Go to hell.
Unless, of course, you'd like to commit the funded work to the free commons, unencumbered by patents and copyrights, and free to use by any entity for any purpose.
That's what we'd do for ALS, right ?
Go to hell.
Unless, of course, you'd like to commit the funded work to the free commons, unencumbered by patents and copyrights, and free to use by any entity for any purpose.
That's what we'd do for ALS, right ?
PG is a good guy - he sides with entrepreneurs, and created an industry-wide standard for a founder friendly seed stage investment deal (called a SAFE) in a world of hugely predatory deal makers. And from his twitter its pretty clear that he's biased towards fairness and humanity in general.
Read some of PG's essays. People dont share deep insights and knowledge like that for free if they are made of the wrong stuff.
Agreed.
My comment violates the HN guideline to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" and I beg the op's pardon.
A low (or no) return investment in basic technology to help the disabled better express their intentions - for their own private uses - is an unalloyed good.
Of my two interpretations, I will set aside my initial, very cynical reaction and wait to see what actually comes from this.