U.S. Army’s futuristic IVAS goggles actually make soldiers less lethal(taskandpurpose.com)
taskandpurpose.com
U.S. Army’s futuristic IVAS goggles actually make soldiers less lethal
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-ivas-dote-2022-testing-assesssment/
8 comments
I can confirm, David Vinci isn't better, it's just more profitable, and when given the choice of course patients will choose the cutting edge robot, but in the end it's not necessarily better for the patients. This is changing, there are several new players that will truly be better medicine soon.
Having worked on these things and seen them in person, I can confirm they are clunky, very much not ergonomic, half baked and just not what they should be.
I didn't know Microsoft make weapons for the US military. Doesn't sound like they're very good at it, so I suppose that's something.
The army is already on ivas 2.0. This article is at best a hit piece, because that at least implies a bit of competence.
> Soldiers “cited IVAS 1.0’s poor low-light performance, display quality, cumbersomeness, poor reliability, inability to distinguish friend from foe, difficulty shooting, physical impairments and limited peripheral vision as reasons for their dissatisfaction,” per the DOT&E assessment.
Most of those sound very solvable. Even limited peripheral vison. Either you can/should physically resolve that in the goggles or you virtually resolve it with wider FOV on cameras and good use of software.
Or just throw them away
Good. And thank you for the reminder. After seeing Microsoft's investment in OpenAI and how well their stock has done in the time since I've sold all of my shares, I've been thinking about buying back in. But now I remember why I sold them.
To me this just seems silly. MICROSOFT combat goggles? I mean are you kidding me? The Russians would zero day those things in 20 minutes.
Buy 5000 prototype goggles @ $46,000 each before testing them. Sad, but typical.
Prostate surgery was a leading application for robot surgery because it's challenging to access the prostate and remove cancerous parts while preserving nerve/prostate function. A decade ago I saw a robotic prostate surgeon at a leading (ivy) research university hospital present data showing that although it could achieve superior outcomes (quicker return to urinary continence, faster mean return time of erection), a surgeon needed to perform literally hundreds-to-thousands of robotic surgeries before they could achieve equivalency in outcomes, and then to get to superiority. A surgeon in training could achieve statistically average outcomes via traditional laparoscopic prostate surgery much faster. Mind you, this was literally a decade after the daVinci was approved for this type of surgery (FDA approved in 2001).