These early adopters found out what happened when a cutting-edge marvel became an obsolete gadget... inside their bodies.

These early adopters found out what happened when a cutting-edge marvel became an obsolete gadget… inside their bodies.

  • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
    535·
    11 months ago

    They exist to make money not help humanity. Open source don’t make them money so they will never bother

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      375·
      11 months ago

      They exist to make money not help humanity.

      From the article…

      Greenberg spent many years developing the technology while working at the Alfred Mann Foundation, a nonprofit organization that develops biomedical devices

      EDIT: For those challenging what I am saying, I was speaking towards his motives, when I responded to this comment …

      They exist to make money not help humanity.

      I was challenging the notion that he did not care about humanity, and just wanted the money.

      Its ok to want to help others AND make money doing it. (Unfortunately) We live in a society where money is needed to exist.

      EDIT2: I’m all for open source.

      • Bahalex@lemmy.worldEnglish
        182·
        11 months ago

        “he spun off the company Second Sight with three cofounders in 1998”

        The rest of the sentence from your quote. The company that put these implants into people was, from what I understand, indeed for profit.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
          65·
          11 months ago

          Kind of hard to operate a company without also making money doing so. The two are not mutually exclusive to each other.

      • eksb@programming.devEnglish
        93·
        11 months ago

        Non-profits, just like for-profits, need to keep revenue at or above expenditures. Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
          53·
          11 months ago

          Just like for-profits they end up run by executives who prioritize bringing money in to sustain the bureaucracy over doing good.

          I’m going to push back against this part of your comment. You are making an assumption. You can do both, help Humanity AND make money (since we live in a society that requires money to exist).

        • guacupado@lemmy.worldEnglish
          42·
          11 months ago

          Feel free to enlighten them on how to run a beneficial company with no income.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.todayEnglish
      20·
      11 months ago

      Open Source can and very often is profitable, though. Large companies like to trade technologies as assets, but a lot of people don’t realize that as individuals they can claim full rights and ownership over their product while also making it free to use and modify.

    • Snapz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      141·
      11 months ago

      You’re giving a roundabout justification for regulation.

      It should not be their choice when are discussing items/services that impact health this directly. Buy the ticket (release product and profit) take the ride (support for the life of installed user base at least).

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        11 months ago

        Regulation is the only way the capitalist model works. Think about it, limiting capitalism is a majorly important part of making any part of it work because it’s so backwards.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        11 months ago

        What if the party is also for child murder?

        And what if the other one who is against child murder is also anti-open source?