sure, if you stop and rationalize the terminology you can get a realistic view. That you must stop and rationalize is what makes it wrong to do.
If my post got you to think about it, I have met my goal!
He would be right _IF_, and only _IF there was a qualifier next to the use of "exponential" (As I originally stated). Unqualified, it is a psychological trick because your mind will automatically associate the provided "annual" qualifier to the term.
That is not to say you can't stop and rationalize it correctly, but that you have to stop to rationalize it to correct it makes it classic brainwashing ala Bernays and his ilk.
If memory serves in the early days Novell was considered Better than Microsoft, but not a poster child by any means. In the anti-trust cases we favored Novell over Microsoft, but really didn't have "pro NDS" conversations that I remember. Maybe some pro NDS over Netscape LDAP conversations, and things I'd still say today like "IPX is more secure than TCP/IP". Hell, we complimented a few things SGI did right too, but that does not make either a poster child.
No, I'm really not confused but perhaps I should have been more clear. You could have asked for clarity instead of jumping to the "you are confused" statement, but I know courtesy is rare. I'll provided you the courtesy you refused to grant me and add some clarity.
All people and companies report financial data _annually_. Tax law requires this, so that is not a question. Reported data is always "T==1". All of the projection data is using the same T==1 value. We use "Fiscal Year" data and "Calendar Year" data in every single aspect of reviewing a companies financial information/health. We look at any graph for past, present, future financial data they all have "annual" markers so T==1.
In order to use "exponential" the value of T must be suddenly be changed. Just to use a marketing word that sounds good, T is now 4,5,7,19,84.9, anything except for our steady value of T==1 we use in every other aspect of financial reporting. Again, the only reason to change T is to use a specific word. We have "annual" budgets, "annual" revenue, "annual" taxes, "annual" losses, I think you get the point. And if you want to use the value of T so that you can use the word exponential, tell me why I don't see reports of "exponential costs" in these reports? Hiring people in your "exponential" growth company has to have "exponential costs for labor", and "exponential tax payments", and "exponential management costs" because executives get raises, and "exponential losses".
It is misleading to use the term, and requires twisting the way we report and discuss data to have a shred of truth. That shred of truth thing is what advertising and marketing has become, but Nerds and Geeks should know better and see through the ruse.
All businesses report financial data annually, project based on Yearly data, etc... In everything but the "exponential" abuse T==1, yet you are accepting a different value of T so that they can use a specific word that sounds good. Look, I'm not even complaining that the growth chart requires 5 years of good guess work, I'm complaining that T is drastically changed for advertising and marketing purposes.
Show me a company that _only_ reports financial data every T=100 years and I'll bow to your wisdom. Companies report annually, all of them. They are required to do so in fact, so using the Government mandated "T=1" the term "exponential" is absolutely false.
So by your strange view, anything with a positive yield could be called "exponential". A savings account with 1% interest is "exponential" if you push the time of the graph out far enough.
So tell me, does Google only measure and report revenue every 5+N years? The graph for businesses is 1 year (fiscal or calendar). Further, anything beyond this year is projected (not real) so NO... it's not exponential growth in mathematical terms. It is "we expect 20% growth year on year", which is still exceptional growth. No marketing bullspit is needed for positive reviews.
No, they hate entire ranges of people that don't "think" the same exact thing that the "haters" think. If you can't see the irony in that, you are what Rush Limbaugh would call a "low IQ voter". Let me guess, 83? 84?
Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence understands that the South Park episode "Butterballs" was a comedy pointing out the irony in that class of thinking, while you take it as a way of life.
Good call! This is would immediately be abused because a device would have to be unlocked to show your ID. Someone (not you Burgler412) will probably say "well if you have nothing to hide" completely oblivious or forgetting that a cop in California was busted stealing people's selfies and sharing them with all his buddies and online. You may not have anything illegal on your phone, but that does not imply you have nothing you wish kept private either.
I have to wonder... Did the greasy politicians wring their hands and do the Dr. Evil laugh when they came up with this one? har har, they will never catch on...
While it does match the marketing lingo, the word "exponential" has specific mathematical meaning which does not even come close to your advertising driven use of the word. I fully realize that advertising and marketing regularly abuses definitions and often use words exactly contrary to their real meaning (I am thinking specifically of the word "literally" recently.). It is really a shame that people on the "News for Nerds" site use the same incorrect terminology and buzz words. One could at least qualify their use of marketing terms so that us real math/science oriented people are not left wondering if anything else stated is truthful enough to read.
So in the spirit of my personal crusade for accuracy and desire for the use of correct terminology how about using "20% growth" instead of abusing the definition of "exponential"? If you really need to use the word "exponential" can you say "exponential over 5+N years"? Hell, I'll compromise and agree with "doubling every 5+N years" which sounds pretty good as well.
Unfortunately, there is always someone the marketing soap box abusing our languages which makes it easy to fall into their ways. My soap box is pretty short lived, and I'm hopping off now.
I respect your opinion, and appreciate the perspective and courteous dialogue. We have to agree to disagree on this one. More details from him, and I might agree with you completely. I sincerely hope the guy at least takes your advice and at least gets a trained dog into the house, again I think that would alleviate half of the high risk concerns. That was a great call!
Again, you are looking at worst-case scenarios when there is no indication that such is the case. To the contrary, there is no tone of urgency or immanent danger, and she has been well controlled for quite a time. So are the kids in danger now? Not really.
Serious question. Are you a Medical Doctor specializing in Epilepsy and approving of the person's proposed solution? I did talk to a couple MD's today who don't use Slashdot (nor would they post an opinion here) who said this guy was nuts. I'm wondering if you have expertise that they lack. They were not neurologists, let alone specialists in epilepsy. Just a couple of general practice doctors. Hell, if you are a Neurologist point me to an article.
Assuming you are not a neurologist or MD, even if his wife was under control, the nature of the disorder is such that medication can stop working without warning. The only way a person would know their medication stopped working is to have a seizure. At this point she should be under surveillance, and his solution does provide surveillance for her. He has solved the lowest risk portion of the problem.
Not all the time - mistakes happen. I've passed out a few times, and the last time I tried to stand up in the kitchen, and BANG. No warning whatsoever, due to interference with another medication. Must have tried to get up again, because both sides of my body had bruises.
That really sucks, and I'm sincerely sorry to hear about something like that happening. On the other hand, I believe this provides the foundation for an example of similar conditions which I previously lacked.
Imagine that you could not stop taking the medications for a year or two. It's the only medication you can get and your life depends on taking them. Given that scenario every time you moved quickly you were at risk of passing out and hitting your head. Would you trust yourself as the sole care for an infant for 9-10 hours a day with a two year old under your care as well?
I think more importantly, would a doctor tell you to get some help until either A) the kids were in school so the risk duration was shorter, or B) everything was under control and you were not risk of passing out any longer? Or would they say "ahh, it's fine."
I'm pretty sure we both know the answer to these questions. No, nobody wants bad things to happen and yes, you are going to try and be careful. That does not matter, because it only takes one lapse in thought for you to kill an infant. One emergency situation where you have to jump and you could fall on top of a baby. Intent does not matter at that point, you had a huge amount of known risk that you did not mitigate properly. No MD in the world would approve that situation, and I don't honestly know any parents that would either.
I do like your epilepsy dog, I think it's an awesome thought when the kids are older. It does not reduce the biggest physical risk however, which is the infant. There is no way to guarantee that if mom has a seizure she will have enough time to set the infant down, let alone not fall and land on top of the infant. A dog can not intervene at the highest risk moment.
My biggest concern for the two year old is not physical harm, though that is also a risk. Children mimic what they see, and parents hug and cradle kids to make them feel better. A mom having seizures and a two year old next to them is a frightening proposition. Even if you tell them "don't go near mom when X" they are not developed enough to make those types of distinctions.
