Back

@jhavok @aral I was thinking that too but I figure these companies had a bunch of ways lined up to make her life hell till she voluntarily gave up the implant

@waitworry @jhavok @aral It looks like, based on this post's link ( https://aus.social/@arose62/110997570326816727 ), the issue was more that a lack of available maintenance would've made it worse when it started to fail and the battery could potentially leak.

Which to me makes a bit more sense, because "We're out of money, we're going to spend large amounts of money to get you to come here for us to remove the implant already in your brain." seems...a suspect business decision.

@aral @AT1ST @jhavok in the context of it being a reply to me it makes sense because I was saying this was about legal action being taken against her when apparently the issue is it will leak battery acid into her brain without maintenance

which probably an important distinction but still fucked up

@waitworry @aral @jhavok Yeah - it's a side effect of a business decision that only a single business could do the repairs and maintenance on said component, and they went bankrupt, but the actual decision to require it to be removed seems to be a safety measure because only that singular business could do something about the thing.

Ideally, another company would've been able to take over maintenance and repairs by absorbing the company, or just by the repairs being open source capable...

@waitworry @aral @jhavok ...though given that we're dealing with a brain-computer interface, I can see why it's not open sourced or given a right to repair. That's not usually a place we want people to be able to make unverified changes.