[bitmasher9]

> it's the equivalent of flying a plane you built yourself

A great analogy because people die that way. I personally would never push code to another person’s insulin pump (or advertise code as being used for an insulin pump) because I couldn’t live with the guilt if my bug got someone else killed.

[jacquesm]

I know people die that way (GA). But someone is working for the companies that make insulin pumps and they are not as a rule equally motivated so I would expect them to do worse, not better.

And to the best of my knowledge none of the closed-loop people have died as a result of their work and they are very good at peer reviewing each others work to make sure it stays that way. And I'd trust my life to open source in such a setting long before I'd do it to closed source. At least I'd have a chance to see what the quality of the code is, which in the embedded space ranges from 'wow' all the way to 'no way they did that'.

[chii]

> I would expect them to do worse, not better.

which is why lots of systems and processes (sometimes called red tape) exist to try and prevent the undesired outcome, and dont rely on the competency of a single person as the weak link!

[firtoz]

There are more financial reasons to violate and cheat the red tape than there are incompetent open source hackers in the world.

[f1shy]

Anytime anybody does something himself, there is a risk. People die because of welding parts cleaned with break-cleaner, people die driving, diving, sky-diving, doing bungee jumping...

Advertising that code, IMHO would be as showing of you doing extreme sports, for example. I do not think is any bad. A good disclaimer should be enough to take away any guilt.

[RobotToaster]

I'm not aware of any deaths attributed to open source artificial pancreas systems. Meanwhile there have been multiple attributed to closed source glucose monitors.

[croemer]

Not attributed to. The FDA wording says "associated with" which is much weaker causally.

[UomoNeroNero]

I can guarantee you, from my personal experience of being diabetic for 30 years, that every day—and in the most incredible ways—I have managed to “almost kill myself.” Whether when I used finger-prick testing, sensors, injecting insulin with pens, or managing insulin with a pump. Our life is always a delicate balancing act between too little, too much, and way too much—the kind where this time I really kick the bucket

By personal choice I use a commercial CGM (if I could “touch it,” I’d be firmly on the side of certainty about killing myself through sheer stupidity), but reading something like “associated with” really makes me angry. Before making such subtle insinuations about the open-source world (the source of the revolution of the last 10 years in this field), regulatory bodies should open their eyes to what is actually happening with the quality of current sensors and the real problems they are causing.

[jacquesm]

Thank you.

And strength to you. I had a business partner for some time that was much like you and every time he'd be 10 minutes late for an appointment I'd get nervous and if it was more than an hour I'd be on the phone to his family to check up on him.

[fsflover]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46398414

[horsawlarway]

And yet someone IS pushing code to these devices. Every single one.

So the question really becomes - Are these people working on their own pumps with open source more or less invested than the random programmers hired by a company that pretty clearly can't get details right around licensing, and is operating with a profit motive?

More reckless as well? Perhaps. But at least motivated by the correct incentives.

[dullcrisp]

So flying in a plane you built yourself is in fact safer than flying commercial because the motivations line up. Got it.

[AnthonyMouse]

You, an engineer at a major aircraft manufacturer that isn't Boeing, have been working after hours with some of your colleagues on a hobby project to add some modern safety features to an older model of small private plane, because you regard it as unsafe even though it still has a government certification and you got into this field because you want to save lives.

Your "prototype" is a plane from the original manufacturer with no physical modifications but a software patch to use data from sensors the plane already had to prevent the computer from getting confused under high wind conditions in a way that has already caused two fatal crashes.

Now you have to fly somewhere and your options for a plane are the one with the history of fatal crashes or the same one with your modifications, and it's windy today. Which plane are you getting on?

[sarusso]

This example is so right. Including the parallel with what happened with those two aircrafts.

[amrocha]

Definitely not the untested code I wrote myself!

Are you kidding me? How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Definitely not the untested code I wrote myself!

Nobody said it was untested.

> How many times have you unwillingly introduced bugs into a code base you didn’t fully understand? That’s basically table stakes for software engineering.

Which applies just the same to the people the company hired to do it, and now we're back to "the people with a stronger incentive to get it right are the people who die if it goes wrong".

[amrocha]

I can’t tell if you seriously think a random person writing code in their basement is equivalent to a company that has access to API docs, design specs, actual test hardware, the expertise of a ton of engineers that have worked on the project and understand how it can go wrong, not to mention all the regulations and verifications they’re subject to.

