• De_Narm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Has anyone a TL;DR why they could do that? Last time I heard anything about Neuralink they were mass killing animals with botched implants.

    • ink@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Do we have any concrete evidence that he’s even telling the truth? Something other than a tweet on a platform he owns? He seems to lie often.

        • theneverfox
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Don’t forget that time when he held up a piece of glass, pointed to a house behind him with a glass roof, showed a presentation of power output metrics and dualrability tests, and said they made solar roofs and just needed to figure out how to manufacture at scale

          They had not, in fact, made a working prototype - they were still trying to figure it out. He stood up there with a piece of pretty glass (that was not in fact any type of solar panel) and entirely fabricated test results, and he lied over and over.

          He must’ve gotten some artist’s design model, produced several roofs worth, and made all of it up.

    • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      FDA had denied, company presumably made some sort of changes that were not publicized (or paid off the right people), FDA approved.

      • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        If you’ve ever dealt with getting a medical device approved by the FDA, you’d know they don’t fuck around. They’re so hardcore it’s scary.

          • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            10 months ago

            In my experience, I’ve seen a muti billion dollar company denied new product testing for errors on paperwork.

            My former employer had to etch “not for human use” in the devices because the FDA didn’t clear them. They took them to use on sheep instead.

            The FDA, as long as it doesn’t fall prey to the revolving door like every other regulator, is extremely effective.

            • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I wouldn’t say “effective”. They’re good at rejecting bad things, but they accomplish that largely by being very risk-averse. People who suffer because a treatment wasn’t approved should count for more than they do. The best possible policy might be one that lets a few bad things through if it also lets through a lot more good things.

              • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                That’s exactly what we would hear everytime we asked about the paperwork from the FDA authorizing human trials. I’m sorry, but it works.

    • Okokimup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Recommend you watch Fall of the House of Usher on Netflix for three answer. Also because it’s amazing.