4 ms·

No one cares about someone’s improvised broad generalizations and “one day it’ll be great” patronizing speeches. The question was what’s it good for as it is t

by slver 5y ago

No one cares about someone’s improvised broad generalizations and “one day it’ll be great” patronizing speeches. The question was what’s it good for as it is today, based on people with knowledge about it. In particular the only thing you demonstrated here is that you have absolutely no knowledge about it.

meowface 5y ago
>No one cares about someone’s improvised broad generalizations and “one day it’ll be great” patronizing speeches. I was just matching the patronizing, brusque tone in your original post. >The question was what’s it good for as it is today, based on people with knowledge about it. I apologize, then, because I don't think that was clear from your post, which contained only the text "So what is this tech good for in the first place." If your question were "So what are the device's current capabilities?" or something similar, then I would've responded differently. >In particular the only thing you demonstrated here is that you have absolutely no knowledge about it. I do, actually. Your question (ending in a period) came across as extremely condescending and dismissive, and as if you were questioning the value of BCIs in general. So my goal with that post was to try to make an argument for the potential of what BCI tech is good for in the first place, as I interpreted your post. If you want an overview of what their company's devices can do today and what's planned, this recent podcast episode with the CEO is a good start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YbcB6b4A2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YbcB6b4A2U
- slver 5y ago
  > I was just matching the patronizing, brusque tone in your original post. My original post simply asked: "what is it good for". If you insist to see this as a rhetorical sarcastic question, that's your problem. I asked it as a question. > I do, actually. Your question (ending in a period) came across as extremely condescending and dismissive So, the fact I asked a question and didn't end it with a question mark resulted in this emotional outburst and interpreting it as "extremely condescending and dismissive". Think about that. It's illogical and outright hysterical. I wasn't thinking about "BCI tech" in general at all. I was curious about this device. You're completely, utterly off the mark. > If your question were "So what are the device's current capabilities?" or something similar, then I would've responded differently. I don't want to know what are its current capabilities because I understood that from the article. But I don't know what its current capabilities are good for in practical use for their potential customers. You may want me to ask the questions you want me to ask, that's cute, but it's not how asking questions works. People ask what they want to ask, and you answer if you can and want to answer. You don't go around insulting people and inferring ill intent in their questions for not asking the questions YOU want them to ask. You see, when you sell $50k device, you believe you're providing $50k of value. It's not an internal research device anymore. That implies they see some uses for it, and I was wondering what those are, without listening to an entire podcast. And you clearly don't know. And that isn't my fault.

by slver 5y ago

meowface 5y ago

>No one cares about someone’s improvised broad generalizations and “one day it’ll be great” patronizing speeches. I was just matching the patronizing, brusque tone in your original post. >The question was what’s it good for as it is today, based on people with knowledge about it. I apologize, then, because I don't think that was clear from your post, which contained only the text "So what is this tech good for in the first place." If your question were "So what are the device's current capabilities?" or something similar, then I would've responded differently. >In particular the only thing you demonstrated here is that you have absolutely no knowledge about it. I do, actually. Your question (ending in a period) came across as extremely condescending and dismissive, and as if you were questioning the value of BCIs in general. So my goal with that post was to try to make an argument for the potential of what BCI tech is good for in the first place, as I interpreted your post. If you want an overview of what their company's devices can do today and what's planned, this recent podcast episode with the CEO is a good start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YbcB6b4A2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YbcB6b4A2U

slver 5y ago
> I was just matching the patronizing, brusque tone in your original post. My original post simply asked: "what is it good for". If you insist to see this as a rhetorical sarcastic question, that's your problem. I asked it as a question. > I do, actually. Your question (ending in a period) came across as extremely condescending and dismissive So, the fact I asked a question and didn't end it with a question mark resulted in this emotional outburst and interpreting it as "extremely condescending and dismissive". Think about that. It's illogical and outright hysterical. I wasn't thinking about "BCI tech" in general at all. I was curious about this device. You're completely, utterly off the mark. > If your question were "So what are the device's current capabilities?" or something similar, then I would've responded differently. I don't want to know what are its current capabilities because I understood that from the article. But I don't know what its current capabilities are good for in practical use for their potential customers. You may want me to ask the questions you want me to ask, that's cute, but it's not how asking questions works. People ask what they want to ask, and you answer if you can and want to answer. You don't go around insulting people and inferring ill intent in their questions for not asking the questions YOU want them to ask. You see, when you sell $50k device, you believe you're providing $50k of value. It's not an internal research device anymore. That implies they see some uses for it, and I was wondering what those are, without listening to an entire podcast. And you clearly don't know. And that isn't my fault.