41–50 of 94 posts
Apple making an update that breaks apps isn't the fault of the app developers, or the app. The measures they suggested are completely useless if nobody wants to update or make a gpl 3 or even a horrible gpl 2 app. Suppose they do, they're supposed to pay the apple fee every year and "sell" it for free?
I'm not sure what the article wants besides bad press for companies that went bankrupt?
100% agree for "read only" software, like scanning, diagnostics, etc. Control software is much more involved topic, let me illustrate it with a scenario: one family member is non-techy but has an insulin pump, another family member is techy and likes to hack around, they made a change to the insulin pump software to "improve it", but by accident the change triggered insulin overdose at night during sleep and family m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an ICD (implanted cardioverter-defibrillator) to save my life if my heart stops. I was also given a proprietary box that sits at home, reads data from it and sends it to my cardiologist over a cellular network, on demand. As part of periodic remote checkups I'm supposed to sit next to it, press the button, which causes it to read data and send any abnormal heart rhythms it detected (via cellular network), whet…
That's appalling and should be illegal. I wish more programmers would refuse to contribute to this kind of exploitation.
Apple is well known to operate with a near total disregard for the stability of third party software. I wouldn't go so far as saying that anyone who puts Apple in their tech stack for something safety critical and then blithely upgrades gets what they deserve when it breaks, but it's a damn fool thing to do, especially if they've already personally run into problems as a result before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an ICD (implanted cardioverter-defibrillator) to save my life if my heart stops. I was also given a proprietary box that sits at home, reads data from it and sends it to my cardiologist over a cellular network, on demand. As part of periodic remote checkups I'm supposed to sit next to it, press the button, which causes it to read data and send any abnormal heart rhythms it detected (via cellular network), whet…
This is giving me feelings similar to that movie repo men where you had to rent life saving organs and they could come repossess them at any time.
God forbid I ever need to rely on software to live. But if I do you can guarantee I won't have anything connected to the internet that I need a smartphone to use!
God forbid I ever need to rely on software to live. But if I do you can guarantee I won't have anything connected to the internet that I need a smartphone to use!
At that point you may have no choice if you want to live.
I realise that's not a normal or even reasonable response to the predicament, but I'll never have kids and I've never been very attached to my life anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's appalling and should be illegal. I wish more programmers would refuse to contribute to this kind of exploitation.
If it was illegal he might be dead. If he refused, he could be dead. Is that a better world?
And to be clear, I wasn't saying he should have refused treatment. I was saying I wish more programmers would refuse to help develop exploitative software like this.
A lot of this does make sense, and I think there's still ought to be more in the messaging. The medical data as well needs to be analogously free, or rather, wholly private to the individual. No organization should be the arbiters of our medical information. But the sad news is, we carry around with us portable surveillance circlets which have the ability to access our medical conditions. We give it information volun…
It allows patients to pull their complete medical history from their various healthcare institutions, and store it locally without having to worry about some corporation monetizing and data-mining their health record