this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
428 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

59572 readers
3430 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
428
You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money... (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money...::Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn't making quite enough money...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frazw@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying baby monitors are the only reason for improved SUID rates. I'm saying they likely played a role. Despite your sarcasm, you might also be right that lead could have adversely affected unexplained infant mortality. The point I was trying to make was that baby monitors are not useless devices designed to extract money from you as implied by OP, whose comments by the way, were anecdotal.

$400 is excessive though. As is a subscription.

And data on SIDS is freely available. https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm