Roblox founders mid 2000's "let's make an open gaming platform where kids can create their own content and learn how to program"

Board of Directors 5 years later "show us the money you knobs!"

I hear you, my 9 year old has talked about it for years as her friends all play... Thankfully I've kept her true to the Switch we have and great games like Botw, Metroid dread, and the likes

I know many who are woke, they turn into pumpkins when they reach the tender age of 29

they're hoping regulators forget, most of the old toads are probably dead circa 2001 - but the kids... lest we forget.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

I guess if Fuchsia eventually replaces Android, then yes, hopefully down for the count.

little to no carbonation typically, also healthier if you believe the studies

Actually not a bad idea if portals like Kickstarter were to change their ToS were to enforce this through an assignment contract. Fail with someone else's money, and pony up your IP to the public domain. Then again, do we really want another Haiku?

Rule #1 - you haven't failed to medicate

Hey c'mon, we're only here to discuss the big picture

This is the type of concept I was thinking about in asking the question and the point I was trying to touch on. More thoughtfulness, better code, better technology, happier people. But the answer 'yes', is also my favourite.

I have worked in this exact field for 12+ years (see www.ultrasonix.com) - started as a software developer, and now involved with internal/external research and product development for the past 5 years. What the article fails to mention is that, sure there are a lot of low cost options in the market, there always have been and always will be - but their diagnostic capabilities are so inferior, that to try and address problems like pregnancy complications may be pointless. Obstetrical ultrasound is one of the most in-depth examinations that sonography can provide, and I doubt that with current technology the article is referencing (@ $100) that anything diagnostic can be achieved to help save the lives. I.e. why waste money and training time on an inferior technology, when perfectly capable ones already exist for a relatively low price already when pegged against other imaging modalities such as CT/MR/PET, etc. To give an idea, a $10,000 system is a low-cost ultrasound device these days (article references GE's V-Scan and Siemens P10 that fall under this category). These devices can definitely help see the fetus and help with very specific diagnoses, but if I knew my wife was at risk of complications, I would be appalled if she were scanned with a device like this when getting screened, so I just can't imagine that $100 technology will provide anything useful, even in 3rd world. I do believe that we'll have a ~$1000 scanner on the market, that's smart-phone sized and will provide wonderful diagnostic images, but probably not for another 10 years or so. And even in this case, it would be limited to specific exams. It would be interesting if the Newcastle group disclosed more information on their proposed technology in any case - always looking forward to the future of looking inside our bodies!