this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
267 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
64937 readers
3969 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is a valid perspective, but it doesn't take into account the burden on end users. Would you still feel that same way if you were the user, and the "update" required literal surgery on your body - not because the device failed, or expired, but simply because network standards have changed?
Why not use the analogy of a Wi-Fi repeater or extender that can handle multiple Wi-Fi standards simultaneously?
For that matter, it should be rather simple to limit it to only "listen" for connections from known medical devices (though it's not like there are a bunch of 2G phones running around these days).
I'm listening, but so far, I haven't seen anything that explains why this would actually be a bad idea, or how it could cause any harm.
Can you give me an example of a medical implant with 2g embedded? I'm not sure that's a thing. They usually use other RF signals to talk to something outside the body.