I agree with this. It confirms that most "digital" devices like this (for example, scales) are just introducing greater inaccuracy whilst conveying a false sense of certainty.
What makes you say that? This is exactly the sort of scenario where punting interpretation off to a simple algorithm is probably more accurate than leaving it up to untrained humans.
I read a comment in a reddit thread and they said the "pro-tip" was to take a picture of the pregnancy test and up the contrast to be able to better interpret results.
So a less wasteful idea would be a companion app to help with that process vs. more electronics in a landfill. (Although obvious privacy implications exist).
That could happen with any two tests. That second test is really faint. At first I thought "Ok, so they're both negative, so what?"
Not to mention, false negatives are far more common than false positives. If you have a false positive, then there's typically some odd health concern with the person.
As the digital scales go I was in the market for industrial scale almost exactly an year ago. At the first glance the stated accuracy is simply function of ADC resolution and maximal measurable weight. On the second glance it is mostly about market segmentation and certifications, because for all manufacturers I've considered getting order of magnitude better stated accuracy seems to be a matter of software license and different cal certificate (and the SW license seems to only affect the error term reported by the scale, not accuracy of the actual measurement).