My real concern is that the two year old will feel massive guilt if something bad happens, even if they hit his proposed panic button. No, I didn't run into any Psychologists today. If I had, I would guarantee that they would have been as appalled as the MD's with what this guy is asking for help with. That much trauma would be hard enough on a teenager, it would be devastating for a two year old.
Given the wording from the submitter and his follow up (anonymous) post, I am assuming the worst. With the information at hand, I believe my assumption is fair.
To your first point: He does not need someone else in the house 100% of the time, he needs someone during the time he is at work or away for extended periods of time. No, an epileptic seizure in the severe tonic-clonic category is absolutely nothing like having to take an emergency bowel movement. I'm really trying to think of something medically that compares, and can't. Diabetic people (your next example) can be auto-monitored and auto-medicated. The most frightening thing about epilepsy is that it's completely unpredictable and seizures do not require warnings.
To your next point, I very much doubt any medical professional would green light his solution. In fact I would like to see a Doctors answer to his question. Will any doctor guarantee that her next seizure will not be a severe grand mal? What if her history is that she only has tonic-clonic seizures, he never specified what type or duration.. he only said "he felt horrible because he was not there" and "she had a seizure". You are assuming the best possible scenario, which in a way I appreciate. I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate your point of view.
To your last point: I fully agree that life can't be made 100% safe, life is all about risk vs. result decisions. In this case, while the risk may it is real. Further even with the risk low, the result of a worse case scenario is absolutely catastrophic. The biggest victims in that result are two small children who can not understand nor accept risks for themselves. In fact, it seems like the two year old is being pushed into a huge responsibility.
And you are different how exactly? Oh, I get it! On your soap box you don't mind if the parent has an infant and two year old in a potentially deadly situation. Got it! I'll stay on my soap box with a moral conscience thank you very much.
The oldest kid is 2 years old. Sorry, but a 2 year old running next door for help by themselves is extremely unlikely. The younger is an infant, so that's not in the equation.
Kids dialing 911, even though we teach it early is miraculous at 4-5 years old. It is so rare that it makes National News when it happens. A two year old does not have the intellectual capacity for this type of responsibility. The motor skills and memory required to run to a phone/button and take a specific action under duress far exceed that age. Stress for a 2 year old results in hide/freeze response, not "run take action" response. They are still getting a knack for motor skills and language, complex tasks are further off.
Last part, to your 95% of the time.. I fully agree. The problem I see is twofold.
1) Epilepsy is unpredictable. While people are known to go for very long times without seizures, the onset of seizures is not predictable in any way. There are no limits or restrictions to seizures. Generally speaking one a day is a lot. I'll go further and say with working medication once a year is a lot. Without working medication (as may be the case with his wife), several a day is certainly well documented. Some people have warning signs, some occasionally have warning signs, some have no warnings, and the warning signs can be so short that they are not usable as warnings.
2) Depending on the type of seizure, an adult can be incapacitated for hours. Not just immobile, but completely incoherent and disoriented. Seizures can be extremely violent. With an infant and toddler this is a huge risk. Mom will probably survive the seizure even if he has an hour drive home from work. Mom may not have any warning and go into a seizure while feeding the infant, bathing the toddler, etc.. etc.. Is his commute time enough to mitigate that risk?
I would further agree that the actual chances of something bad happening are pretty small. If this was you, would you take that risk even if it was small? Having full knowledge of his wife's condition, would law enforcement be okay with his solution?
We don't know some key information here. Like how far is his commute? What type of seizure is his wife more prone to? How far does he live from ERT? Since we don't know, I see nothing in his post to assume the best of everything. My assumption is 30 minute drive from work to home, average response time of 10-15 minutes for ERT, and Tonic-Clonic seizures (which seem to be the most common in adults).
If you worked a bit harder than a cursory glance you would find things like this: The Epilepsy Foundation of Northern California is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization leading the fight to stop seizures, find a cure and overcome the challenges created by epilepsy.
