how do y'all feel about AI-generated tests? I gave it a shot with ChatGPT on a side project and it saved me a ton of hassle. Like, I wouldn’t have written those tests myself. Trust-wise, I was still a bit iffy on refactoring, but hey, better than no tests at all. Overall, seems like a win for low-risk stuff.
If I'm interpreting the article correctly, it seems like the amount of hearing recovered is pretty good. I was wondering how much hearing was actually restored.
There is a belt you can wear that has vibrators around it, and it always vibrates the north facing side. I read that people who wore that for a few weeks started gaining the ability to create much more accurate maps in their head, which makes sense, this is how pigeons do it too, they basically can just always sense where north is.
Senses are defined by what they sense, not how they are sensed. A person can have their sight partially restored through implants that bypass rod/cone activation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6934168/
I've heard about people experimenting by wearing a belt with dozens of haptic motors and a compass, so that it always indicates the direction of north. After a while wearing it, they stop consciously feeling the sensation of the vibration, and just feel "northness". And then when they take off the belt, they feel weirdly disoriented for a while, even in familiar places.
They aren't suddenly becoming affordable. They have been gradually becoming affordable over the last decade due to lower supply chain costs and higher demand.
This could be a fascinating development to watch actually. Made much more interesting too by the fact that Elon has a lot of business in states like Texas and Florida. X is also increasingly viewed as a "right wing"[1] place, which might make states like Texas a lot more sympathetic to their "free speech" position because they won't feel like it's a "left wing" tactic to poison minds.
[1]: I'm not saying it is a right wing place, I have no idea as I have no data (not even anecdata because I don't really use it), but I've certainly noticed an uptick in people sharing that view on sites like HN since Elon took over. Have also heard that there is a decent balance of viewpoints on X. My guess is that both are probably true (and are not mutually exclusive), but again I have no data.
Are dedicated porn sites like PornHub and friends considered somehow left wing?
Or is it just that their NSFW freedom of speech isn't significant because it's not to the benefit of a billionaire that these politicians happen to like.
I think the arrow of causality is perhaps the other way. Recall the "moral majority", Jerry Fallwell, etc. It was a big right-leaning effort to ban porn starting in perhaps the 70s. Probably earlier. The republican party used to have religion as the main ideological component, and immoral porn was a plank in that platform - the party of "family values."
That campaign to ban porn never really ended AFAIK, but my impression is the priorities of the party really shifted about 10 years ago to the point it's no longer an open policy (the word pornography no longer appears anywhere in the Republican party platform [1])
Remnants of the anti-porn part of the party can certainlystill be seen in the republican party, eg: Mike Johnson extolling his use of "covenant eyes"
Thus the arrow is flipped. The anti-porn cause was very active against printed pornograpghy and continued into the internet age. A right-wing/conservative movement and efforts both predating the internet.
Dedicated sites have the issue of being targeted from all sides, right wing hates them for porn, left wing hates them for not being able to filter out exploitation, revenge porn etc and then they also have to fight payment processors who, for some ridiculous reason, are still allowed to screw with any business with zero accountability.
I think all those factors combine to make them have to be kind of politically neutral.
I think you might be drawing a false equivalence. Left wing solutions to things like porn, gambling, drugs, sex work, abortion - is to regulate them so that they are "safe" (harm-reduced) & then find ways to reduce those activities in first place & provide support for people to get out of those activities. Left wing considers these as social problems - not legal.
In contrast, right wing views these as problems to be solved also with the legal system. Ban entirely and enforce with police and criminal sentences. Thus the "hates" I don't think is quite equal between the two.
I will concede for sure though that if you go far enough left the degree of 'hate' levels out between right & left, but the number of people on the two sides is different.
The "silent majority" part of the right wing, the old Reagan coalition for a long time was a pretty sizable part of the Republican party. Meanwhile, the twitter left progressive wing of the Democratic party is not as large compared to the republican religious-conservative right.
