I hesitate to post a Twitter thread in response to a submission of a Twitter thread (I wish foone would do this on a blog), but this is worth pointing out since the teardown makes it seem like the electronics version is a joke.
That said, this device is incredibly wasteful and irresponsible, and that the marketing around it is highly questionable.
Thanks for sharing the rebuttal, that is a good perspective. I hesitated for a few days before posting that thread as I wasn’t sure how kosher Twitter was here. I always find these sorts of teardowns fascinating because it makes me realize how much “magic” we assume in things we see around us.
And, yes, I wish this was posted on a blog and not just a Twitter roll-up.
In general, submissions of Twitter threads are discouraged, with the occasional exception, mainly because Twitter posts tend to be low content, high impact/drama info tidbits (read: news headlines). In this case I consider it an exception since foone tends to post long threads with lots of information. Still, I wouldn’t make a habit of it.
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation and will certainly be sparing.
The problem I see here is that the original read to me as purely technical “Oh wow, it seems unguessably complicated and in the end it’s an LED and a photo sensor” - (I myself would’ve expected measuring a change of current or resistance in the test material, but I would’ve been very wrong)
But this “rebuttal” is more condescending like “look at this idiot dissecting this thing where it COMMON KNOWLEDGE how it works” etc.pp.
The post by Naomi Wu is insightful, but I don’t get how people can be mad at foone, because I didn’t see any “omg the people who buy this are so stupid”. And that it’s wasteful to be thrown away after one use is a simple fact, the debate whether it’s worth it something completely different.
What is it about this device you think is irresponsible?
That it is single use and mass produced.
So is the manual test strip inside of it?
Single-use electronics is much worse than a test strip, I think. Beyond being overkill, it’s polluting to produce, generates long lasting garbage, and consumes rare materials.
If it was such a waste of “rare” materials, it would be more expensive.
Of course, markets are efficient and always account for externalities 🙄
Ah yes, the market is perfect, of course.
Another take, turns out the “conventional” tests are not so easy to read correctly: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1301786032136835072
We’re on our way to the world shown in “Idiocracy”…
Back in my day, you had to go to the library if you wanted to know something. Kids these days can just ask Alexa. Am I out of touch? No, the kids are just stupid.
Best explanation I’ve found of how pregnancy tests actually work is here, though it’s pretty dense: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/02/antibody-tests-for-the-coronavirus , in the context of making similar sorts of tests for COVID-19. As far as I can tell, as the fluid (pee or blood or whatever) soaks its way up through the paper it goes through three zones impregnated (no pun intended) with chemicals: the first contains essentially a dye that gets carried with the fluid, the second binds to the dye and the hormone (or antibody) you’re trying to detect, so the more of the dye+material that soaks through it the darker it becomes. Then there’s a third zone that does the same thing with human hormones in general. That third one is there as a control to demonstrate that the test is working at all, and it has detected something correctly. So one line should always show up if the test is working correctly, and two lines means it’s working and it’s detected the substance its looking for.
Even though I’m pretty unlikely to ever need a pregnancy test, I always feel better understanding how things work. My conclusion is that paper pregnancy tests are already pretty high-tech.
Thank you for that explanation. The second indicator makes a lot more sense now.
A longish text split into 31 tweets is like a book published on post-its… Flagged as spam.