A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s • Hacker News Board

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#51

Post by grzm » Sun, May 21, 2017, 8:36 PM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #46

wavefunction wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you just search for "Microsoft"+"watch"+"Parkinson's" and spend, let's say, two minutes selecting a "just the facts" article? You probably spent those two minutes writing your post.

I spent about 10 minutes writing my post and it was very cathartic. The article is teasing the reader. It could have easily explained the basics of the device in one or two sentences at the top. The two main questions the reader has are "Does this work?" and "How does this work?" The writer is just being cute by not getting those answers out of the way.

Different journalistic styles appeal to different people. If this one didn't appeal to you, that's perfectly fine. To figure out why it didn't appeal to you, and why you personally find it frustrating, that's great, and a good exercise in critical thinking, literary analysis, and self examination.

That said, there's a key difference between "This style of writing is very frustrating." and "I find this style of writing very frustrating." From reading other comments in this thread, the story appealed to them. What comes across to you as "the writer … just being cute" is engaging writing to others. As currently written, your critical analysis of why you find the journalistic style frustrating comes off as a rant, which doesn't contribute constructively to discussion on HN.

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#52

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sun, May 21, 2017, 8:44 PM UTC

Tempest1981 wrote: post #44

erlehmann_ wrote: post #12

> As part of her work, Zhang researched the root cause of tremors. She spent six months, off and on, building prototypes. She sometimes worked in her London home, soldering wires to PC boards and tinkering with coin cell motors to create vibrations. She tested early versions with four other people with Parkinson’s, producing promising results for three, spurring the idea forward, she says. This paragraph reads like t…

This is a PR piece, and it's very interesting. Seems like we're all in such a hurry to de-bunk it, demanding scientific details and open source. If Apple published this, would the reaction be as cynical?

I don't have an issue with it being a PR piece, but I think it's a shame that an actual discussion of the tech is basically non-existent.

Other controversial opinion: I've seen several examples of tech projects led by women where the reporting is couched much more from the human interest angle than a tech angle, and worst, questioning the tech in question can be met with accusations of sexism. I think this does a great disservice to women in tech by assuming a less critical bar.

As for examples, Elizabeth Holmes is probably the most well known one, but another one that was kind of fascinating to me at the time was Grace Choi and her "Mink" make-up printer. The printer as advertised was basically non-existent, but articles were universally laudatory and many lambasted men who questioned the tech for "just not getting it." I'm not arguing that is going on here, but without an explanation of what's actually going on, and comparisons to other similar technologies, this is just a puff piece.

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#53

Post by wglb » Sun, May 21, 2017, 8:46 PM UTC

sanj wrote: post #42

Why wasn't this flagged as a dupe? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14316703 I would've expected the hash cruft to be ignored.

That's my error. I usually remove said cruft before submitting but neglected to do this time.

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#54

Post by hatsunearu » Sun, May 21, 2017, 8:51 PM UTC

petversen wrote: post #36

zevv wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a nagging feeling about this project as well. It is simply too good to be true: first we see a lone engineer fiddling with some wires on a prototyping board, and a few months later poof the girl can write again. She is defying years and years of experience by a large number of experts in the field, this just does not sound realistic. Why is this 'breakthrough' presented as the effort of an individual? The only…

Zhang was at Lift when she saw that they invented the spoon that compensates for Parkinson tremor during eating. That's where she got the idea. The wrist device was built by electrical engineers, not her.

AFAIK the way this magic device works is if you vibrate the wrists for some reason that makes the tremors go away. not sure how that works. But it is most definitely not related to the parkinsons spoon, because all that thing is a spoon with active stabilization.

Frankly weird that if this simple technique has already bee n discovered, i don't see why this tech hasn't been mass-produced already. seems like a no-brainer.

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#55

Post by hatsunearu » Sun, May 21, 2017, 8:52 PM UTC

pscsbs wrote: post #11

This reminds me of Google's Liftware, which does something similar but for cutlery. https://www.liftware.com/

It's not. This isn't active stabilization, it just vibrates the wrist and somehow they claim this causes the tremors to stop. Very strange.

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#56

Post by enobrev » Sun, May 21, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #51

khazhoux wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent about 10 minutes writing my post and it was very cathartic. The article is teasing the reader. It could have easily explained the basics of the device in one or two sentences at the top. The two main questions the reader has are "Does this work?" and "How does this work?" The writer is just being cute by not getting those answers out of the way.

Different journalistic styles appeal to different people. If this one didn't appeal to you, that's perfectly fine. To figure out why it didn't appeal to you, and why you personally find it frustrating, that's great, and a good exercise in critical thinking, literary analysis, and self examination. That said, there's a key difference between "This style of writing is very frustrating." and "I find this style of writin…

I agree with the gist of your reply. Different strokes, and so on. But I also found khazhoux's comment quite useful.