We direct information, resources and support toward the over 140,000 Northern Californians living with epilepsy.
infant and 2 year old != "small children" by any rational definition.
Do they provide in home assistance? I don't know, GP asked me to find "one" site for support. I found that in a quick Google Search. I don't have epilepsy so have never had to search for their services. If you really care about TFA and are not just trolling, why not call them and see? Oh, I know.. you can't even read the information box in a web site so I'd be expecting miracles. It's much easier to troll and claim impossible
I've read a couple of your posts on this topic now. It has become obvious that you don't have kids. 2 year olds don't require 24/7 care
Ooh, this is going to be fun!
So you have a 2 year old and go to work for a few hours leaving them alone? Go hang at the mall? We are not talking about them being home with an adult cleaning house, letting them watch TV to take a shower, or cooking. We are talking about a parent that can drop and be completely incapacitated by a seizure for long durations of time (hours, not minutes and usually requiring hospitalization and medical attention afterwards).
Children do require 24/7 care, by law. You are attempting, and failing, to conflate "care" with something other than the normal use of the terminology.. like perhaps "direct supervision".
If the time the 2 year old is left alone starts to get too long the worst case scenario is they are going to be melting down and trying to break the baby gate.
This would be true if the mom was never in close contact with the children, but you know damn well this is a false dilemma.
Epileptic seizures are often preceded by known symptoms. Symptoms the sufferer can recognise. If this is the case you have that as first line defence, second is cameras, third is panic button. There may even be others in there that we don't know about.
Absolutely false generalization. The majority of epileptics and seizures have no preceding symptoms or knowledge. Even in cases where there are symptoms (rare) the onset sign is so fast it is impossible to give warning. Medical professionals can not determine when seizures are going to happen, and they have been trying for decades. Sorry, but you don't have better answers than the specialists that have been working on this for decades.
To your last part, for two small kids this is not defense! A camera can not pull an infant out of mom's arms as she goes into a seizure. This is purely a reactive mechanism, where he hopes that he sees the event to call 911. Or he hopes that a 2 year old can alert him to call 911. And he hopes that ERT or he can arrive in time to rescue the infant/toddler if they are in danger. That is "I hope and pray", not "defense". In fact I would predict that this would result in premeditated negligence charges if either of the children were harmed (You know, Federal Pound me up the Ass Prison).
Don't confuse my anger with his proposed "solution" with a lack of compassion. He's in a tough position, and I don't envy the guy. He knew his position when he got married and had children, so this should have been planned out already. Okay, he had some oversight in planning. The things he is trying to do to make up for that put two kids at higher risk. That is the part I disagree with.
If that was the case I believe he would have called it out.. he would probably not have to ask for a technical solution to what he could do with a baby monitor and no rigging too.
Take your head out of your bum and picture the scene at home. It's not just a lady, it's a lady with an infant and a two year old next to her. The lady recently had a seizure which means her medication may no longer working, and at any moment she can have another seizure. Now, what happens to the infant mom is holding when she goes into a seizure? That is exactly why another person of age (depending on the State could be 13+) needs to be present until she is either stable or the kids are in school and out of harms way.
Now if you had not defended TFA's position on numerous occasions I could chalk this up as being pedantic due to the word "nurse". Perhaps that is the case, but without the clarification (and even given your follow up post) you are claiming that the children are fine being unsupervised given the situation. Which is absolutely wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously need a remedial slang course...
Calling it exponential makes it sound a lot more impressive than it is.
At least one other person gets it, yet my original post has been down modded *sigh*
The use of "exponential" without qualification in Mathematics is X^n where "n" is an integer greater than 1. Yes, it can be qualified to be something else, but we are not talking about a qualified use.
