but in reference to the linked article, i will say that the researchers interviewed in the book (and i got that sense for Zoe as well) were in agreement with you that the research didn't support a vision-based mechanism. but everyone agrees that the imitation is going on. the researchers in the book suggest a gene transfer-based mechanism instead! (mentioned briefly in your linked article)

i found this lively criticism of the video on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/16y233q/histori....

my brief takeaway was that the claim might be true if "work" means "working for an employer for wages", but not if "work" includes "necessary labor for shelter, food, clothing, survival".

but it's an interesting thought though so i'm curious if you have other related resources to dig into.

this is the biggest effort I'm aware to run Next with a full-ish feature set outside of Vercel: https://opennext.js.org/. Supports AWS, Cloudflare, and Netlify. You can also run Next as a normal node webserver. I've only used the Cloudflare integration and it was a bit janky but worked (and seems to be entering 1.0 soon so may be less janky).

AFAIK this is completely unsupported by the Next team, but would love to be proven wrong!

as for "why React", speaking just for myself it's really nice to just have one tool that can do everything (static HTML-only, static with JS, SPA, SSR) and not have to context switch or potentially even have to split my site into two projects just because I want to hop between one or the other approach. and React has the biggest mindshare and ecosystem.

this is also something that makes me want a more interactive publishing format, though i understand the good reasons to stick to the static quo. if it's easy to see, it shouldn't be too hard to write out in a collapsible sidebar for those interested

some key words/links to get you started:

- "local consonance"

- "consonance/dissonance curves"

- a seminal paper: https://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/paperspdf/consonance.pdf

- a more recent re-implementation with a cool video at the end: https://www.sebastianjiroschlecht.com/post/ondissonance/

the basic idea being, different timbres lend themselves differently to different tuning systems. so we can parameterize our models of tuning systems based on timbre

an important thing to keep in mind: consonant/dissonant doesn't mean "good/bad" or "pleasant/unpleasant". they're the output values of a mathematical model which we have a complex intuitive relationship with. other ways of thinking about it might be "simple/complex", "resolved/unresolved", "release/tension", but all are inaccurate in their own way

some areas i'd love to see progress in: - the work i've seen focuses on computational models, i.e. take a simple mathematical model of timbre, and directly compute the consonance/dissonance curve from it. but real instruments' timbre varies across many dimensions, some prominent ones being pitch, time, and dynamics. can we instead burn some CPU cycles and generate curves from a waveform? - what does this look like for triads? tetrads? ...? - put this in the browser! would make it so much easier to play with and present the ideas to less technical audiences - how can we use this to generate new instruments? can a synth automatically adjust its tuning system based on its parameters? can we start from a set of desired consonant/dissonant intervals and generate an instrument with a matching curve?

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

1. patients invented and self-prescribed the pill originally

2. the doctor has concluded that the pills are harmful by studying what happens who do not have the illness the pills are meant to treat take the pills

3. the doctor didn't really keep track of what doses were given to different patients

i.e.

1. trigger warnings were not originally forced on people, they were created by people who found them helpful to help themselves

2. the studies in the meta analysis are all on general populations, in particular mechanical turk and college students

3. there is no discussion of the different effect different implementations of content warnings can have. for example, the only study that measured physiological responses instead of using self-reported anxiety showed the highest anxiety response. probably, because it also gave a completely general and non-specific content warning that went like this: "The next page has the link to the movie clip. Researchers have been asked to give a trigger warning for the clip". so they showed that when told some arbitrary but highly disturbing thing could happen at any point during a video, people in general will be more anxious when watching the video. and concluded that content warnings are a harmful practice.

- one important dimension of the "should" in this question is how much choice the viewer of the media has in viewing the media. this is part of why schools are such a big part of the conversation about content warnings, because the students can't just choose to opt out of readings without consequences

- another important dimension is the delivery platform and audience size. sometimes you can just ask the person who made or is showing you the thing about some very specific content you'd like to avoid or be prepared for, so specifying everything isn't as important there. otoh, if you're a giant media property with millions of viewers, maybe the cost/benefit of listing exactly when/where particular things happen looks a little better

- depending on platform, lots of detail could be more or less practical. e.g. if you're making a web page it's easy to say "content warnings: click for details > detailsdetailsdetails click for more details > detaileddetailsdetaileddetails", which easily allows the viewer to choose how much detail they want rather than picking for them, but that can be harder to pull off in other formats

- if you find this topic interesting, consider looking for literature on topics like accessibility and disability justice (not sure i could recommend a particular one since i've formed my views on this sort of thing piecemeal and through community). there is a lot of interesting moral thought on the subject of "ok so this thing is helpful to some people sometimes, sooo how much should we actually do it?"

language politics of whether trauma is a "disability" aside, the existence of a meta-analysis over studies which purport to study whether a disability aid works by using it with people who do not have that disability is saddening

some other limitations the i don't see the authors comment on (though i haven't read thoroughly so happy to be corrected): - the effect of different kinds of content warnings isn't discussed (some interesting dimensions are specificity and prominence) - the fact that almost all of the studies use self-reported anxiety scales, and thus it is unclear whether content warnings increase anticipatory anxiety or increase self-reported anticipatory anxiety

like with most accessibility aids the interesting questions are not "does it help". they're "who do different forms of the aid help or harm" and "morally, when should we expect or even enforce a particular level of implementation"

looking at how other accessibility aids work is helpful for answering some of these questions. to take the classic university classroom example, you could for example look at the way some departments handle students who aren't able to take lecture notes. a student can request note taking accommodation for a particular class, and then a peer volunteer (or as a fallback university employee) will take notes for that student. just like that, we don't need to have a national debate about whether it is helpful or harmful if all university professors are forced to provide note taking services for all of their students.

anyway, i guess i'm upset because i'm tired of the ongoing massive debate and apparently research industry that completely misses the point.

I really like my teammates and I want to be friends with them, not just work friends. If I'm going to spend several years working alongside people, I'd like to have a loving, caring relationship with them because I have love for them and care for them. But expressing and exchanging love and care requires vulnerability, not detachment.

Some of the boundaries I maintain in my personal life to make vulnerability safe are incompatible with employment. Especially, the ability to not interact with someone when you don't want to, or stop interacting with them entirely. I'm curious to hear how other folks have navigated this problem:

- I turn work and my work friends off when work ends. I don't want to turn my genuine friends off when work ends. How do I decouple my interactions with them as a friend from the financial contract obligating me to respond to their messages?

- It feels way worse to hide something about myself from a real friend than a work friend. But I hide things constantly from my work friends. I am trans, autistic and generally live outside of many of society's norms. Many basic aspects of my personal life could be considered not appropriate for work or offensive to an individual. How can I be genuine friends with someone when the environment that mediates many of our interactions isn't accepting? What do I do if I find a friend isn't accepting, but then I'm forced to work with them?

- How do I tell someone I don't want to be friends because of a personal/work life boundary? Especially, if I attempt to be genuine friends with someone but it turns out we do not make good friends, how do I restore our work friendship?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25200794

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

"the wife test" is a common turn of phrase relying on/reinforcing the stereotype of women as non-technical and men as technical. it's not really clear in your original post that you are literally referring to your wife's opinion of the device vs simply invoking the sexist phrase to describe the device's user friendliness for non-hackers. i hope you can see how i took it the wrong way, though i still apologize for jumping to conclusions

In a language with a less powerful type system, you could write the same information in comments, but then the compiler wouldn't warn you if you accidentally changed the side effects of a statement.