I remain hopeful that the full list of 140M SSNs will be posted in full. It's a rare opportunity: if that happens, the US will have no choice but to finally switch to a new system. One that doesn't rely on SSNs being private. That's the absurdity. It is easy to steal your identity because we have allowed it to be easy.
It's going to be difficult to switch to a new system, but the pain will be worth it. Imagine if the author could finally have peace of mind because nobody could impersonate him.
That is a fairytale, admittedly. It's always going to be possible to steal someone's identity if you're determined. But just look how trivial it is right now. Your driver's license plus the thief's photo is all they need. And it's possible to forge: they don't even need to swipe your physical one.
Those are the keys to the kingdom, said Bo Holland, CEO of AllClear ID, an identity-monitoring service. Once you have somebody's name, social, birth date, and address, you can go and open new accounts.
The SSN shouldn't be the critical key in that list.
As a group they have slowly been cutting out all the value-adds and buckling down on only one thing: distribution. Distribution is not valuable anymore because distribution has no marginal cost. This is classic rent-seeking. Cut your costs so far that your business does nothing, nothing except extract rent out of a pre-existing monopoly. This lasts exactly as long as it takes the market to make a competitor.
How do you win against free? Be better than free.
I'm not a working scientist - I have no paid-for University access to a variety of journals or other such connections, nor do I know the intricate details of how research is published. What I do know is that I'm a citizen helping to fund much of this work, and access to primary literature is critically important to make informed decisions about our future. The academics are paid a salary to produce findings, not to sell individual copies (unlike the music industry comparisons). While I'm willing to pay something, I can't be expected to pay the huge costs to access individual papers that are demanded today. Open access journals like PLOS are fantastic, but it's an unfortunate reality that much of the quality research is published on platforms that charge $30 for a paper. Until this changes, sci-hub is my answer.
"Gold open access": publish paper in a publicly accessible academic journal.
"Green open access": self-publish. For instance, throw it on a website, and allow it to be indexed.
Music pirates forced the music industry to realize that they were charging too much for user-hostile formats. Publishing pirates ought to force the publishing industry to realize that they are charging too much for user-hostile formats, too.
The music industry started to win back market-share from pirates when they understood that they had to compete with pirate offerings and offer a better, higher-quality product. The results were iTunes, then Spotify and similar competitors (Google Music etc.). The publishing industry ought to be no exception.
In Information Rules, Shapiro & Varian argue that if you're selling an information product, all that you can charge for is the value that you add on top of the information, such as convenience, freshness, etc. It's best to assume the information itself is free.
If copyright still expired in 14 or 28 years, we'd have a rich public domain from which to draw from. Think about all of the "fan fiction" that could be commercialized, or the textbooks which could be freely modified and redistributed by students and the academic community.
Because the public domain has been cheated out of such wealth (in no small part due to lobbying by Disney and other IP-based corporations) it really doesn't surprise me that piracy is so popular.
They're a parasite, and have been for years.
The other awful part is their "bundling" - only want access to journals X, Y and Z? Tough. You have to buy them in a package that includes bottom of the barrel journals A-W as well, for a huge fee.
Peer review still has direct value, and peer reviewed publications on your CV have indirect value so the IACR conferences (and possibly Springer/LNCS) aren't going away any time soon. But everyone I know of in the field looks on eprint first when they actually want to read papers.
http://hypothes.is/ is a nonprofit that makes annotation tech that some are using to publish peer-reviews, not just the article. I think that's pretty cool. Give the content away for free (you have to/should), but focus on having the best community around it.
Worse there are people out there who specialize in selective quoting and manipulating our understanding of science. Case in point "The plant paradox" book telling everyone that egg yokes reduce cholesterol and citing a paper which said the exact opposite: https://youtu.be/7NT4q_5dfLs?t=216
People wielding science have a lot of power - without transparency there is no accountability.
Publishing articles has real costs. This is not about hosting PDFs, its about everything that goes into editorial curation, managing peer review, marketing a journal to build a brand, copy editing/formatting, and then yes, finally at the end of the day hosting a PDF. Those tasks do indeed have costs. They range from anywhere from something on the order of $500 - $5,000 per published article. Nobody is publishing at scale for cheaper than that. The argument that it should only cost something like $30 to publish an article is a complete fantasy. So if you want to argue about the value add and that all publishers do is sit around collecting rent for doing nothing, you have to check your hyperbole and come to the debate with reasoned arguments about the realistic costs of performing the very real tasks that are performed.
There has never been a better time to try to be an academic publisher for cheaper than the incumbents. The tech infrastructure is there, clearly the PR and anti-publisher sentiment is on your side. So why arent there millions of publishers springing up to publish articles for $30 a pop (or even better - free!)? Its because its not possible to do the job thats required for free or for that low a price. But there are literally no technical barriers to someone trying. Come up with a complete alternative to the journal system for publishing research, or figure out how to magically do it for free. Theres nothing technical in your way, but there are still major hurdles. Youll find that doing the job a publisher does in fact involve work. You can deride that work all you want, but you cannot deny that publisher do indeed spend the money to do that work. So if you think that work is truly worthless you should launch a competitor that doesnt do any work at all.
But the biggest barrier to radical changes in business model is all cultural. Academics are slow to change, and you cannot underestimate the importance of reputation. So any competing product has to address the cultural role that journals play (working as proxy for quality measurement and assessing academic job applicants). So yes, you can put PDFs online for basically free. Thats not the job of journals. To replace journals you have to solve the content curation and bestowing of prestige issues in some other way. There are loads of people trying (or startups that have died trying), and so far nothing has done much to dislodge the journal (and particularly Impact Factor) as the sole arbiter of academic quality. Its a heroic task to try to tackle, because largely I think the world would be a better place if there was some real disruption in how academics judge other academics.
Now onto Gold OA. From my perspective Gold OA, which means the author funds the publication of the article, typically through baking it into the research funding grant, is making HUGE progress. Gold OA publishing is one of the fastest growing segments (both by revenue and number of articles published) for all major publishers at least in STM fields. In fields where there isnt readily accessible grant money (the humanities and social sciences) there isnt nearly as much progress on Gold OA (and the path forward isnt clear either). But Gold OA is so mainstream now that I can imagine it gobbling up the entirety of STM publishing in 10-20 years (god I hope before that, but this industry moves slow).
Im happy to talk more about academic publishing from the counter perspective to most people here, although a lot of these discussions can be more productive outside of the HN forum. Feel free to email me (details in profile).
2. Download all the articles you want to a USB stick and print them at work.
Downvoted? I thought that this was relevant to the whole publisher issue myself. They provide zero incremental value and serve as little more than incremental friction towards accessing their content freely. Notice that step 2 was not upload to scihub.
Peer review, the last thing that they did provide, seems to be undergoing disruption by crowdsourced attempts at replicating results.
Did somebody tell the pirates?
The pirates were doing the chasing. Without the pirates, we wouldn't have multiple competing services that grant unlimited access to practically every note of commercial recorded music for a very modest amount of money.
If scientific publishing had a Spotify or Apple Music, then there would be no need for a sci-hub. Your move, Wiley.
I know my ACM membership, which is ~$200 a year has given me access to a ton of compsci papers. Maybe ACM is the exception on this?
Right. Blame the authors. Not, say Elsevier, who demands authors remove their own research from their own sites and charges exorbitant prices for access to journals.
> Now, some European countries are trying a new approach: to demand of the major publishers nationwide open access contracts, such as Projekt DEAL in Germany
Indeed. Because it's not the authors who are to blame.
- In July 2015, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) announced a plan to start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any Open Access policy for Dutch universities
- In December 2016, Nature Publishing Group reported that academics in Germany, Peru and Taiwan are to lose access to Elsevier journals as negotiations had broken down with the publisher
etc etc. etc.
"What I find startling ... [that] 15 years on from the Budapest Open Access Declaration, a pirate site is needed at all." asks the author of the article. Why, indeed.
> Sci-Hub, which is self-reporting more than 60 million articles freely available (Sci-Hub, 2017) and could have harvested nearly all scholarly literature (Himmelstein, Romeo, McLaughlin, Greshake, & Greene, 2017) if true, Sci-Hub has single-handedly won the race to make all journal articles open access.
So... WHY IS THIS A BAD THING?
> Set against this are the combined efforts of stakeholders in scholarly communications who, after two decades, have managed only to get around half the world's research articles open, with the rest still behind a paywall 34 years post-publication
WHY ARE THEY SET AGAINST THIS?