When used in advertising unqualified, and next to a term that is qualified (annual in this case), the brain will provide the qualifier given to the unqualified term. It is psychological trickery to provide an impression that is not real. While not as nefarious as the "get women smoking" campaigns of Bernays, it is in the same line of brain washing. Subtle trickery to provide a false reality to the unwary.
Sure, if you stop and rationalize the terminology you can get a realistic view. That you must stop and rationalize is what makes it wrong to do.
If my post got you to think about it, I have met my goal!
He would be right _IF_, and only _IF there was a qualifier next to the use of "exponential" (As I originally stated). Unqualified, it is a psychological trick because your mind will automatically associate the provided "annual" qualifier to the term.
That is not to say you can't stop and rationalize it correctly, but that you have to stop to rationalize it to correct it makes it classic brainwashing ala Bernays and his ilk.
If memory serves in the early days Novell was considered Better than Microsoft, but not a poster child by any means. In the anti-trust cases we favored Novell over Microsoft, but really didn't have "pro NDS" conversations that I remember. Maybe some pro NDS over Netscape LDAP conversations, and things I'd still say today like "IPX is more secure than TCP/IP". Hell, we complimented a few things SGI did right too, but that does not make either a poster child.
No, I'm really not confused but perhaps I should have been more clear. You could have asked for clarity instead of jumping to the "you are confused" statement, but I know courtesy is rare. I'll provided you the courtesy you refused to grant me and add some clarity.
All people and companies report financial data _annually_. Tax law requires this, so that is not a question. Reported data is always "T==1". All of the projection data is using the same T==1 value. We use "Fiscal Year" data and "Calendar Year" data in every single aspect of reviewing a companies financial information/health. We look at any graph for past, present, future financial data they all have "annual" markers so T==1.
In order to use "exponential" the value of T must be suddenly be changed. Just to use a marketing word that sounds good, T is now 4,5,7,19,84.9, anything except for our steady value of T==1 we use in every other aspect of financial reporting. Again, the only reason to change T is to use a specific word. We have "annual" budgets, "annual" revenue, "annual" taxes, "annual" losses, I think you get the point. And if you want to use the value of T so that you can use the word exponential, tell me why I don't see reports of "exponential costs" in these reports? Hiring people in your "exponential" growth company has to have "exponential costs for labor", and "exponential tax payments", and "exponential management costs" because executives get raises, and "exponential losses".
It is misleading to use the term, and requires twisting the way we report and discuss data to have a shred of truth. That shred of truth thing is what advertising and marketing has become, but Nerds and Geeks should know better and see through the ruse.
All businesses report financial data annually, project based on Yearly data, etc... In everything but the "exponential" abuse T==1, yet you are accepting a different value of T so that they can use a specific word that sounds good. Look, I'm not even complaining that the growth chart requires 5 years of good guess work, I'm complaining that T is drastically changed for advertising and marketing purposes.
Show me a company that _only_ reports financial data every T=100 years and I'll bow to your wisdom. Companies report annually, all of them. They are required to do so in fact, so using the Government mandated "T=1" the term "exponential" is absolutely false.
"Could" sure, but nothing you state relates to what is being developed and proposed. "Could of", "should of", "would of" and all that...
So by your strange view, anything with a positive yield could be called "exponential". A savings account with 1% interest is "exponential" if you push the time of the graph out far enough.
So tell me, does Google only measure and report revenue every 5+N years? The graph for businesses is 1 year (fiscal or calendar). Further, anything beyond this year is projected (not real) so NO... it's not exponential growth in mathematical terms. It is "we expect 20% growth year on year", which is still exceptional growth. No marketing bullspit is needed for positive reviews.
That's good, and I'd support that one too!
No, they hate entire ranges of people that don't "think" the same exact thing that the "haters" think. If you can't see the irony in that, you are what Rush Limbaugh would call a "low IQ voter". Let me guess, 83? 84?
Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence understands that the South Park episode "Butterballs" was a comedy pointing out the irony in that class of thinking, while you take it as a way of life.
