Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported

yesdogishere@kbin.social to Technology@lemmy.world – 885 points –
Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete and Unsupported
spectrum.ieee.org

These early adopters found out what happened when a cutting-edge marvel became an obsolete gadget... inside their bodies.

224

You are viewing a single comment

๐Ÿ‘ OPEN ๐Ÿ‘ SOURCE ๐Ÿ‘ AFTER ๐Ÿ‘ OBSOLETION ๐Ÿ‘

They exist to make money not help humanity. Open source donโ€™t make them money so they will never bother

They exist to make money not help humanity.

From the article...

Greenberg spent many years developing the technology while working at the Alfred Mann Foundation, a nonprofit organization that develops biomedical devices

EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment โ€ฆ

They exist to make money not help humanity.

I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.

Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.

EDIT2: I'm all for open source.

โ€œhe spun off the company Second Sight with three cofounders in 1998โ€

The rest of the sentence from your quote. The company that put these implants into people was, from what I understand, indeed for profit.

Kind of hard to operate a company without also making money doing so. The two are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.

Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.

I'm going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).

1 more...
1 more...

Open Source can and very often is profitable, though. Large companies like to trade technologies as assets, but a lot of people don't realize that as individuals they can claim full rights and ownership over their product while also making it free to use and modify.

You're giving a roundabout justification for regulation.

It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).

Regulation is the only way the capitalist model works. Think about it, limiting capitalism is a majorly important part of making any part of it work because it's so backwards.

I vote for parties that are pro-opensource and promote opensource among friends and family. It's all I can do.

What if the party is also for child murder?

And what if the other one who is against child murder is also anti-open source?

1 more...

This shit should be eminent domained and open sourced. It's in the public's best interest to have this tech available and if the people who invested in making it don't want to support it or sell it to a company that will, they don't need it anymore.

๐Ÿ‘IS๐Ÿ‘THIS๐Ÿ‘A๐Ÿ‘SONG๐Ÿ‘SHOULD๐Ÿ‘WE๐Ÿ‘CLAP๐Ÿ‘ALONG๐Ÿ‘RAMA๐Ÿ‘LAMA๐Ÿ‘DING๐Ÿ‘DONG๐Ÿ‘SONG๐Ÿ‘

22 more...