> For books, despite initiatives like Open Access Publishing in European Networks (OAPEN), Knowledge Unlatched, and Open Book Publishers, progress has been glacial. At the time of writing, there are just over 8,000 titles listed in the Directory of Open Access Books (http://www.doabooks.org/), which considering that Springer alone offers nearly 280,000 titles from its online bookshop suggests that the proportion of books published open access has yet to reach 2%.
"What I find startling ... [that] 15 years on from the Budapest Open Access Declaration, a pirate site is needed at all." asks the author of the article.
.... and then he goes on blame authors, and only authors.
> On the author side, peer review management, copyediting, and language services could be offered along with services to promote the publications and make them more accessible to non-technical audiences.
Peer review is already done mostly for free. Why does he keep blaming the authors?
Surprisingly, after spending the entire article vilifying the authors, the author of the article reaches this conclusion: " Critically, only one actor is needed to start this process of unbundling: the publisher. In making a basic, legal version free for anyone to read, gratis open access is achieved at a stroke, and it would start to make the pirates redundant."
Surprised the Radeon Pro SSG isn't an option. It's basically the WX 9100 with 2TB of flash memory slapped on that you can use as VRAM:
Hopefully OpenJ9 will meet with better success. On paper, it seems to meet the restrictions that Oracle currently imposes for TCK access, namely that it is available under a GPL license and that its class library is derived from OpenJDK.[3,4] And it comes from IBM, which has been able to put aside its differences with Oracle on OpenJDK in the past, when it became clear that Oracle would never support Harmony (which IBM previously backed).
But when it comes to Oracle and intellectual property, who knows?
Does this support AOT ?
How impossible would it be to add a delete keyword to the JVM, and why?
There's no net-value created by doing the 'mining part' - in fact, it's a value-destroying activity.
Why waste electricity doing nothing?
Generate electricity that others can use, sell that, and pay for research.
(The application of the earned money to funding climate research is basically unrelated.)
EDIT: Maybe not. I'm getting article with conflicting estimates for future growth, but this study
suggests that data center energy use has recently slowed dramatically, to just 4% per year. Very surprising to me.
Edit: Not an outdoor setup but a setup to use all electricity surplus to regular needs for mining instead.
Tesla and Steinmetz figured out the theory of AC machines in the early 20th century. This was the first industrial technology where you needed advanced math to get anything to work right. Complex numbers. Calculus. Laplace transforms. That bothered some people, such as Edison. By the 1930s it was figured out, and generations of EEs struggled through rotating machine theory in college.
Then all the cool kids went off to radio and transistors and computers. Rotating electrical machinery was a mature field. Maybe a few people at GE in Schenectady worked on it.
Then came power semiconductors, and chopper-type motor control, where power was being turned on and off at moderately high frequencies. At first this was just applied to existing motor designs. But AC motors were designed for sine wave power. Choppers didn't produce clean sine waves. Much effort was put into making variable-speed controls that produced the nice sine waves motors needed. Classical AC theory was built around sine waves, and engineers knew how to do that kind of analysis. This worked, but it made AC motors buzz at the chopper frequency, and as chopper frequencies went up, whine. When you ride on BART, that's what you're hearing from the motors. The waveform mismatch also led to unwanted heating in the windings and inefficiency.
Variable-frequency 3-phase AC motors went from exotic to normal. Today, everything from a Tesla to a drone to a Diesel-electric locomotive uses such motors. The big power semiconductors required aren't that big. Here's one for a locomotive.
In recent years, motors have started to be designed for the non sinusoidal waveforms that come out of chopper power supplies. This required new theory and much simulation of magnetic fields. There's plenty of compute power available and commercial packages for that kind of analysis. Now we're seeing more advanced motor designs that match well with their control electronics.
After most of a century, rotating electrical machinery design is cool again.
VFDs are very complex pieces of circuitry- far more than you'd expect. Efficient drivers require a great deal of computation, and 16 or 32 bit processors are not uncommon. That also requires high-power, cheap silicon transistors which are only gradually taking over from simpler control schemes. They make a huge difference in a lot of cases.
The author is also very wrong on Synchronous Reluctance-assisted Permanent Magnet motors, but its hard to fault them on that; it's complicated even for many engineers. The purpose is not to increase the power density, it's to increase efficiency. The magnets act like a "cruise" motor. At low torque, they provide all of the rotor magnetization at a very high efficiency. At higher torque, the stator induces a stronger field into the rotor, causing it to act like a reluctance motor. That allows you to turn on extra power as demanded at the price of lower efficiency (the same as a reluctance motor).
