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

      • olutukko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why not just any tech? It’s already obsolete. Nobody is going to profit from it. Why not let couple nerds tinker with it?

        • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fuck ANY. ALL or STFU and you have no right to broadcast any kind of deception of the people en masse no less.

      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        IDK, I probably wouldn’t want every anon having access to the source code for my cybereyes, let alone something like a pacemaker. Companies should be legally mandated to maintain devices like these for the average human life expectancy.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Missing the fact Open Source software is generally more secure because more people are looking at the code. You don’t need to see the source to find a vulnerability, you do need it to patch one properly though.

          • CAVOK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s definitely one layer of security. If it’s your only layer then you’re in trouble.

        • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ignorance. You don’t understand any of the philosophy or the conduct of FOSS let alone close source.

          But…here…sign right here where the CIA/NSA/FBI/ETC. get any and all right to fuck you over any time the want to for any fucking reason.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They exist to make money not help humanity. Open source don’t make them money so they will never bother

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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 …

        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.

        • Bahalex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “he spun off the company Second Sight with three cofounders in 1998”

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

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

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

        • eksb@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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).

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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).

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ChewTiger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The same as a closed source one? What does charging something have to do with an app? I’m not even sure what you’re saying.

          • LrdThndr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Open source hardware is a thing. See: raspberry pi, pine64, etc.

            In hardware, open source means the schematics are available and the device is built with commonly available components; eg: no proprietary chips, standard discrete components, pcb schematics and plans available.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      👏IS👏THIS👏A👏SONG👏SHOULD👏WE👏CLAP👏ALONG👏RAMA👏LAMA👏DING👏DONG👏SONG👏