Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CT Scans of Health Wearables

lumafield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#41

Post by fapjacks »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #35
pedalpete wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oura is headquartered in Oulu Finland and the main US office is in SF. San Diego does have a bunch of health tech, but it pales in comparison to Boston.

> San Diego does have a bunch of health tech, but it pales in comparison to Boston. I don't have firm data on this, but colloquially among medical people, San Diego is seen to have more biotech startups than any other metro, including Boston/SF. Boston has more research, of course, though SD is competitive there as well. We can disagree about numbers etc, but 'pales' doesn't reflect reality. edit: https://www.cbre.co…

I have worked in tech in many different cities and when I worked for a startup in San Diego, we were surrounded by health tech companies of all sizes. I've never worked in Boston, but I would say San Diego is definitely a health tech hub.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#42

Post by anonymous_user9 »

tlb wrote: post #30

Great images, OK writeup. There are some bits of bullshit, like "The proximity of microphones to processing hardware minimizes latency". No, the speed of electrical signal propagation (around 2/3 the speed of light) is not significant for microphone placement.

It's AI slop. The descriptions are all meaninglessly specific like that, saying things that are technically true but don't make sense to point out.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#43

Post by cindyllm »

anonymous_user9 wrote: post #42
tlb wrote: post #30

Great images, OK writeup. There are some bits of bullshit, like "The proximity of microphones to processing hardware minimizes latency". No, the speed of electrical signal propagation (around 2/3 the speed of light) is not significant for microphone placement.

It's AI slop. The descriptions are all meaninglessly specific like that, saying things that are technically true but don't make sense to point out.

[dead]

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#46

Post by xnzakg »

Sad to see the quality of the content from Lumafield slowly going down. Feels like the content got less technical after they moved it from "scan of the month" to their blog, and now it feels like the descriptions are just slop, not matching the scans themselves.

Examples:

- Each window is sealed under a thin polymer layer, balancing optical clarity with biocompatibility while preserving the ring’s continuous, scratch-resistant exterior. - This flexible board architecture allows the Oura Ring to maintain its circular form as well as distribute heat [...] - The charging coil runs along the ring’s outer circumference [...] - [...] we can easily visualize the deployment channel and insertion mechanism that guide this filament to its precise depth and angle. - spiral geometry - miniature microphones (visible as small cylindrical cavities) <- they're rectangular.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#47

Post by djhn »

xnzakg wrote: post #46

Sad to see the quality of the content from Lumafield slowly going down. Feels like the content got less technical after they moved it from "scan of the month" to their blog, and now it feels like the descriptions are just slop, not matching the scans themselves. Examples: - Each window is sealed under a thin polymer layer, balancing optical clarity with biocompatibility while preserving the ring’s continuous, scratch…

Even discarding the factual contents the sentences appear to be AI.

But especially nonsense like ”allows the Oura Ring to maintain its circular form as well as distribute heat” is what you get when you RLHF your chat bot for lazy students cheating on homework.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#48

Post by stavros »

xnzakg wrote: post #46

Sad to see the quality of the content from Lumafield slowly going down. Feels like the content got less technical after they moved it from "scan of the month" to their blog, and now it feels like the descriptions are just slop, not matching the scans themselves. Examples: - Each window is sealed under a thin polymer layer, balancing optical clarity with biocompatibility while preserving the ring’s continuous, scratch…

Also I'm doubtful that the needle in the CGM penetrates only "the top skin layer" given that it was around 1 cm long.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#49

Post by stavros »

secabeen wrote: post #44

It's sad to see such waste with the Dexcom. A sizeable, single-use coin cell with a total useful life of 15 days, after which the entire unit is discarded.

And it's a bitch to open to harvest the cell, as well. You have to break it open with a fair bit of hassle.

Re: CT Scans of Health Wearables

#50

Post by rationalist »

stevezsa8 wrote: post #36
chiph wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend's coworker had their pump lock on, and inject the entire reservoir of insulin into them. They were discovered in their home by the police after family members lost contact. No idea if it was an Omnipod, but I would hope that all insulin pumps have a separate watchdog circuit to prevent this.

Did they survive?

Presumably no, but the comment is unclear - the police could have found them unconscious, although it is mostly likely they were found dead.
Post reply on HN