Good call! This is would immediately be abused because a device would have to be unlocked to show your ID. Someone (not you Burgler412) will probably say "well if you have nothing to hide" completely oblivious or forgetting that a cop in California was busted stealing people's selfies and sharing them with all his buddies and online. You may not have anything illegal on your phone, but that does not imply you have nothing you wish kept private either.
I have to wonder... Did the greasy politicians wring their hands and do the Dr. Evil laugh when they came up with this one? har har, they will never catch on...
While it does match the marketing lingo, the word "exponential" has specific mathematical meaning which does not even come close to your advertising driven use of the word. I fully realize that advertising and marketing regularly abuses definitions and often use words exactly contrary to their real meaning (I am thinking specifically of the word "literally" recently.). It is really a shame that people on the "News for Nerds" site use the same incorrect terminology and buzz words. One could at least qualify their use of marketing terms so that us real math/science oriented people are not left wondering if anything else stated is truthful enough to read.
So in the spirit of my personal crusade for accuracy and desire for the use of correct terminology how about using "20% growth" instead of abusing the definition of "exponential"? If you really need to use the word "exponential" can you say "exponential over 5+N years"? Hell, I'll compromise and agree with "doubling every 5+N years" which sounds pretty good as well.
Unfortunately, there is always someone the marketing soap box abusing our languages which makes it easy to fall into their ways. My soap box is pretty short lived, and I'm hopping off now.
I respect your opinion, and appreciate the perspective and courteous dialogue. We have to agree to disagree on this one. More details from him, and I might agree with you completely. I sincerely hope the guy at least takes your advice and at least gets a trained dog into the house, again I think that would alleviate half of the high risk concerns. That was a great call!
Again, you are looking at worst-case scenarios when there is no indication that such is the case. To the contrary, there is no tone of urgency or immanent danger, and she has been well controlled for quite a time. So are the kids in danger now? Not really.
Serious question. Are you a Medical Doctor specializing in Epilepsy and approving of the person's proposed solution? I did talk to a couple MD's today who don't use Slashdot (nor would they post an opinion here) who said this guy was nuts. I'm wondering if you have expertise that they lack. They were not neurologists, let alone specialists in epilepsy. Just a couple of general practice doctors. Hell, if you are a Neurologist point me to an article.
Assuming you are not a neurologist or MD, even if his wife was under control, the nature of the disorder is such that medication can stop working without warning. The only way a person would know their medication stopped working is to have a seizure. At this point she should be under surveillance, and his solution does provide surveillance for her. He has solved the lowest risk portion of the problem.
Not all the time - mistakes happen. I've passed out a few times, and the last time I tried to stand up in the kitchen, and BANG. No warning whatsoever, due to interference with another medication. Must have tried to get up again, because both sides of my body had bruises.
That really sucks, and I'm sincerely sorry to hear about something like that happening. On the other hand, I believe this provides the foundation for an example of similar conditions which I previously lacked.
Imagine that you could not stop taking the medications for a year or two. It's the only medication you can get and your life depends on taking them. Given that scenario every time you moved quickly you were at risk of passing out and hitting your head. Would you trust yourself as the sole care for an infant for 9-10 hours a day with a two year old under your care as well?
I think more importantly, would a doctor tell you to get some help until either A) the kids were in school so the risk duration was shorter, or B) everything was under control and you were not risk of passing out any longer? Or would they say "ahh, it's fine."
I'm pretty sure we both know the answer to these questions. No, nobody wants bad things to happen and yes, you are going to try and be careful. That does not matter, because it only takes one lapse in thought for you to kill an infant. One emergency situation where you have to jump and you could fall on top of a baby. Intent does not matter at that point, you had a huge amount of known risk that you did not mitigate properly. No MD in the world would approve that situation, and I don't honestly know any parents that would either.
I do like your epilepsy dog, I think it's an awesome thought when the kids are older. It does not reduce the biggest physical risk however, which is the infant. There is no way to guarantee that if mom has a seizure she will have enough time to set the infant down, let alone not fall and land on top of the infant. A dog can not intervene at the highest risk moment.
