11–20 of 161 posts
Then again it is a wasteful and overpriced product that can leave wrong impression of superiority to the customer.
I'm not too sure why this is supposed to be surprising. When chemical reactions are involved, you often need chemicals. A significant portion of digital meters used for servicing swimming pools require servicing/replacement of strips/chemicals (reagents) within the device. Yes, there are also digital meters that work without chemicals per se, and have special electrodes that measure electric current. However, this ap…
It's surprising because the electronics are essentially useless. Most people would expect the electronic version would have some type of advantage, because those electronics cost extra money to produce.
On a regular stripe test you are responsible to conduct the experiment and interpret the outcome which can be intimidating.
"Is there a line? I think I see a line? But it's fainter from the last time? What does it mean?"
This is replaced by an algorithm that's written by people who know what are they doing to save you from analysing a chemical reaction and have a straight answer.
edit: Just Google for "Is this pregnancy test positive" to see how many people are having trouble interpreting the results.
Here is an example from Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TFABLinePorn/comments/4pxghm/confli...
Ironically, on this example the commenters claim that the inaccurate one is the digital one and the tester confirms. Anyway, the point stands: It is hard to interpret the outcome of chemical reactions.
My 3rd world country has pregnancy tests[1] available in almost all vending machines, but unfortunately they're the paper kind. Obviously we managed to get them evenly distributed, but utterly failed to provide the future. [1] For the convenience of both those hoping for positive results and those hoping for negative. I'm guessing there are more of the latter than the former, because they're invariably located in the…
https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1301709777383292928/photo/1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's surprising because the electronics are essentially useless. Most people would expect the electronic version would have some type of advantage, because those electronics cost extra money to produce.
The advantage is the UX. On a regular stripe test you are responsible to conduct the experiment and interpret the outcome which can be intimidating. "Is there a line? I think I see a line? But it's fainter from the last time? What does it mean?" This is replaced by an algorithm that's written by people who know what are they doing to save you from analysing a chemical reaction and have a straight answer. edit: Just G…
The only pregnancy test intimidating reference I knew about so far was "omg, shit I am pregnant shit".
I like the part where it uses the conductivity of pee as the power switch. https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1301709777383292928/photo/1
I'm not too sure why this is supposed to be surprising. When chemical reactions are involved, you often need chemicals. A significant portion of digital meters used for servicing swimming pools require servicing/replacement of strips/chemicals (reagents) within the device. Yes, there are also digital meters that work without chemicals per se, and have special electrodes that measure electric current. However, this ap…