this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
60 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

29 readers
2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago
 

If Neuralink can prove its device is safe in humans, it would still potentially take more than a decade for the start-up to secure commercial use approval

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Granite@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Consistency is not a hallmark of conservatism; being a numpty is.

[–] skogens_ro@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't believe in the vaccine-chip nonsense, but I think there's consistency there: it's about informed consent. There's a huge difference between being told by the government to take a vaccine that secretly has a chip in it, and Elon Musk offering chips for sale. If you choose to buy Musk's chip, you're doing so voluntarily and you know that you are getting a chip.

Plus, how many of the tinfoil hats are cheering on Neuralink?

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference is that the vaccine physically can't have a chip. It's impossible for that level of technology to be injected into muscle through a needle.

[–] skogens_ro@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah there are numerous reasons why the conspiracy theory doesn't hold.

But that's besides the point. Let's say they thought the vaccine secretly contained benzos in order to make the population more docile or whatever. That doesn't mean they need to object to any use of the drug in order to be consistent. The problem would be that the government is secretly injecting the population for nefarious reasons, which would be a valid concern if there were any truth to it.