If, instead, you just used a larger PM motor, it would be more expensive and it would also have an efficiency drop at low torque (where the motor spends most of its time operating). The magnets are highly efficient but they "set" the operating torque of the motor somewhat, so there is a loss at low power/high speed to hysteresis. A reluctance motor meanwhile never reaches the peak efficiency of a PM motor.
Anyway the article doesn't really say much convincing and feels mostly like fluff.
> As Electric Motors Impove,
I hope to see the day when projects like this could be cost effective.
ive always wondered what it would be like if you used a dual motor system in a car, where one motor is wound and sized for very high torque and the other motor is wound and sized for very high speed. i think it would be great because, as long as they were induction based motors, you could run one and leave the other off with no interference from the one that is turned off. it would be like having a transmission without any of the energy loss or maintenance problems. you could also distribute power however you want among the two motors, and in a way have something like an infinitely variable transmission. that would be really cool.
Speaking of which.. what is a good hard drive that is above 1tb that is extra loud? I want my kids to grow up with a loud hard drive just like I did....
Helium will leak so that is an extra problem to deal with in preserving data.
Regular HDDs, replace a controller or even open up old HDDs and run them open in a clean room no problem.
[EDIT] WD has a 4TB hybrid drive, but couldn't find any others larger than 2TB
It isn't mysterious that this is also the result in cryptocurrency as well.
An oft parroted rebuttal is that bitcoin is being used for speculation and very little is being used for purchases of goods and services, even though that fits the same behavior of national currencies it is used to discredit bitcoin's use as a currency.
It looks like it is growing the way one would expect.
Also, just because some personality traits worked for a certain place, time, and cultural period, doesn't mean it's applicable to the industry today.
I find it interesting to contrast the joy of a track like "Night Comes In" with how humourless Cat Stevens became.
*although they never met to my knowledge
I was surprised that such a song would be offered. I was, in fact, distracted by the song lyrics against the movie dialogue due to this and I'm not complaining about that. It was just so surprising, because Cat Stevens.
And I'm glad for it. The last I heard of him was getting stopped by TSA Theatre because of his life-change in name and perhaps religion change over a decade ago. Hearing his music in "pop culture" in "current year" is refreshing.
I guess it was either tour again or run for US President.
You don't need an artists permission to enjoy their older work, even if they themselves disavow it, especially not music. Ever since I was six I loved his voice and it never bothered me that he tried another life. Better that and to embrace it by choice than to live by default.
Developers always consider customer service below them. Working as a customer service rep for even an hour a month will at least make them respect customer service team a bit.
The value is just sitting there, like you're fishing. You just have to catch it and reel it in. If you're willing to work with the person on the other end and talk through the issue, you'll discover countless bits of information that will make your software or product better. Whether it's a workflow you didn't realize existed or a confusion caused by how you worded something or a random bug, the exchange can prove invaluable. You've got someone, most likely in the middle of their day, trying to use your thing, that you've created/sold, and their attention is focused solely on your thing. You have to take these opportunities and squeeze the most out of them!
Look, I get that some protocols like training are lacking and not everyone has the knack for calming people down, but communicating over the phone or via email with customers yields valuable insights and gives you an amazing perspective. If I ever have my own company, every new employee will almost most certainly do a rotation in customer support.
Many times now, in my own experience, a screen that I thought was designed brilliantly tends to not work as well out in the wild. It is amazing how many visual cues people miss or misread. Sometimes you have to make things more than obvious, and unless you are hearing about it directly from the customer (or better still, watching them do it), then you cannot really understand the challenges they face.
I guess it is the same as making architects live in the houses they design...
I enjoy working with production system (DevOps/SRE). I don't just take tickets from technical users like developers because I build tools and I relay feedback and production issues back to developers, but I also get to talk to end users and also with the business representatives like product owner.
The best out of doing support is actually learning how the product works, if you aren't doing the product development. The aha moment comes when you relay between dev and users.
Companies, especially the technology companies should offer employees trainings and workshops on non-technical subjects like interpersonal skills and health talks, not just hackathons and technical talks. We work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, we should free our minds from programming or staring at the computer once in a while.