My biggest concern for the two year old is not physical harm, though that is also a risk. Children mimic what they see, and parents hug and cradle kids to make them feel better. A mom having seizures and a two year old next to them is a frightening proposition. Even if you tell them "don't go near mom when X" they are not developed enough to make those types of distinctions.
My real concern is that the two year old will feel massive guilt if something bad happens, even if they hit his proposed panic button. No, I didn't run into any Psychologists today. If I had, I would guarantee that they would have been as appalled as the MD's with what this guy is asking for help with. That much trauma would be hard enough on a teenager, it would be devastating for a two year old.
Yup, the guy could hav
Given the wording from the submitter and his follow up (anonymous) post, I am assuming the worst. With the information at hand, I believe my assumption is fair.
To your first point: He does not need someone else in the house 100% of the time, he needs someone during the time he is at work or away for extended periods of time. No, an epileptic seizure in the severe tonic-clonic category is absolutely nothing like having to take an emergency bowel movement. I'm really trying to think of something medically that compares, and can't. Diabetic people (your next example) can be auto-monitored and auto-medicated. The most frightening thing about epilepsy is that it's completely unpredictable and seizures do not require warnings.
To your next point, I very much doubt any medical professional would green light his solution. In fact I would like to see a Doctors answer to his question. Will any doctor guarantee that her next seizure will not be a severe grand mal? What if her history is that she only has tonic-clonic seizures, he never specified what type or duration.. he only said "he felt horrible because he was not there" and "she had a seizure". You are assuming the best possible scenario, which in a way I appreciate. I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate your point of view.
To your last point: I fully agree that life can't be made 100% safe, life is all about risk vs. result decisions. In this case, while the risk may it is real. Further even with the risk low, the result of a worse case scenario is absolutely catastrophic. The biggest victims in that result are two small children who can not understand nor accept risks for themselves. In fact, it seems like the two year old is being pushed into a huge responsibility.
And you are different how exactly? Oh, I get it! On your soap box you don't mind if the parent has an infant and two year old in a potentially deadly situation. Got it! I'll stay on my soap box with a moral conscience thank you very much.
The oldest kid is 2 years old. Sorry, but a 2 year old running next door for help by themselves is extremely unlikely. The younger is an infant, so that's not in the equation.
Kids dialing 911, even though we teach it early is miraculous at 4-5 years old. It is so rare that it makes National News when it happens. A two year old does not have the intellectual capacity for this type of responsibility. The motor skills and memory required to run to a phone/button and take a specific action under duress far exceed that age. Stress for a 2 year old results in hide/freeze response, not "run take action" response. They are still getting a knack for motor skills and language, complex tasks are further off.
Last part, to your 95% of the time.. I fully agree. The problem I see is twofold.
1) Epilepsy is unpredictable. While people are known to go for very long times without seizures, the onset of seizures is not predictable in any way. There are no limits or restrictions to seizures. Generally speaking one a day is a lot. I'll go further and say with working medication once a year is a lot. Without working medication (as may be the case with his wife), several a day is certainly well documented. Some people have warning signs, some occasionally have warning signs, some have no warnings, and the warning signs can be so short that they are not usable as warnings.
2) Depending on the type of seizure, an adult can be incapacitated for hours. Not just immobile, but completely incoherent and disoriented. Seizures can be extremely violent. With an infant and toddler this is a huge risk. Mom will probably survive the seizure even if he has an hour drive home from work. Mom may not have any warning and go into a seizure while feeding the infant, bathing the toddler, etc.. etc.. Is his commute time enough to mitigate that risk?
I would further agree that the actual chances of something bad happening are pretty small. If this was you, would you take that risk even if it was small? Having full knowledge of his wife's condition, would law enforcement be okay with his solution?
