Vetting sources is the one thing we need journalists for. If they don’t vet their sources, their work is without merit.
Reading at least the methodology section of a paper and googling if the researchers and the institute exists, is the bare minimum of what a decent journalist should do.
If they can’t do that, then there’s no advantage of a journalist over some random person posting on Facebook. Even Youtubers usually vet their sources better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
Yes, people would exactly do the same, because nobody reads anything but the headline of a paper. Even journalists don’t.
AI didn’t invent the problem, but it put the problem on steroids.
I think I caught an RSV virus from you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study
We did the same before AI. AI is once again just putting an old problem on steroids.
Yeah, there’s like two projects that use Haskell. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s the language that most people know and will never write anything productive in it.
Fashion really does go in cycles.
This here.
When I got into programming I figured it would be mostly linear technological progression. Every once in a while something new gets invented that’s better than the last iteration, so we discard the last option (except for legacy stuff) and everyone moves to the better thing.
But since then everything that was cool back then became uncool and cool again at least once.
I like the SQL/No-SQL cycle. SQL is powerful, but it’s also slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invented No-SQL DBs. They are fast, lightweight, but also barebones and limited. So we add functionality here and there, and before we know it we have another variant of SQL with a different syntax. So we head back to use real SQL. But then we realize it’s slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invent a new No-SQL DB and the cycle continues.
Why do programs written in Haskell not have side effects?
To have side effects someone would have to run the programs.
Yeah, I’d say having a study participant trying to commit suicide because of the birth control is kinda severe.
But also look at who cancelled the study. Was it the participants? Was it the potential customers? Or was it a company that was afraid of lawsuits?
I don’t like you trying to blame “the men” because some suits pulled the plug because they feared losing money.
The thing with the vasalgel/RISUG thing is that there aren’t any reported side effects and it still was cancelled.
If you look at actual research, there’s actually quite a demand for novel male contraception methods:
The proportion of male participants in clinical trials reporting willingness to use a male contraceptive ranged from 34% to 82% and the proportion from surveys about hypothetical methods ranged from 14% to 83% [2]. Specific to the United States (US), a population survey conducted in 2002 of 1500 men reported willingness among 49.3% of respondents [6]; two decades later, an online survey of 2066 men from the US and Canada reported willingness among 75% of respondents
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001078242400101X
IIRC, there was a second HP1 game, that looked much better, but deviated massively from the story.
Can’t get a vasectomy if you plan having kids.
But actual issue is no, we do not have another option, because this study has been done on mice, so even if it would actually happen it would take easily 10 years before it would go to market.
What’s worse is that it won’t happen. Google RISUG, Smart RISUG, Vasalgel and Plan A.
These are simple polymers that are injected into the vas deferens of a man and stay there for years up to decades, making the man sterile. It’s easily reversible, has no side effects and just disables fertility. And it’s been blocked by pharma companies since the 70s, because it would cost them massive amounts of money if women wouldn’t need to pay for expensive and short-lasting contraception methods.
The situation that only women have access to decent methods of contraception sucks, and the most infuriating part is that it doesn’t have to be, but because it would cost some rich assholes money, they purposely keep the situation as is.
Believe me, most men would much prefer to have access to good methods of contraception, but we are essentially stuck at the same level since the 1920s.
“What a nice business you have there. It would be a right shame if something happened to it. Don’t you want to pay us for your protection?” - Anthropic
Tbh, I really don’t mind yellow paint when its done well.
We use it in the real world too. We use yellow paint to mark trip hazards and ledges, we use red paint to mark medikits (first aid kits), we use blue or green paint to mark defibrilators and so on.
Color-coded context info is omnipresent in the built environment.
Would anyone complain about white paint marking lanes in racing games?
Get lost, attribution removing repost bot.
I haven’t played the Half Life games, but they do firmly fall into the low-fidelity-environment category. Lower fidelity environments don’t need such a clear design language, because any object that exists usually exists for a clear purpose.
That’s fair, although there was more stuff in the levels of the second half (but you’re right, even then the only thing you could really interact with were doors).
Doors, turrets, cubes, switches, one type of “portallable” wall, that’s it. Everything else is just an obstacle. They spent the first half of the game training the player which objects are interactible, and in the second half they didn’t introduce anything new that wasn’t just an obstacle (except maybe the doors, don’t remember if they exist in the first half).
But that’s just the point: If there’s not a lot of stuff in the game and all the objects are clearly recognizable, there’s no need for yellow paint because the game world is yellow paint.
Yellow paint becomes necessary when the game is high-fidelity and trying to be photorealistic and thus stuff isn’t quite as clearly understandable. That’s why we use yellow paint in real life for mark ledges that you could stumble over or emergency exits (ok, here it’s green), or first-aid kits (here it’s red), or defibrilators (blue or green) and so on. We do use this technique in real-life.
It can work. I haven’t really seen it done well (haven’t played horizon forbidden west), but I’ve seen it done badly a ton of times.
My kids recently got into Harry Potter, so I loaded up the old HP1 game on a playstation emulator. The whole game environment is made up from a single muddy low-poly mesh. Pretty much every object that isn’t part of that background mesh is interactible. You really don’t have to be smart to figure that out. So total agreement.
The yellow paint of the early 2000s was “object exists”.
Tbh, I don’t mind yellow paint. I do mind the main character using voice-over to instantly spoil the solution to every riddle as soon as the MC enters the riddle area.
Hogwards Legacy was terrible with this. Riddle: Find the McGuffin in the target area. As soon as the main character steps foot in the target area they say “I wonder if the McGuffin is located behind these vines over there”. Thanks for nothing.
Get lost. Nobody needs you and your misguided quest to remove artist attribution.
Oh, the constant “Click every single pixel on the screen in a line-scanning pattern to find the one missing thing that stops you from progressing”… And all that in a time before the internet, where you couldn’t just look up the solution.
There’s more than one game that I stopped playing because I just couldn’t figure out which pixel to click.
I like that this is posted on a site called commondreams