> That aspect of connecting via bluetooth from a phone is most conventionally used to interact with replaceable commodities such as wireless speakers/headphones

> That aspect of connecting via bluetooth from a phone is most conventionally used to interact with replaceable commodities such as wireless speakers/headphones, but here it's being used to interact with a _live_ monkey. I understand that, but I think to some degree, you're letting somewhat unrelated things influence your opinion of this. You know what else it interacted with and controlled wirelessly? Pacemakers. Nobody thinks of those people are replaceable commodities. Also, what about those that don't live a life of luxury and have access to lots of commoditized devices that wirelessly pair through a cellphone? People in less affluent countries might be less jaded about controlling something wirelessly and still view that as an amazing new technology associated with things they can rarely afford. So, to what degree are those associations useful and accurate, and to what degree are they you bringing unrelated prior biases to bear?