You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money...
theregister.com
You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money...::Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn't making quite enough money...
You are viewing a single comment
They've also not been fine.
SUID Death rate for infants has decreased even since 1990. Baby monitor likely had a role in that.
FYI not supporting subscription for features a device has in hardware, just saying I'd rather have a monitor that never went off than no monitor and a dead child. There are plenty of alternative devices without subs that cost a lot less to begin with.
You know what else happened in the 90s? Leaded gas was banned. I'll attribute it to that. Anecdotes don't mean much.
You need to publish a scientific paper on your SIDs discovery. Don't let this major work languish in some technology comment on Lemmy!
Leaded gas was banned in the 70s.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/history-of-gasoline.php#:~:text=Unleaded%20gasoline%20was%20introduced%20in,using%20leaded%20gasoline%20in%20vehicles says otherwise. Unleaded gas introduced in the 70s and lead gas phased out in 96.
I'm not saying baby monitors are the only reason for improved SUID rates. I'm saying they likely played a role. Despite your sarcasm, you might also be right that lead could have adversely affected unexplained infant mortality. The point I was trying to make was that baby monitors are not useless devices designed to extract money from you as implied by OP, whose comments by the way, were anecdotal.
$400 is excessive though. As is a subscription.
And data on SIDS is freely available. https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm