Overall, it was a very odd look into a discipline that I am familiar with, which leads me to think that the ideas are not very promising for any of the fields I don't have expertise in.
Overall, it was a very odd look into a discipline that I am familiar with, which leads me to think that the ideas are not very promising for any of the fields I don't have expertise in.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/cercor/advance-article-abstract/doi...
[2] https://www.jneurosci.org/content/early/2020/03/30/JNEUROSCI...
This is simply wrong, both from a user perspective and a general research perspective.
Positioning a jailbreak like this as a solution to general vent shortage may be irresponsible if it leads to people trying to treat others instead of relying on doctors, but going beyond that is ignoring the good that's come from work like this.
Hacked up and jailbroken insulin pumps have been a thing for years, often to get increased safety over what manufacturers can provide: https://medium.com/neodotlife/dana-lewis-open-aps-hack-artif...
There's also a history of people unlocking and altering settings in CPAP/BiPAP devices in response to data (many providers treat them as set and forget devices and don't bother reviewing logs except for initial patient compliance).
Beyond people hacking their own devices, we've seen that security of medical devices wouldn't improve without independent researchers highlighting the flaws and driving them to fix them: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/17/security-researchers-say-the... and https://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/lethal...
If anything, at least in the American context, I'm more worried about running out of the sedative necessary for ventilation.[1]
I have nothing against hardware hacking in non-pandemics. If you want to hack your own insulin pump or create epi-pens on your own (non-crisis) time, that's fine by me.
But I think the cost-benefit-risk analysis changes in pandemics, because people are too hungry for easy fixes and make ill-advised decisions under pressure. For example, even doctors (ostensibly medically-literate professionals) are prescribing themselves hydrochloroquine [2], which does not seem to be a miracle cure and sometimes, itself, dangerous (and also leaves lupus sufferers at risk of a disrupted supply chain).
[1] https://www.vox.com/2020/4/6/21209589/coronavirus-medicine-v...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-corona...
CPAP ----questionable software hackery ----> BiPaP --- questionable hardware hacking ---> Ventilator
This is hubris. Ventilators are not iPhones circa 2010. It's irresponsible for non-medical researchers to not only pursue, but also disseminate, these jailbreaks. A significant portion of medical device RnD is related to creating technology that is hard to misuse and won't result in accidental death, and I just don't see that here.
All three of these pieces of functionality are required for many common paradigms in experimental psychology.
Nearly all Europeans enter PhD programs with a Master's degree in hand. At least in psychology (my discipline), US PhD programs will admit candidates directly from undergraduate. The overall time from bachelor's to PhD is similar when you account for these differences.
A better alternative is to read review articles in journals. They are shorter than books and will also give a more reasonable estimate of the certainty experts have in a certain field of results. For example, in psychology there is the Annual Review of Psychology, which generally publishes ~50pg readable summaries of literature by experts in the field. For the love of social science, please stop reading popular books on the brain/mind.