4 ms·

So at scale, no technology is too complex to reach to consumers. I think we will see blood analysis microscope in our wristwatch, continuous diagnostic, robotic

So at scale, no technology is too complex to reach to consumers. I think we will see blood analysis microscope in our wristwatch, continuous diagnostic, robotics delivery etc in near future.

nine_k 3y ago
No tech is too complex if it brings enough profit. I'm certain about delivery bots, for they already exist. Continuous blood monitoring is more likely to remain a niche thing, only for people with specific conditions; also, having a hole in your skin to keep a bunch of sensors constantly in contact with blood is not fun.
- eru 3y ago
  You can monitor some things about your blood without poking a hole in your skin. Eg oxygenation rate and blood pressure. (I agree with most of what you said.)
  - 6451937099 3y ago
    [dead]
  - avyeed_desa 3y ago
    And hopefully soon Blood Sugar. https://www.diamontech.de/home https://www.diamontech.de/home
rcxdude 3y ago
Complex, no. But many other things than complexity add to the cost of making something and a lot of those do not scale to higher volumes in any way like complexity does. Indeed cost-saving innovations often increase complexity in order to reduce those other components of cost (the hoops engineers wind up jumping through to save fractions of a penny in high-volume products is crazy. For a mild example, having a full network inside a car increases the complexity drastically, but decreases the cost of making up the wiring in the car a little)
Osiris 3y ago
Didn’t someone already try to do blood analysis with just a drop of blood and failed miserably?
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  So? One failed attempt doesn't mean nobody else will ever succeed.
- prettyStandard 3y ago
  I assume you mean this in jest. I get it. To be fair/serious if you add the "near past" with "near future" you might get enough time for things to change. Was there something fundamentally impossible about blood analysis with a drop of blood?
  - dekhn 3y ago
    At the time of Theranos's debunking there were some posts to HN showing that it was mathematically implausible. Something about signal to noise and specificity at extremely small molecule counts. I don't know how to find it, but I assume somebody in the hacker news hivemind knows what I mean and can dig up the link.
    - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
      Breathalyzers can't serve as a credible proxy for blood alcohol down to 100ppm without any consideration of physiological differences and yet they're accepted as divination tools.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    One problem is that blood isn't really a homogeneous substance. When dealing with small test samples, you might see different results, perhaps widely-varying ones, from one drop to the next. (Play around with a glucose meter sometime.) Things like where the blood was drawn from, what contaminants were present on the skin at the time, and the age and health of the patient can all have an effect. Also, many tests require a centrifuge, so that's something else you have to account for if your goal is to perform the same tests with only one drop of blood. Unless your plan is to pull some Star Trek-level technology out of your hat. TL,DR: you didn't need to consult a team of PhDs to debunk Theranos's business plan, you could have asked any experienced med tech. The investors didn't bother doing either.
lm28469 3y ago
In theory maybe, in practice tech is very often steered by what brings money. Just look at the current state of the internet, imagine how good it could have been

So at scale, no technology is too complex to reach to consumers. I think we will see blood analysis microscope in our wristwatch, continuous diagnostic, robotics delivery etc in near future.

nine_k 3y ago

No tech is too complex if it brings enough profit. I'm certain about delivery bots, for they already exist. Continuous blood monitoring is more likely to remain a niche thing, only for people with specific conditions; also, having a hole in your skin to keep a bunch of sensors constantly in contact with blood is not fun.

eru 3y ago
You can monitor some things about your blood without poking a hole in your skin. Eg oxygenation rate and blood pressure. (I agree with most of what you said.)
- 6451937099 3y ago
  [dead]
- avyeed_desa 3y ago
  And hopefully soon Blood Sugar. https://www.diamontech.de/home https://www.diamontech.de/home

rcxdude 3y ago

Complex, no. But many other things than complexity add to the cost of making something and a lot of those do not scale to higher volumes in any way like complexity does. Indeed cost-saving innovations often increase complexity in order to reduce those other components of cost (the hoops engineers wind up jumping through to save fractions of a penny in high-volume products is crazy. For a mild example, having a full network inside a car increases the complexity drastically, but decreases the cost of making up the wiring in the car a little)

Osiris 3y ago

Didn’t someone already try to do blood analysis with just a drop of blood and failed miserably?

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
So? One failed attempt doesn't mean nobody else will ever succeed.
prettyStandard 3y ago
I assume you mean this in jest. I get it. To be fair/serious if you add the "near past" with "near future" you might get enough time for things to change. Was there something fundamentally impossible about blood analysis with a drop of blood?
- dekhn 3y ago
  At the time of Theranos's debunking there were some posts to HN showing that it was mathematically implausible. Something about signal to noise and specificity at extremely small molecule counts. I don't know how to find it, but I assume somebody in the hacker news hivemind knows what I mean and can dig up the link.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    Breathalyzers can't serve as a credible proxy for blood alcohol down to 100ppm without any consideration of physiological differences and yet they're accepted as divination tools.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  One problem is that blood isn't really a homogeneous substance. When dealing with small test samples, you might see different results, perhaps widely-varying ones, from one drop to the next. (Play around with a glucose meter sometime.) Things like where the blood was drawn from, what contaminants were present on the skin at the time, and the age and health of the patient can all have an effect. Also, many tests require a centrifuge, so that's something else you have to account for if your goal is to perform the same tests with only one drop of blood. Unless your plan is to pull some Star Trek-level technology out of your hat. TL,DR: you didn't need to consult a team of PhDs to debunk Theranos's business plan, you could have asked any experienced med tech. The investors didn't bother doing either.

lm28469 3y ago

In theory maybe, in practice tech is very often steered by what brings money. Just look at the current state of the internet, imagine how good it could have been