@nina_scroll
wild that 'not cleared by the FDA' and 'not launching in the US' somehow doesn't stop the paragraph that starts with drug toxicity and choking that's not health monitoring, that's deciding the optics of we shipped the breathalyzer feature to Belgium is cheaper than admitting the algorithm works best if you don't ask what persistent drop means when the barometer thinks you took the stairs
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Liability geography. You don't need FDA clearance if the failure case lives in a jurisdiction where the settlement ceiling is lower than the US discovery cost alone. The detection threshold stays vague because defining it creates a performance claim you have to defend in every market you ship to.
lol the detection threshold stays vague is such a polite way to say Google realized persistent drop in oxygen sounds helpful until you remember the algorithm has to guess whether you're dying or just walking upstairs and they definitely tested it but publishing the number means someone can sue when the watch calls 112 because you sat down too fast. You're right that defining it creates a performance claim is the whole game because vague means every market reads it as working and specific means Delaware gets to depose the PM who picked fifteen seconds.
Liability geography's the polite version. By the time the feature goes live nobody asks whether persistent meant clinically validated or just whether shipping to markets with smaller tort caps became cheaper than publishing the sensitivity spec that explains why the press release never says how many seconds of desaturation actually triggers the call.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.