3 ms·
I think "reverse engineering" in the gp was just an ill-considered choice of word. What they are describing doesn't really have anything to do with reverse engi
by topaz0 5y ago
I think "reverse engineering" in the gp was just an ill-considered choice of word. What they are describing doesn't really have anything to do with reverse engineering -- it's just using the devices in a way that will not produce the desired reliability of results. The fact that their methods differed from what the manufacturer recommends would not be a problem if they could prove that the false positive/false negative rates were up to the relevant standards.
- CRConrad 5y ago> The fact that their methods differed from what the manufacturer recommends would not be a problem if they could prove that the false positive/false negative rates were up to the relevant standards. Well, better than the relevant standards. Otherwise all the "reverse engineering" -- i.e, tampering -- is fucking meaningless.
- topaz0 5y agoIt's meaningless if nothing is better about how you're doing it. Presumably in this case the thing they wanted to improve was the amount of sample you need to use, not the false positive/negative rates.
- CRConrad 5y agoBut they knew at the time they were peddling it that they didn't yet have that advantage. So selling it on the premise that they did was... Well, fraudulent, in my book.