3 ms·

I'm typing this to you on an on-screen keyboard with my thumbs. It should be trivial to do better than that with an implant.

• ashtonkem 6y ago
  It’s clearly not trivial, otherwise it would already be done. Sometimes “obviously” inferior solutions are actually local maximums, and finding the global maximum is extremely difficult.
  • QuantumG 6y ago
    Sure, or maybe the window for innovation is too small because of gatekeeping. Accessibility software is notoriously horrible because of this reason, why wouldn't hardware be?
    • ashtonkem 6y ago
      It seems like you're jumping straight to a conspiracy as the explanation, which does not seem supported by any evidence whatsoever. Why in the world would these supposed Gatekeepers gatekeep away a technology that would provide a massive competitive advantage? Wouldn't they instead do exactly what they've been doing for decades and just buy up this hypothetical new technology? That sure seems to be what Apple is doing; there's an entire wiki page dedicated to Apple acquisitions and what Apple products were derived from it. Why would they suddenly flip into suppressing something better rather than just repeating their standard practice? Perhaps the more plausible answer is that nobody has come up with an interface that beats the smart phone for the general population?
      • QuantumG 6y ago
        There's no conspiracy. What competition? The disabled are lucky to get a single workable solution.
        • ashtonkem 6y ago
          You’re the one who said it was trivial and held back by gatekeepers. That sounds conspiracy like to me.