3 ms·
the idea that this stuff is going to be primarily used for disabled people is, frankly, bullshit. Maybe the grant writing process, and some of the research, bu
by dtornabene 7y ago
the idea that this stuff is going to be primarily used for disabled people is, frankly, bullshit. Maybe the grant writing process, and some of the research, but this will be commodified, indeed, things like this already are; check out the emotiv headset. There are hundreds of millions of VC dollars pouring into this right now, they aren't doing it to help locked-in syndrome, whatever they say in interviews or press releases, they intend to get returns on their investments. It drives me absolutely bonkers when I see or hear irl people using the misfortune of a tiny, tiny subset of the population to defend this. And while I appreciate the note at the end about military futures (and I agree!), the idea that there is any "humanistic" use for tech like this is ... blinkered, to put it kindly. No one needs this, at all.
- lordCarbonFiber 7y agoLet's recontextualize that for you. Replace "this technology" with the mouse. No one needs a new way to interact with devices, information, etc indeed. Holding such luddite views is your right, but the rest of the more transhumanist aligned population can and will leave you behind (and help less abled people along the way).
- graycat 7y agoI'm for doing better than a mouse, but tough to improve on fingers, do better than HTML on a screen, but tough to do better than eyes, do better than a pair of speakers for $30 but tough to improve on ears. Augment? Maybe. Really improve as in replace? For something external? No way.