Did FB really give out personal data? In any case, do we even have an understanding of what is meant by anonymized data (when applied to specific datasets) anyway? I sometimes wonder if any of these firms could call it anonymized by changing the name on the profile to somebody's initials.
>Among the announcements was the launch of a new effort to share user data with publishers and introduce more machine learning into Google’s publisher products.
Haha, it never crossed my mind that someone would implement this purposely. I don't have a W10 laptop so I've only noticed this on other peoples machines.
Speaking of W10, there was another annoying W10 bug where if you started typing immediately after using the touchpad there was a random delay. If you care about latency and responsiveness, it makes you want to scream at the people who implement these features.
>Not at all. A start would be a proof of concept device with barely working software.
And anyone can already do that. Creating a prototype is like 5% of the work. Nobody really cares about it unless you can ACTUALLY use it for ACTUAL stuff. I work in industrial automation and I have several hacked-together prototypes where I'm running some scripts or software on a micro-controller. And those protypes do "cool" stuff for a fraction of the cost. But there is absolutely no way my customers would ever ever consider using a prototype PLC for anything, not even testing. So I don't think you're getting it. This isn't Linux where your end users are mostly software/technical people. Normal laypeople are not interested in testing experimental stuff like this.
>Why does everybody assume you'd want to replace the medical devices? Did we even read the same article? The authors even say that
Because it would be unethical to produce medical diagnostic devices (or even call them that) without proper code review, validation, and so on.
>Except for sports training, do we need medical certification or perfect accuracy? No. So why is it so hard to believe that one person couldn't knock something together in a weekend if the transducers were available?
Okay so yeah I totally believe you can put together a janky POS that barely works and is unreliable. But without proper validation the results such systems produce are entirely useless.
> You know, for fun, out of curiosity?
Yes, I agree. You can do _ANYTHING_ for your own amusement, fun or curiosity. BUT... if you want to make something that is useful to other people you have to do a bit more work. And that work doesn't come cheap.
You're changing the topic. We're not talking about a general open source project with a potentially large userbase. So what you're essentially advocating is that we have to wait till a few hundred people serendipitously have enough time to dedicate to their hobby of writing control software for medical devices. And after that they have to validate the code, test it and ensure its correctness.
All the popular open source projects succeeded because developers got paid. This fantasy of large scale complex projects with unpaid experts writing code, developing tests, and creating documentation, etc is just that, a fantasy.
>I see no evidence that there would be any economic benefit for any company opening the source of their very specialized, very expensive software here.
Hmm maybe if you can find a way to lock-in users so they have to always come to you for the hardware. So, one way to do that is on a project that sees a lot of source code churn, you can tightly couple it with your services/hardware. Any competition that's downstream will find it hard to keep up with your commits in addition to having to patch in support for different hardware/services.
But you're right to point out they used to have 'share by default' on some data.