1
I’ve just had a poorly thought out mild epiphany realizing what’s been staring me (and I’m sure everyone else) in the face: There is a huge burden of simple care tasks assisting people with transferring, mobility, dressing, showering, feeding, memory, medications etc.
Individually: The carer role is hard, physical, foul, violent, confronting, and worst of all 24/7.
Systemically: Half of the health system is clogged full of people admitted for social / care issues rather than medical issues. The population is aging and people are living longer with more severe deficits. There is a huge volume of exploited laborers keeping the system afloat.
It’s almost certainly a technical impossibility to solve a fraction of these problems and a large proportion of them likely need socially acceptable and safe human-robot interactions. However, a brilliant / affordable solution to getting grandpa out of bed or wiping his butt or engaging his mind could dramatically improve care timeliness, quality, safety, frequency, etc. and revolutionize parts of industries.
If you’re an entrepreneur looking for ripe territory consider literally any problem in aged / disability / nursing care.
TL;DR less hype / investment in self driving cars and AI that can solve esoteric BAR exams and more focus on helping grandpa safely stand and walk to the bathroom.
</rant>
“Amazing new free open source standard freeing us all from closed / licensed tyranny”
vs.
“Giant corporation arriving late to standards competition hides behind “open source” as it uses it’s dominance to force fragmentation on everyone else”
My starter comment is this: whenever a new “open” project is proposed it should be independently evaluated as “good” as though it were closed source and the competitor open. Is “open-ness” being abused by companies when they find themselves in a market position they don’t like?