this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
480 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

69346 readers
4346 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It’s data they should have had to begin with, they made the claim. Of course it’s going to be questioned, they could have been upfront with the data.

What other reason would they omit it? Other than to mislead if it wasn’t actually 100%.

It’s funny how I am “demanding” something that would be just basic decency to include along with their claim, they provided the data for the sound after all…..

[–] hangonasecond@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They are almost certainly restricting the amount of information they release under the advice of the legal team at the University, in preparation for the impending commercialization. I agree, it'd be great to have the details and to live in a world where all information is free and open. However, we don't on both counts. The assumption that they could only be attempting to mislead people when this isn't even a product for sale yet, is at best naïve and at worst willfully obtuse.

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So they can talk about the relevant commercialization technical bits (the db) and they can’t talk about the part that’s not…? Uhh… what…?

Is that your argument? Does that make any sense to you…? The part that should be restricted is being talked about freely… and the part that shouldn’t be restricted is…? You’re defending the system that’s backwards. And you want to call me naive and obtuse… okay, defend marketing fluff that you ate up like they were expecting….