masterspace

What if you read a copyrighted engineering textbook, and then build something for profit with that knowledge?

Exactly, Sci Fi writers almost never invent an entirely new technology for their books, they just look at current technology, think a bit about where it might head, think about how that could interact with broader societal forces, realize some flaw there-in, and write about it.

Technologists are doing basically the same thing, looking at current technology, thinking about where it might head and what might be useful and/or profitable, and then start trying to overcome current obstacles to develop and build it.

But one of them takes a single person a year or two to write a book, and the other has to start trying to do research and building things and testing them and breaking them and getting funding and overcoming the current obstacles etc. etc. If they start at the same time it will look like the technologist has just built what they were warned not to, when in reality they've been building it the whole time on a parallel path.

Honestly I haven't seen a single article written by someone who actually understands the mathematics involved so I call a huge amount of HORSeSHIT on your headline.

Omg, a sustainable, repairable, and open source project costs the same as a closed source, non repairable, locked down option .... Those are totally the same thing!

/S

There is an open source project to replace the innards:

https://sett.homes/

Honestly, it's fucking exhausting.

Cynicism is not cleverness and it is not informedness, it's just reactionary bullshit that makes you sound edgy online.

No it's not.

It might be to you, but there are enormous numbers of elderly and disabled people who would benefit from more assistance.

I still wouldn't trust a robot around them given how inherently dangerous a massive motorized contraption is, but we also shouldn't be blind to accessibility and utility just because we don't personally need it.

And your point is wrong because you keep boiling it down to simple black and white.

The Nobel prize is not purely political and is not devoid of merit.

The world is not full of binary systems. It's made of multi variable systems where multiple influences can be true at the same time.

If you want to make a point about why accurately predicting the structure of hundreds of thousands of proteins doesn't deserve the Nobel in chemistry then I'm all ears. Please tell us all exactly why you think their prize was political and not meritocratic, and why predicting protein structures automatically is not important?

Because if you can't answer that very specific question, then you weren't making a point relevant to the conversation, you were making a snide generalization to hear yourself speak.

Thank you for finally spewing out the point you wanted to make from the jump. It's irrelevant in the context of the original discussion, but you got to hear yourself talk.