The biggest failure I see in software these days is software developers who are so far away from their customers that they build the wrong thing. They build what they think is a good idea, and not what the customer actually needs.
We aren't all Steve Jobs, predicting and making the future. Most of us need to instead understand the customer. Working customer support? That's a fantastic way to get to know what your customers want.
I would have never came up with the feature without being on those calls.
Another approach is to have people sit in on support for a brief period to get a snapshot of what it's like and the problems they encounter. Then these observers don't have to fulfill a role they aren't prepared to handle.
2) people are different.
3) some people are better at tech, some better with people
4) if you care about your customer, they should be considered read-only.
5) read-write privileges should be EARNED, probably by experience.
6) generally a csr or acct manager should chaperon or help interactions.
Stop thinking your beyond speaking to customers
Anyone who's spent time in the support trenches knows that the rest of the company has contempt for them and doesn't know what actually happens on support calls. Getting everyone to do support, at least for a little while, shows what kind of problems support people encounter, both technical and social. Developers in particular see support staff as below them, not equals, and without any CS experience they're often clueless about what goes on in CS - they get a bit more empathic when they've actually seen what happens.
It was actually laughable when the article talked of CS being considered a finely-honed skill that takes years; I can guarantee you, that's not how anyone treats support staff. No-one ever talks of a concept like a "10x support staffer".
In any case, CS is like hospitality: it's an unpleasant job that can be done without much training, isn't well-paid, and few people like it or want to stay in it long-term. It's that unpleasantness which is the real reason why the author doesn't want to do it, not some supposed passion for high-quality CS.
I was looking into similar solutions to capture CAN bus events for telematics usecase.
Can't this be easily generalized to any game?
The majority of people don't want to be on pills. They want to get better. If I'm in too much pain to physically get out of bed, how am I supposed to exercise? It sounds like this is just an advertisement for CBT, and 90% of it is summed up as "get an anti-depressant" and "go to therapy." Well everyone is already doing that.
I mean, are we really going to suggest everyone in the medical industry related to pain management is just a scam? That doctors don't try a mirade of tools to help their patients and instead just throw addictive pills at them? Surely some do. But who says "I want to go to medical school to sell pills" instead of "helping people"?
I don't know. I find it hard to analytically process this article since I'm so close to the source. But I literally spend >60% of my days in complete writhing agony. I had to FIGHT to get the medicine I needed and I had to FIGHT to get the back surgeries that took me from almost dying to "surviving." So if the world is really handing out pills and surgeries, it sure as hell wasn't doing it in my area.
Read "Healing Back Pain: The Mind Body Connection" by Jon Sarno.
I lived with chronic knee pain for over 8 years, and would routinely have "carpal tunnel like symptoms" with my wrists.
Literally within a week of reading that book my knee pain was gone, and my wrists have not had any issues since. My personality type is exactly that described in the book, so it might not work for everyone. But boy howdy it worked for me.
Edit: As it relates to the article - Dr. Sarno attributes most of the pain to your brain and unconscious emotional rage. It sounds kind of quackish, but he lays out excellent explanations of how your brain works against you to cause this chronic pain. I was a skeptical as well (I won't give away spoilers but the treatment plan is HILARIOUSLY simple) but it has really worked for me.
An interesting development is that there is generally an increased acceptance for psychiatric diagnoses. More are accepting that just as the pancreas may stop delivering insulin, the brain may fail to uphold the proper seretonin levels. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that, fixing seretonin or any other substance is like pouring oil over an engine and hope that it reaches the target. Still, I'm sure that we will see a huge change as true targeted treatments are no longer just sci-fi. Getting people to the right specialist is until then a good start.
A proper academic with a deep understanding of what's going on but also able to translate that into pragmatic advice for people in pain.
Highly recommended. You can find various YouTube videos with him in then, which gave me the confidence that he was a knowledgeable geek and not some huckster. Often the videos are related to his work with high performance athletes, but his books apply to ordinary Joes or old people just as much.
If I can sum it up poorly, it's about understanding which muscles and bones work together in various movements and avoiding putting them under inappropriate strain, by slightly altering habits and building up muscles to provide support.
He is also skeptical of the benefit of surgery in most cases. He does also touch on some brain related stuff but it wasn't related to my particular pain so I don't know much about that part of his approach.
It makes sense for a psychological component to treatment to be effective for stress-related back pain. And yes, stress can aggravate pain from a physical injury. But there are also plenty of physical injuries that aren't psychosomatic.