But if you do then wow. That really puts in perspective the kind of people that use hacker news. I’m gonna be more selective about who I bother replying to going forward.

[tstrimple]

Tested how? With 100% "unit test" coverage? I can certainly see how a random person on the internet might be highly motivated and actually talented enough to contribute to these sorts of projects. But they don't have the budget and resources that commercial entities have. They don't have the same due diligence requirements. They don't have the same liability. If I use a commercial device unaltered, it's the company's fault if the device fucks up or is defective and causes harm. If I install random internet software on my medical device and it fucks up and causes harm, it's my fault.

I say this as someone who might modify my own medical devices because I'm so fucking jaded over the capitalist march towards enshitification and maximizing profit over human lives. There is simply no way random folks on the internet can test these types of systems to any reliable degree. It requires rigorous testing across hundreds to thousands of test cases. They at best can give you the recipe that works well for them and the few people that have voluntarily tried their version. That doesn't scale and certainly isn't any safer than corporate solutions.

[mindslight]

Flying in a plane you built yourself is likely safer than flying in the same model of plane built by a company that assembled it for you using lowest-bid labor while making you sign a twenty page lawyer barf disclaiming liability.

[TylerE]

We have decades of data saying that isn’t true. Homebuilt aircraft have much worse accident rates than factory built aircraft.

[habinero]

Are you really comparing an amateur skillset to designs from paid engineers made on a company assembly line with QC?

Why on earth would you think an experimental aircraft made by a hobbyist would be safer?

[mindslight]

See my other follow up comment ("same model"). Medical device software development feels much closer to homegrown (or worse) than aeronautical engineering.

[f1shy]

Why do you think a random person, who is VERY passionate about something, as to invest all the free hours in life to do something, is less skilled that one who just does it because is needed to survive?

Sorry. I would be much more inclined to have something made by somebody passionate about it, as done by some guy that received hopefully some kind of instruction on how to do things and was then left alone.

In this context (GA) we are not comparing Airbus/Boeing with a garage build. We are comparing some small company making 2 seaters with your hangar and maybe 10 certified aircraft mechanics that will help you a lot on the process.

[AdelaideSimone]

And why do you think pathos arguments are logical? Granted, they didn't cite them, but assuming it is true, empirical studies showing the accident rates are the logical point from which to draw conclusions. What you would like, how you and others feel about it, and what you would expect are meaningless.

You're also equivocating. They made it extremely clear they are referring to hobbyist and other such groups with vague or unknown qualifications; whereas, you go in and make stipulated claims about small businesses with certified mechanics, etc. These two are clearly not the same category, making your argument non-responsive. It's also contradictory in terms of discussed liabilities and such, as the small company, and its mechanics, that whoever worked with, would have liability as well, as opposed to the "random git repo".

[jacquesm]

You write that as if you have ample experience with codebases of medical devices and I'm going to take a stab at this and say that you don't. Prove me wrong.

[amrocha]

You can’t honestly believe that or you wouldn’t be able to function in society.

[mindslight]

My comment rests on the fact that the types of planes you can build yourself are completely different models than the fully assembled models from the likes of Boeing etc. I do agree that a kit 737, if such a thing existed, would be less safe than one off the line.

[amrocha]

I would still trust a cessna way more than any plane built or modified by a single person.

[array_key_first]

You can believe it and simultaneously function in society.

We aren't all building our own planes because it's worse, but because it's time consuming. I don't have 20,000 hours to burn learning about how planes work to make my own.

If we magically beamed the knowledge straight into people's heads and also had a matter fabricator, I'd imagine yes - everyone would build their own plane. And it might be safer, I don't know.

Point is, the ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can believe both and still resolve it internally and with the world

[habinero]

Not the original poster, but that was snark and not meant literally.

Also, building your own plane is absolutely worse, even if you do have expert-level knowledge. That's true for any complex design. Aircraft design, material sourcing, fabrication, assembly and quality control are all very different skill sets, but the real kicker is experience.

The reason why commercial aircraft are so safe is a lot of work goes into investigating and understanding the root causes of accidents, and even more work goes into implementing design fixes and crew training.

[replyifuagree]

Those people on the boeing flights would have appreciated a little more of the correct motivations.

Instead they got McDonnell Douglas'd

As it turns out the motivations matter way more than you might think.