If we think to the OG far-left hatred of porn - that was there before revenge-porn etc were even concerns. Those OG left-wing concerns that did want to ban porn - were concerned about how porn disempowers women, can glorify violence, further genders inequality, etc..
As a general left/right difference, the approach is not equal. In the cases where the approach is to ban entirely - there are just different numbers of people in the far left "porn should be banned" camp compared to the "porn is sin" camp.
I'm mainly going off of the story of how IIRC a couple of years ago, PH was forced to wipe most of their site due to left-wing activists pressuring payment processors into threatening to block PH's basic means of doing business if they didn't meet the somewhat absurd demand of filtering out all harmful/unethical material.
Sure, they technically didn't use the legal system, they just used the technicality that payment processors hold the same power over internet-dependent companies as a government.
In contrast, I would consider Charlie Kirk as a right-wing activist (hopefully this will work as a good example). If there were an action taken by him and similarly small group of activists, perhaps with backing from their organization - I would be very hesitant to extrapolate that action as broadly representative of "the right."
Which is to say, left wing or right wing activists might not be representative of the broader views, and also those broader views might not be consistent (not everyone on the right/left agree on everything)
Where do you see the group of people who are libertarian on the issue? In other words, people who think that the premise that drugs are immoral is flawed, and they should be regulated for safety, but society does not need to discourage their use and certainly does not need to ban them.
I see those people as on the moderately far left, at least in the United States. There are plenty of people on the moderately far left who are not libertarian in the vast majority of positions, but who would agree in the case of drugs.
> Where do you see the group of people who are libertarian on the issue?
The libertarian party platform states: "we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes" [1]
Which I interpret as full legalization of all drugs. It is interesting that this is essentially an extreme left point of view on the topic. I really think libertarian philosophy is just kinda fascinating. I'm now curious though on where libertarians stand on tort laws.
> Are dedicated porn sites like PornHub and friends considered somehow left wing?
Not directly no, but since the overlap between right-wing and religious (mostly Christian) are so significant, and many right-wing Christians believe that there is a spritual war going on and that porn is a sin/evil, and it can lead to atheism, and atheism is so frequently associated with left-wing, I think there's some consideration there.
> Or is it just that their NSFW freedom of speech isn't significant because it's not to the benefit of a billionaire that these politicians happen to like.
I'm sure that's a factor as well. No (or very, very few) politican of any ilk is going to stand up for Big Porn and risk becoming the porn candidate. Personally I'd sure love to see them at least stand up for Big Porn in the name of free speech, but I'm not expecting it anytime soon.
Past research ([1]) has shown that Twitter disproportionately boosts right-wing political content. Qualitatively, you can find whatever you want there, but Elon Musk's personal connection with and admiration for a number of right-wing individuals makes them stand out. In particular, Twitter under Musk has a clear pattern of not applying its moderation policies to high-profile accounts; in the current year, it is right-wing politicians who most frequently post hateful or blatantly false information, so failing to hold them to a normal standard amounts to a tacit approval of what they're posting.
Interesting, thanks! It looks like that's going to take at least 30 minutes to read through, and probably much longer to really understand, so I'll have to bookmark it for later, but it sounds intriguing!
Please. More like the Internet (i.e., most of humanity) "disproportionately boosts right-wing political content". Before Elon, Twitter was an Orwellian algorithmic police state where everything right of Marx got shadowbanned and suppressed. (Like every other major social platform.)
> So, are states like Texas, which need age verification, gonna ask for it for X too?
I believe that the Texas law applies to sites where more than 1/3 of their content is sexual material harmful to minors. I don't know exactly how it defines "sexual material" and "harmful to minors", but I suspect that Twitter does not qualify as such a site.
You joke, but depending on how the law is written, I could totally see content hosting companies implementing a system where, for every minute of new footage that gets uploaded, they automatically generate 2 minutes of a bald eagle flying across an American flag or something.