10 years of lower back pain. Average of 5 serious strikes a year would take me out for 3 or 4 days completely. A feeling of weakness or mild pain occurring regularly in between those. Nothing on MRI. Lots of different Physio etc at different times. Special chairs, special cushions, Difene (diclofenac) ... too much.
Late 2016 got sciatic pain for the first time. Took me out for 5 days. Got over it. Started Pilates. Early 2017 got hit with sciatic pain again - decided to just go through it. After 6 weeks I gave in and took some very heavy anti-inflammatories. Woke up with massive stomach pains and assumed I was reacting to the drugs. Went to the hospital and was diagnosed with Appendicitis. They took it out. Spent a couple of days taking lovely drugs. Got out. Back still rough but different somehow. Took a valium just once, slept 16 hours.
Have not had any back pain for 9 months. No drugs. No special exercise. No idea what happened. My back just feels different.
I gave notice at my job of 4.5 years for unrelated reasons and had a complete reversal of pain within a couple of weeks.
While it is great to be out of that hell, it is completely terrifying that I wasn't able to recognize what was keeping me in pain.
I am a programmer and I used to work 11 hour days frequently. After some years I started experiencing excruciating lower back pain. The pain would flare up if sit for more than 30 minutes. I went for physiotherapy and the pain lessened. The therapist told me I had no core strength and I started taking yoga lessons.
Yoga felt good and I continued for 3 months, when things got worse. I consulted a specialist and he advised against yoga and all sorts of exercise.
I haven't done any exercise in the past 6 months . And I have no pain in my back if I sit for 8 hours. Sit longer, and mild pain appears.
The point I want to stress is when doing exercise and yoga, I felt good and pain lessened, but the mild pain was there at all times when I was sitting.Now with no exercise , I can sit pain free for 8 hours easily.Consequently ,I am much more productive at work , but the lack of exercise makes me sometimes feel dull and unhealthy :( .
I knocked myself out at the lake when I was 17 years old. I mostly recovered over the following six months, but rapidly developed an inflammatory condition when I went off to college a year later. Retrospectively, my apathy towards my degree program was an important factor. After the fourth doctor I said to myself, "screw you guys, I'm going to figure myself out."
I wrote about this previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13123659
When I was suffering through college I decided it would be helpful to be able to "relax" (mind awake, body asleep), and to visualize. What a long, strange road it's been...
I had a lot of other aches and pains (wrist, knees, hips, feet, etc.) by my mid-20s that were hitting me hard pretty much all day every day.
It took A LOT of learning, stretching, strengthening, massaging, etc. but I'm in my mid-30s now and can do more than I have ever been able to do before. I've made it a career helping people in chronic pain as a trainer with a different perspective.
A couple resources that may help someone in severe back pain: Back in Control by David Hanscom, MD. The author is a spine surgeon who, after years of performing spine surgeries and seeing the real effects and real research results, realized that surgery was NOT a good answer for back pain. This is an excellent read with some very practical advice.
Also an excellent read is this article that appeared in Vox recently: vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/4/15929484/chronic-back-pain-treatment-mainstream-vs-alternative
I would also echo the sentiments of others here. It is VERY possible to beat back pain without surgery and pills, but the level of complexity varies from individual to individual. From the last 10 years of professional experience, I've seen some people solve back pain in two weeks, and I've seen some people take more than a year.
I have a client that I still train who had unremitting back pain for nearly 13 years. She had radiating leg pain and eventually had microdiscectomy that helped a little. Even after that and after more PT and all kinds of alternative medicine, she still had debilitating back pain daily.
For her, working on her hips has been the big key that now keeps her feeling really good. She's now able to go dance classes, do long road trips, sit on a plane for vacation, etc. The process was difficult and required patience, but together we figured out what helps her. Exercises that restore muscle balance is HUGE. And shockingly this is not an approach you'll see in medical or physical therapy textbooks.
For a little more perspective, Framework is another good book by an orthopedic surgeon who generally advises against surgery. He notes that the vast majority of doctors receive a maximum of 2 weeks of musculoskeletal education. Most receive far less. Doctors who know muscular anatomy in-depth are a very small minority. It's just not something covered in standard medical education.
However bad things may seem, DO NOT GIVE UP. Focus on taking control.