Ultrasound systems are medical devices. There are limits on power levels for patient safety and to ensure efficacy. To my knowledge, licensing here is an attempt to protect patient safety.
Phony argument. An electronic thermometer and blood pressure monitor ensure safety too and they never need a license. Do x-ray machines need a license? This ulrasound device by definition doesn't even emit radiation. This company is conning its users.
Thermometers and blood pressure monitors are passive devices. Ultrasound systems do emit radiation, in the form of ultrasound vibrations from a transducer of some kind. In the ultrasound industry, there are two measurements, mechanical index (MI) and thermal index (TI) used to characterize the power being transmitted into human tissue. Clinical ultrasound manufacturers usually have a lab (AP&I "Acoustic Power and Intensity") to measure these parameters to stay within what are thought to be safe limits.
You can believe they are conning their users, but if you want to manufacturer and sell ultrasound systems, you generally have to comply with many different regulations.
> Your Butterfly iQ will remain functional even without a subscription. You can continue to scan in all 19 applications, but will not be able to upload new images. You will have full access to all images in the cloud that were previously saved.
> In one creepy experiment, the scientists implanted electrodes in a mother rabbit’s brain, took her young litter off to a submarine and, when it was deep below the surface, killed them one by one. At each synchronised time of death, the mother’s brain reacted.
Python 3.6+ does have type annotations and multiple static analysis tools for type checking. Only an ignorant or biased person would yell at Python for flaws it doesn't have. For crucial business logic, one also writes unit tests.
> recent versions of Python have added type annotations that optionally allow the programmer to specify the types used in a program. However, Python’s type system is not capable of expressing many types and type relationships, does not do any automated typing, and can not reliably check all types at compile time. Therefore, using types in Python requires a lot of extra code, but falls far short of the level of type safety that other languages can provide.
Unit tests are not an adequate replacement for compile-time checks performed by a compiler. The former is lax and expensive, the latter is thorough and inexpensive.
Sometimes python is appropriate for production code, weak type system or no. Sometimes it isn't. As a project gets larger, more complex, and more interconnected with other things, static type systems become more useful.
End of story, surely? Didn't we all know that already?
But you loose so much flexibility. When you start working on a problem, you want your language should give you as little headache as it can with minimum rules and constraints. Then on iteration you can improve like having type annotation, unit tests etc.
You can write perfectly fine production level code in Python. It like lego block. Start with simple and then add on.
Adding compile type checks comes with its own demerits. I guess here Swift is trying to offer more tool chain on compiler level for model building rather than just being type safe.
I’ve used mypy and pyre on large Python 3.6 codebases and they aren’t even close to type systems in conventional imperative languages (C++, Java, etc) let alone the type systems in the ML family of languages where type system innovations are usually born. I’m sure they’ll get better with time, to an extent.
Currently, programmers are forced to pepper the code with lots of ignore annotation comments and redundant union types, just because the type checkers aren’t smart enough.
If the db internally supports efficient temporal tracking, then yes by all means. If it doesn't, then I don't see a way for the developer around the redundancy.
