Matthew Loxton

@ProPublica@newsie.social
I think this article frames the wrong perp.

Hospitals and their legal staff are highly risk averse, and are just following what they understand to be the law, and will tend to err on the side of caution - the more vague and the more threatening a law is, the more hospitals will hedge to be safe.

The entities to blame here are the lawmakers and governor, who knew how to make hospitals react like this

@BeAware
I use several add-ons that are only available on chromium browsers.

Going to another browser would be fine for just surfing, but a large part of my online work would not be practical with a non=chromium browser.

I bet there are tons of people in the same boat.

@Fitik

@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
I think I know the answer to the main question, and it is a bit boring.

I expect that Neuralink got approval for human testing because they used a “same as” application, and could cite many other very similar implants that had been previously approved for other applicants. (2002, 2006, etc)

I want to know how this patient selected, the end points, what is this “issue” that the patient mentioned, what outcomes and adverse effects are being monitored, what are the rollback options?

@GottaLaff
Lots of questions