It just takes a generation of people growing up with it until it really takes hold.
People didn't use to ask Google questions, either, but now you're the outlier if you try using search terms instead.
I don't actually want the person I'm talking to to appear to be looking directly into my eyes because it's weird - it means they're looking at the camera and not at me on the screen, talking to them.
Indeed - intense eye contact can be unsettling, even without the additional information gleaned from knowing that the other party has chosen to look at the camera.
Eye contact is a subtle and important dynamic in human interaction (to the point where it has been suggested that we have white sclera, while our closest ape cousins do not, as an adaptation in support of easily detecting eye contact.) In a meeting, that includes third parties seeing who is making eye contact with whom.
The systems being discussed here are too simple to restore this natural dynamic, and it is not clear to me that always-on eye contact correction[1] is free of unintended and undesirable consequences - for example, in some circumstances, it might ramp up the tension in a discussion, or it might help someone who is dissembling.
[1] Even with random look-aways, I suspect - in actual conversation, look-aways are often correlated with what's going on in the discussion.
Somehow I've apparently made a different adjustment to this than most people. My therapist was commenting on it the other day, how I do look directly into the camera when I want her to see me as making "eye contact," rather than looking directly at where I see her eyes.
She's taking this as an autistic adaptation NT people are less likely to make, like my gestures are practiced and tailored for the sake of the other, not my own sake. I want to "look in her eyes" to make a point, because that's one of the ways you show people you're making an important point, not to see how she's responding to what I'm saying.
I haven't done any of it on purpose. It's apparently just how I've adapted to the weird communication space of having a gap between actually looking at someone's eyes and being seen to be looking at someone's eyes.
I don't want to be mean to your therapist, but really?
Understanding camera eyelines counts as autistic now?
You're fine doing that. Sorry, but that comment she made really sent me.
Reminds me of how the film department forced the digital artists to take a Cinematography and lighting classed irl so their final project renders would improve.
It might be one thing if I had done it on purpose, because I was thinking about camera eyelines. But it wasn't deliberate. I subconsciously choose based on how another person will see me, because I don't really expect to get a whole lot of information from seeing them. Something about this being a type of "masking" in autistic women, trying harder to get my social cues across to others, but not expecting myself to receive them.
I think maybe I have "trauma masquerading as ASD," because the symptoms are subjectively improving as I learn to down-regulate my nervous system, but then I don't much care what label gets put on why I'm weird. I'm much more interested in figuring out what to do with the different ways I'm weird. I'm old enough that I can't think of ways formal diagnosis would help me, so I'd rather assume each challenge is treatable until I find out that it isn't.
I don't get many opportunities to express my exasperation with the paradigm of the youtube content creator's thousand video cuts per spoken sentence, but hell, in the same way, I think it's just $#@%ing weird.
It’s space. The ground state is emergency. I am training to be a pilot. Anything going off flight plan is an emergency. If ground control gives me corrective instructions, in the course of a mistake, I hope I will have the humility to not refuse its designation as a rescue.
Like, if you want an Exhibit A for why Boeing doesn’t deserve forward trust, it’s this response.
When the ground state is emergency the definition of emergency changes because emergency cannot be the same as ground state...
If we go by technical definition of "emergency" then anything not by the plan is an emergency, but it's not used that way normally and it's not a technical publication.
If you are stuck in space with no lifeboat back then I agree it is an emergency, but they apparently have Starliner and it works. If they or Nasa are more comfortable with another option maybe that makes it an emergency or maybe not.
If it turns out Starliner doesn't work, that's an emergency. If there is radiation event coming then it's an emergency, but it is always an emergency in space regardless.
One, had. Starliner went home. Two, they didn’t. Starliner was broken. Its manoeuvring thrusters, a critical reëntry system, were misbehaving. If you’re on a plane and the oxygen system fails, that’s an emergency. You don’t have to wait for cabin pressure to fail for it to qualify, and oxygen systems aren’t even a critical system; this is closer to the flaps or landing gear behaving erratically.
Actually, NASA protocol requires more than a single layer of safety. The astronauts currently do not have a lifeboat home - that is extraordinarily irregular and I believe that it constitutes a danger to the astronauts. The spacecraft are not only for down transport, they are also shelters for radiation and particle events - which could be declared with days or hours notice. For a month these astronauts have had no viable shelter nor transport in case of emergency.
Danger is not when the last later of safety fails. Danger is when the level of risk exceeds a set threshold - and that level has been exceeded as per NASA protocol.
But sports reporting has pretty much always been this way.
Unless anything extraordinary happens, every post game interview features the same questions with the same answers and every article about the game looks the same with only the names of the participating players and their stats changing.
Every niche convention either stops existing or transitions into a business that slowly gets rid of all the fun stuff that created it in the first place.
There is not just the big end of year congress, but also lots of smaller events organised and run by regional CCC (like) groups in Europe e.g. MRMCD, EasterHegg, the Dutch camps changing the name every time (next one is WHY2025).
> Every niche convention either stops existing or transitions into a business that slowly gets rid of all the fun stuff that created it in the first place.
It parallels what Ivan Illich said about revolutions, namely that if a revolution survives it will turn into a system that stifles the same freedoms it supported.
Aka, either you die the hero, or see yourself become the corporate stooge/villain.
Not really. The Dutch hacker camps have been pretty constant (save for 2021 for Covid reasons). Run by mostly volunteers yes but basically every participant is a volunteer. It's part of the fun.
They've not really shrunk or significantly grown and are really opposed to corporate and government interests (as Fox-IT found out in 2013)
Absolutely. They're a bit more maker than hacker focused but for me that's a good thing.
I just don't really like going to the UK anymore since Brexit. It just puts me off because the main driver of it was xenophobia. I've avoided it, I have not been there at all since Brexit. I probably won't ever go there again unless there's a serious change. Of course none of this is on the EMF community which is great, I've met many of them at other things.
As for the hacker camps I only really go to the Netherlands ones. The Congress is too expensive for me with the hotels around Christmas and with my lack of car it's hard to go camping in Germany so I've never been to the chaos camp either. Within Holland it's been easier because they've recently been at locations near me.
> most of the time "AI" means "your stuff is going to our servers".
It almost always does but only because it is offered this way, it is not a hard technical requirement. There is nothing that would prevent offering a standalone version running locally for customers with their hardware powerful enough.
Most everyone I know in real life do not care about that kind of privacy. They happily upload anything to anywhere on the internet. The people who do care tend to fall in one of two categories: More tech inclined (programmers), or the same kind of person who doesn't use online banking because they are afraid of losing their money.
reply