PierceJoy

40 ms·

241.
by PierceJoy 9y ago
> You've given no reason why. I don't have to. It's my opinion. > You're assuming OP is a mindless fanboy who will pay for something that has a free and more hackable alternative. I'm sure that's your nec
242.
by PierceJoy 9y ago
> which is a non-starter if you want to write an app that you will actually use instead of merely test. You're assuming OP doesn't want to pay for a developer account. They didn't say that. Also, OP said they wanted to get
243.
by PierceJoy 9y ago
> As someone sais below "ML is not going to replace raw input from sensors." You've misinterpreted my comment. I didn't claim sensors weren't required. I said that it's a fallacy to claim that the current di
244.
by PierceJoy 9y ago
> It seems a fallacy to say that "machine learning" will replace the sensors needed to produce the data required to make a diagnosis. I agree. Good thing I didn't say that :) My comment implied exactly what you wrote, that
245.
by PierceJoy 9y ago
> Machines to diagnose apnea have lots of sensors including electrodes, "chest-band" pulsometers, and "saturationmeters". It seems like a fallacy to claim that since diagnosis required complicated equipment in the pas
246.
by PierceJoy 9y ago
> Ask how many could have even possibly been a direct result of air pollution. That's now how this works. To go back to the smoking example, lung cancer is not a direct result of smoking. It's a combination of factors, smoking
247.
by PierceJoy 9y ago
> There's absolutely no way you can definitively link deaths from heart disease to air pollution with any substantial degree of confidence, at least not in 99.99% of the cases. We also can't definitively link specific cases of