We don't know some key information here. Like how far is his commute? What type of seizure is his wife more prone to? How far does he live from ERT? Since we don't know, I see nothing in his post to assume the best of everything. My assumption is 30 minute drive from work to home, average response time of 10-15 minutes for ERT, and Tonic-Clonic seizures (which seem to be the most common in adults).
If you worked a bit harder than a cursory glance you would find things like this: The Epilepsy Foundation of Northern California is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization leading the fight to stop seizures, find a cure and overcome the challenges created by epilepsy.
We direct information, resources and support toward the over 140,000 Northern Californians living with epilepsy.
infant and 2 year old != "small children" by any rational definition.
Do they provide in home assistance? I don't know, GP asked me to find "one" site for support. I found that in a quick Google Search. I don't have epilepsy so have never had to search for their services. If you really care about TFA and are not just trolling, why not call them and see? Oh, I know.. you can't even read the information box in a web site so I'd be expecting miracles. It's much easier to troll and claim impossible
I've read a couple of your posts on this topic now. It has become obvious that you don't have kids. 2 year olds don't require 24/7 care
Ooh, this is going to be fun!
So you have a 2 year old and go to work for a few hours leaving them alone? Go hang at the mall? We are not talking about them being home with an adult cleaning house, letting them watch TV to take a shower, or cooking. We are talking about a parent that can drop and be completely incapacitated by a seizure for long durations of time (hours, not minutes and usually requiring hospitalization and medical attention afterwards).
Children do require 24/7 care, by law. You are attempting, and failing, to conflate "care" with something other than the normal use of the terminology.. like perhaps "direct supervision".
If the time the 2 year old is left alone starts to get too long the worst case scenario is they are going to be melting down and trying to break the baby gate.
This would be true if the mom was never in close contact with the children, but you know damn well this is a false dilemma.
Epileptic seizures are often preceded by known symptoms. Symptoms the sufferer can recognise. If this is the case you have that as first line defence, second is cameras, third is panic button. There may even be others in there that we don't know about.
Absolutely false generalization. The majority of epileptics and seizures have no preceding symptoms or knowledge. Even in cases where there are symptoms (rare) the onset sign is so fast it is impossible to give warning. Medical professionals can not determine when seizures are going to happen, and they have been trying for decades. Sorry, but you don't have better answers than the specialists that have been working on this for decades.
To your last part, for two small kids this is not defense! A camera can not pull an infant out of mom's arms as she goes into a seizure. This is purely a reactive mechanism, where he hopes that he sees the event to call 911. Or he hopes that a 2 year old can alert him to call 911. And he hopes that ERT or he can arrive in time to rescue the infant/toddler if they are in danger. That is "I hope and pray", not "defense". In fact I would predict that this would result in premeditated negligence charges if either of the children were harmed (You know, Federal Pound me up the Ass Prison).
Don't confuse my anger with his proposed "solution" with a lack of compassion. He's in a tough position, and I don't envy the guy. He knew his position when he got married and had children, so this should have been planned out already. Okay, he had some oversight in planning. The things he is trying to do to make up for that put two kids at higher risk. That is the part I disagree with.
If that was the case I believe he would have called it out.. he would probably not have to ask for a technical solution to what he could do with a baby monitor and no rigging too.
Take your head out of your bum and picture the scene at home. It's not just a lady, it's a lady with an infant and a two year old next to her. The lady recently had a seizure which means her medication may no longer working, and at any moment she can have another seizure. Now, what happens to the infant mom is holding when she goes into a seizure? That is exactly why another person of age (depending on the State could be 13+) needs to be present until she is either stable or the kids are in school and out of harms way.
Now if you had not defended TFA's position on numerous occasions I could chalk this up as being pedantic due to the word "nurse". Perhaps that is the case, but without the clarification (and even given your follow up post) you are claiming that the children are fine being unsupervised given the situation. Which is absolutely wrong.
I am not the US Department of Social Services, and if GP has time to make a few Slashdot posts he sure as hell can call them.