Also, your comment seems to try to differentiate as to whether an opinion should begin with "I think" (specifically, "I find"), which is a suggestion of poor writing form.

Had you followed your own advice, your last sentence might read "As currently written, your critical analysis of why you find the journalistic style frustrating comes off as a rant, which ^I don't feel contributes^ constructively to discussion on HN." I think you'll agree that those words are as wasteful here as they would have been in khazhoux's comment.

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#57

Post by erlehmann_ » Sun, May 21, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

obstinate wrote: post #34

erlehmann_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article, Hayan Zhang is described as a researcher. She (claims to have) created a device that improves the quality of life of people who have Parkinson's. The device seems to have been built with easily obtainable components. Similar effects to the one she exploits have been described scientifically [0], although it seems questionable if the result comes from the vibration [1]. Expecting publication of source…

I can see where you got your expectations from. You should reach out to the researcher. Maybe they can tell you why it's not OSS. I'd not be surprised if it was some mix of medical devices being a special case, and the IP being owned by Microsoft.

I wrote Hayan Zhang the following Email with the subject line “Source code & schematics for Parkinson's device?”:

Hello Hayan Zhang,

I have read several articles about the “Emma device” you have built, but could not find any details. Have you published source code & schematics?

The BBC has a GitHub repository for code related to the documentary. The one open issue on it is from a person who wants to help their father who has been affected by Parkinson's " rel="nofollow">https://github.com/bbc/MiD/issues/3>:

> I am hoping to design a similar item to help my father with both > writing, and potentially in continuing other activities that his > Parkinson's is starting to inhibit, and while the Big Life Fix episode > covering it gave some hints at the details, there wasn't that much > concrete information.

In a Reddit thread, other people also want to know how the “Emma device” works and built it for their relatives who are afflicted by Parkinson's: " rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/Parkinsons/comments/5hh2fx/emmas_wa...

Since you seem to have zero interest in commercializing your findings, I do not understand why the information on the details seems hard to find. Have you published something (like a scientific article) on the subject?

Greetings,

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#58

Post by jessriedel » Sun, May 21, 2017, 9:10 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #51

khazhoux wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent about 10 minutes writing my post and it was very cathartic. The article is teasing the reader. It could have easily explained the basics of the device in one or two sentences at the top. The two main questions the reader has are "Does this work?" and "How does this work?" The writer is just being cute by not getting those answers out of the way.

Different journalistic styles appeal to different people. If this one didn't appeal to you, that's perfectly fine. To figure out why it didn't appeal to you, and why you personally find it frustrating, that's great, and a good exercise in critical thinking, literary analysis, and self examination. That said, there's a key difference between "This style of writing is very frustrating." and "I find this style of writin…

The fact that people enjoy different things does not mean they are all as intellectually valuable. Children like stories with talking animals, but that doesn't mean all talking animals are appropriate for all venues. Likewise, we can reasonably (even if contentiously) make value judgements about some format that people really enjoy, like pulpy romance novels, clickbait teasers, or outrage porn.

HN is supposed to be about gratifying intellectual curiosity (explicitly in the guidelines). Romance novels, talking animals, and run-of-mill human interest pieces don't belong.

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#59

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 21, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #58

grzm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different journalistic styles appeal to different people. If this one didn't appeal to you, that's perfectly fine. To figure out why it didn't appeal to you, and why you personally find it frustrating, that's great, and a good exercise in critical thinking, literary analysis, and self examination. That said, there's a key difference between "This style of writing is very frustrating." and "I find this style of writin…

The fact that people enjoy different things does not mean they are all as intellectually valuable. Children like stories with talking animals, but that doesn't mean all talking animals are appropriate for all venues. Likewise, we can reasonably (even if contentiously) make value judgements about some format that people really enjoy, like pulpy romance novels, clickbait teasers, or outrage porn. HN is supposed to be a…

[deleted]

Re: A prototype watch, raising hope for Parkinson’s

#60

Post by khazhoux » Sun, May 21, 2017, 9:22 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #51

khazhoux wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent about 10 minutes writing my post and it was very cathartic. The article is teasing the reader. It could have easily explained the basics of the device in one or two sentences at the top. The two main questions the reader has are "Does this work?" and "How does this work?" The writer is just being cute by not getting those answers out of the way.

Different journalistic styles appeal to different people. If this one didn't appeal to you, that's perfectly fine. To figure out why it didn't appeal to you, and why you personally find it frustrating, that's great, and a good exercise in critical thinking, literary analysis, and self examination. That said, there's a key difference between "This style of writing is very frustrating." and "I find this style of writin…

No, my post wasn't self-examination. I stated my opinion about the very low signal-to-noise ratio in this article. It's so uninformative, the article itself barely contributes to discussion on HN.

The article was tech-bait.