731–740 of 927 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can easily and cheaply generate nore megabytes per second per dollar by oversampling a heart rate monitor at hundreds of megahertz. Hell, why not hook up a second channel to the same signal and record it twice for double the megabytes? Do you see the problem here? "yeah, but nobody's doing that" Well, then it certainly is odd of them to frame it tgat way, isn't it?
This is a bit of a contrived example. The “megabytes per second per dollar” is clearly in reference to their scanner technology that the say generates terabytes worth of data, with the goal of a scan taking around 60 seconds. So I’m confused about exactly what your point is? That’s a lot of data really fast, so if you want this 3D scan of your body, yes, you do want as much data as fast as possible. 60 seconds sounds…
This is deeply silly and nonsensical framing. You don't want "lots of data really fast", you want high-quality, diagnostically useful data. If the fastest way to generate that is via 15-minute MRIs, then that is vastly more ideal than a bullshit scan that takes seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way we figure out how to catch issues before you notice them (i.e. proactively keeping you healthy) and figure out the best ways to fix them (i.e. reactively helping you get back to healthy) is by having more data from more people in more situations, so we can make those determinations. I understand some of the current fatigue around biohacking and chasing perhaps-irrelevant metrics, but takes like this surprise…
I've been reading this website on and off for years now, and I remember one time I read that a silicon valley startup was selling a "smart cup" that would send you detailed statistics of how much water you drank (assuming you used your smart cup for every drink throughout the day). I suspect if I pitched this to doctors, they would say just drink when your thirsty; you don't need all that data. But that's not the poi…
I'm 100% OK with health-conscious yuppies that have too much disposable income being the guinea pigs paying for this until if/when it demonstrates medical value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP is saying that the goal should be something entirely different from gathering lots of data. Do you think the average person wants a higher resolution time series of their weight, or better access to a higher quality doctor, cheaper?
I think in a more sane universe, we'd be 50-100 years further along into medicine today just by gathering and analyzing more data with the technology we already have. And all doctors would be able to make better decisions.
What on earth do you think that load of garble means? "50-100 years further along" is absurd.
Why do you think "more data" is necessarily meaningful, in a health context?
Some initial thoughts as a practicing radiologist: - This looks really cool and I hope they keep innovating on this. I love seeing new modalities develop and despite my (many) reservations and criticisms, if even one good use case comes out of it that truly helps people, it's tech money well spent imo. - They show the reconstructed images as though they are a low resolution CT, and promise that quality will improve a…
> "Incidentalomas" or unexpected, probably benign, findings are annoying to physicians For a lot of these things I wonder why they don't just do multiple scans just to see how things develop. Is it a cost issue?
Some initial thoughts as a practicing radiologist: - This looks really cool and I hope they keep innovating on this. I love seeing new modalities develop and despite my (many) reservations and criticisms, if even one good use case comes out of it that truly helps people, it's tech money well spent imo. - They show the reconstructed images as though they are a low resolution CT, and promise that quality will improve a…
> "Incidentalomas" or unexpected, probably benign, findings are annoying to physicians For a lot of these things I wonder why they don't just do multiple scans just to see how things develop. Is it a cost issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way we figure out how to catch issues before you notice them (i.e. proactively keeping you healthy) and figure out the best ways to fix them (i.e. reactively helping you get back to healthy) is by having more data from more people in more situations, so we can make those determinations. I understand some of the current fatigue around biohacking and chasing perhaps-irrelevant metrics, but takes like this surprise…
I can easily and cheaply generate nore megabytes per second per dollar by oversampling a heart rate monitor at hundreds of megahertz. Hell, why not hook up a second channel to the same signal and record it twice for double the megabytes? Do you see the problem here? "yeah, but nobody's doing that" Well, then it certainly is odd of them to frame it tgat way, isn't it?
Obviously not all data is useful or meaningful, but even with the tech we already have, there's a ton of it that we're just not collecting or using.
I have a mixed response: 1. It kind of makes sense that an AI imagery company would apply that to other novel applications of imagery and computing and try to do something cool with it. 2. Midjourney as a brand is all over the place and this feels - off , somehow. I think from a branding pov they should have just started a different company with a different name. Perhaps a single image-focused umbrella company named…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is why i always come to hacker news for the expert opinions. thank you for being critical yet optimistic.
You don't know if the opinion is expert. You don't know who that person is or what credentials they even have. Blindly trusting something that sounds right is a terrible way to inform yourself.
Some initial thoughts as a practicing radiologist: - This looks really cool and I hope they keep innovating on this. I love seeing new modalities develop and despite my (many) reservations and criticisms, if even one good use case comes out of it that truly helps people, it's tech money well spent imo. - They show the reconstructed images as though they are a low resolution CT, and promise that quality will improve a…
> "Incidentalomas" or unexpected, probably benign, findings are annoying to physicians For a lot of these things I wonder why they don't just do multiple scans just to see how things develop. Is it a cost issue?