Solutions should have native performance anywhere and everywhere.\nThis simplifies the design process and user experience to a minimum required, keeping our ideas close to the users at all times.
\n\nWhile our solutions are not IoT centric there is a great benefit for having services flexible across a wide variety of devices.
\nWe want to build ASAP solutions, that is software As Secure As Possible.\nEnd-to-end encryption is a minimal overhead which becomes automated when implemented in every step of our workflow.
\nCompliance with ISO 27XXX has become quite necessary to turn around corporate clients but the necessity to create a company wide security standard exists without the need of business level recognition.
\nWhile the concept of Artificial Intelligence is interesting human input is always required as they do not think for themselves.
\nA mix of machine learning and human pattern review is something we are actively aiming for. A/B testing has been proved to provide beneficial results and machine learning is just one of the means we are using to automate feature testing.
\nSoftware development has become very unstable with the high influx of new people learning "stuff" and the emerging hybrid specialisations of businesses into the TECH domain, being able to predict software and market development has become tedious and uncertain.
\nMost non-native code is a collage of open source dependencies to the point where in average 5% of common written code is real, the rest being a complex dependency tree.
\nIn reality good software has a certain impact on technology, people and markets. Being able to observe these patterns we are able to make something called "safe decisions", minimising disaster chance and recovery downtime.
\nZero downtime, zero stress.
\n","date_published":"Mon, 10 Jul 2023 00:00:00 GMT"},{"id":"http://localhost/posts/pine-healthcare-whitepaper/","url":"http://localhost/posts/pine-healthcare-whitepaper/","title":"Pine Healthcare Whitepaper Draft","content_html":"Health Level Seven or HL7 refers to a set of international standards for transfer of clinical and administrative data between software applications used by various healthcare providers. These standards focus on the application layer, which is "layer 7" in the OSI model. The HL7 standards are produced by Health Level Seven International, an international standards organization, and are adopted by other standards issuing bodies such as American National Standards Institute and International Organization for Standardization.
\n\nHospitals and other healthcare provider organizations typically have many different computer systems used for everything from billing records to patient tracking. All of these systems should communicate with each other (or "interface") when they receive new information, or when they wish to retrieve information, but not all do so.
\nHL7 International specifies a number of flexible standards, guidelines, and methodologies by which various healthcare systems can communicate with each other. Such guidelines or data standards are a set of rules that allow information to be shared and processed in a uniform and consistent manner. These data standards are meant to allow healthcare organizations to easily share clinical information. Theoretically, this ability to exchange information should help to minimize the tendency for medical care to be geographically isolated and highly variable.
\nYou can read more on:
\n\nIn practice the complexity of the standard and existing health care real life demands and regulations produced a new market niche dedicated to interoperability and FHIR implementations on top of existing software management systems.
\nWhile the highlighted products and companies are in no way affiliated to this paper, they represent various solutions to the interoperability layer without enabling the user to own any of his data and medical records:
\nThe solution described as Pine is motivated by the fact that open access to patient health records is difficult even when using the vast majority of existing solutions and in similar percentage, centralised.
\nWhen technology is centralized, it typically means that it is controlled and run by a single company, government, or individual. Decentralized technology on the other hand, is run by a network of participants that no one actor can control or shut down. Here are some benefits of decentralization:
\nOne application of public ledgers is the ability to verify identity. In a nutshell, a verifiable credential is a piece of information that a third party can validate digitally.
\nVerifiable Credentials is one of the most exciting and transformative areas of innovation. Verifiable Credentials and Decentralized Identifiers help you share your verifiable credentials without giving up your privacy. No one company or institution can control or store your information centrally — you can revoke your verifiable credentials at any time.
\nClinical trial management is another area where blockchains can be of use. For instance, as more laboratories work with large molecules and compounds that originate from various place, an immutable record becomes indispensable for validating information associated to various stages of clinical trials especially when laboratories are located in different parts of the globe.
\nIn the context of periodontology, multiple actors can verify existing datasets anonymously as well as all the open source code and implementations and we can also apply multiple forms of assisted intelligence to the data sets. While iniatially we are deploying a bias detection and learning algorithm to focus on the researched levels, once the anonimity layer is audited we can apply reinforcement learning to multiple areas impacting user experience.
\nLeveraging open access technologies, providers and standards we can give end users complete control over:
\nMain domain for social interactions and public storefront.
\nThis application is designed to act as a documentation and research centralised hub for all the tools.
\nReact Native open source cross platform client deployed to web, portable ios and android, desktop windows, ubuntu and apple.
\nThis application is designed to act as a periodontology assistant and research tool.
\nDe-facto blockchain identity verification and credentials management bridge. Assessment of existing technologies and implementation pending but one implementation quirk of this is the Web3 backend being plugabble to sidechains and private organisations.
\nThis application is designed to act as a tool to manage access to your private information and records.
\nDe-facto blockchain storage solution through IPFS. Full access to the storage component is enabled from application launch, however the stability of decentralised solutions, platform, global security and data regulations concerns require this layer to be open to public audit and extension.
\nThis application is designed to act as a data integrity and encryption solution for all your data spread across public or public chains.
\n","date_published":"Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 GMT"},{"id":"http://localhost/posts/continuous-integration-and-analysis/","url":"http://localhost/posts/continuous-integration-and-analysis/","title":"Continuous integration and analysis tools for open source nodeJS development","content_html":"Initial idea is based on the list available at https://github.com/ligurio/Continuous-Integration-services/blob/master/continuous-integration-services-list.md.
\nIt contains only services that provide a sensible amount of features for open source projects or non-profit organisations. I've also added several tools I used or tested with a minimal up and running configuration.
\n\nTo summarise the review factors for this document:
\nThe list of services can be narrowed down based on main programming language target audience (opinionated):
\nNodeJS:
\n\nDocker:
\n\nRuby:
\n\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: current preferred solution overall.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: This is the current preferred solution for enterprise level applications.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: Looks like the best overall solution for docker applications but the limitations and level of configuration required makes this service difficult to use for nodeJS applications. When considering microservices and multiple backend technologies this tool shines.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: I don't find this service suitable for nodeJS application development.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: I don't find this service suitable for nodeJS application development.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: I don't find this service suitable for nodeJS application development.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: Looks like the most solid continuous integration solution out there. Will test this in production with a react application.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: Looks like a solid choice for ruby/docker inspired projects. Performance seems good for small projects. With competitive technologies I would prefer this service for ruby development and asset revision.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: I would like to use this service ...
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: It's only useful in the ruby ecosystem with complex workflows. Most of the features this service offers are provided by several packages and standards via NPM.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: So far very good and fast tool with extremely fast customer support.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: Using this tool on top of
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: This tool is useful for projects that don't have a complete generic stack, for example a plugin theme pushed to NPM might not need complex integrations and this tools would serve well to notify in the rare cases of lost/forgotten packages.
\nPro:
\nCon:
\nVerdict: Using this as part of the LCOV data upload gulp task in parallel with bithound.
\n","date_published":"Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 GMT"}]}