3 ms·
> including provisions that prevent them from being remotely disabled From the article, none of these implants were remotely disabled. The article's first para
by varenc 5y ago
> including provisions that prevent them from being remotely disabled
From the article, none of these implants were remotely disabled. The article's first paragraph is deceptively written to make it seem like that though. Further down it clarifies:
> But in 2013, after four years of regular use, Campbell’s system shut down in the subway station, and despite some repair attempts by Second Sight, never worked again.
So it sounds like a random hardware failure, which the company attempted to repair, but failed. Also in 2013 Second Sight was still 6+ years away from going bankrupt. Seems like this implant wasn't replaced/repaired because it would have required another surgery, not because of the bankruptcy.
- weird-eye-issue 5y agoThe article is incredibly misleading. They don't mention the year that the events in the first paragraph happened until halfway down the page and even if you read that far you might not have connected the two. Her implant failing is not even related to the company going bankrupt (although maybe it was a precursor)
- YeBanKo 5y agoThe article is not even a slightly bit misleading, if you read it in full and without any prior expectation or reading other comments. Here is a quote: "took hundreds of patients on a roller-coaster ride of technological innovations, regulatory successes, medical and financial setbacks, and a near-total meltdown" – this is not simply about how they abandoned the tech or almost went bankrupt. This is also about the challenges they and their patients faced along the way.