I know that there is a lot of research going into transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
For some diseases it has been shown to be effective.
However, for ADHD - as far as i can see - the studies don't agree and it is preliminary for any conclusions [1].
From [1]:
Finally, a PubMed search (keywords: tDCS AND attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) identified 24 papers, including 2 original clinical studies (single-session studies) and 80 patients. One study (60 patients) did not find significant differences between active and sham tDCS regarding the effect of bihemispheric tDCS of the DLFPC (left anode + right cathode) on behavioral performance in go/no-go tasks (Cosmo et al., 2015). Conversely, the other study (20 patients) showed that anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right supraorbital cathode) increased the proportion of correct responses in go/no-go tasks, whereas cathodal tDCS of the left DLPFC increased the inhibition accuracy (Soltaninejad et al., 2016). Obviously, reported results are too preliminary to make any recommendation for the use of tDCS in all these psychiatric conditions.
Usually I like reading the HN comment section as it is one of the few places (I know of) where people communicate in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, conjecturing about someones IQ in this manner because his view differs, makes me reconsider this.
I fail to understand how this is affecting you.
Do you think that the existence of other App-Stores is reducing the quality of the apps in the Apple-Store?
Yes it will once it happens on iOS. Large companies like Facebook (not picking on Meta, just an easy example) really don’t want to follow Apple’s privacy guidelines, don’t want to ask users for permission to track their location, and don’t want to tell users what info they gather and how it’s used.
Once Apple has to allow third-party app stores, many major software companies will either create their own App Store (great now I have to download 15 different stores) or move to a third-party store where these rules are non-existent.
So what will happen is that there will be a major exodus of software from the Apple App Store and on to third-party stores, which for me means a rollback of all of the momentum and progress Apple has made by collectively bargaining on behalf of users against developers.
In addition, this will fracture things that are easy and convenient, like Apple Pay, or Sign-in With Apple being a privacy-focused mandatory alternative to other SSO options.
It’ll also long-term enable more dark patterns. Oh you signed up for this $14.99/month app? Well gotta call if you want to unsubscribe. Hell maybe even have to send a letter!
For some completely asinine reason people think that “allow third party stores” means “I get all the same stuff now but stuff will be cheaper and ‘more innovative’ because developers won’t have to pay the ‘Apple Tax’” but the reality is you’ll just get the same stuff, at the same prices, but it’ll be less convenient and you’ll lose any benefits that we previously had when Apple was able to collectively bargain for users. Companies will not lower prices.
> “This hasn’t happened on Android”
Yes. Because when companies start enacting these rules, users will flee to iOS. You need to be able to launch your store and dark patterns on both platforms simultaneously. Otherwise users have options.
> “I disagree, this won’t happen”.
Ok sure. What assurances do I have? What are you doing to make me feel better that my experience won’t get worse? Until then I’m firmly against third-party stores.
> “Apple enables oppression and a single point of failure for regulation - China for example can ‘control’ what’s on the store”
Any third-party App Store that’s not a complete scam will be forced to comply with any exact rules that Apple has to. There’s no difference.
> It’ll also long-term enable more dark patterns. Oh you signed up for this $14.99/month app? Well gotta call if you want to unsubscribe. Hell maybe even have to send a letter!
The same EU legislation explicitly bans this.
> Any third-party App Store that’s not a complete scam will be forced to comply with any exact rules that Apple has to. There’s no difference.
This is a misrepresentation. China's worst fear is the lack of choke points for application distribution. Once peer to peer distribution of applications happens without central distributors then their ability to lock down protests will take a significant hit.
Companies will find work-arounds as they always do.
> This is a misrepresentation.
It's an opinion, not a misrepresentation. I'm not misrepresenting anything.
> China's worst fear is the lack of choke points for application distribution. Once peer to peer distribution of applications happens without central distributors then their ability to lock down protests will take a significant hit.
Practically speaking though, who will create app stores that will be "safe", and functional? Most people will use a few major app stores (maybe as many as 6, as few as 2) because they are positive feedback loops. Any major company operating one of these will have enough exposure to China that they'll comply with local laws, as they do now. If a company doesn't have exposure that the CCP can leverage, they'll just ban the app store from ever entering the market. Unless of course you think that we'll wind up with hundreds of app stores, like "Bob's Great Apps", but then you have a much worse problem which is the entire ecosystem has turned into a pile of dogshit. Maybe globally there could be 50-100 app stores, but they'll be localized.
If what you're saying is true, that China wants choke points, then why is the Great Firewall so successful? Wouldn't the distributed Internet, and VPNs, and other web-based peer-to-peer applications win out?
Yep, much of this experiment already happened: Android, Windows, etc. If it is so easy / steady-state to have both experiences simultaneously on one platform, why didn't it happen on either of those two? It will absolutely devolve into the lowest denominator.
Yes it will once it happens on iOS. Large companies like Facebook (not picking on Meta, just an easy example) really don’t want to follow Apple’s privacy guidelines, don’t want to ask users for permission to track their location, and don’t want to tell users what info they gather and how it’s used.
Note though that in the EU they have to ask for permission to track their location and tell users what info they gather, thanks to the GDPR.
Sure but they’ll just outrun regulation and find ways around it. This is even a problem with the App Store now when it comes to technologically sophisticated companies, but there’s a balance because if they’re too aggressive Apple will give them the boot. Once XYZ Tech Company has its own App Store it’ll be able to hide more nefarious activity, create legal fictions to avoid responsibility, and hide how it circumvents GDPR. Using the third-party store might require consenting to location tracking even. So users who want to use XYZ app will agree to a bunch of terms and conditions before being able to even use the app, and then it’ll just be open season.
I do not trust GDPR to handle this effectively. It’ll be like a lion trying to squash ants, and now there’s no single company that the EU can go to and say “fix this”. Apple will say “not my problem”.
This will lead to fragmentation where apps can only be bought in some app stores. Some will stay in the Apple app store, because people trust it. Others will flock to other stores to pay a lower commission fee.
Regardless, I am in favor of this legislation. The iOS and Android ecosystems have become crucial infrastructure in modern life. So either Apple and Google act more like they are a utilities companies with lower fees and a more fair, equal market [1] or they should be regulated.
Though I would have preferred if they EU had just set upper bounds for the commissions, etc. The result would have been less messy.
[1] No more private APIs that only they can use, etc.
This doesn’t really apply because the Play Store doesn’t have half as strict rules. If you’re point is “Apple will have to give up all the annoying for publisher but good for user rules to keep apps from leaving” then we’ve really gained nothing.
for me it helps to know that this pandemic (including all the lockdowns) would be way worse without all of the digital innovations from the last 10-20 years.
I'm getting old. Last 20 years maybe, but I can't name a technology advancement that happened in the last 10 years that I would really miss. To me it seems like most technology is now done for the sake of doing it and solutions are looking for problems. Not to mention all the dystopian surveillance we have now.
Rose tinted glasses and all that, the start of the millennium was a much happier time period imo.
How does your age map to this Douglas Adams quote:
”I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
This is what I imaging would be a perfect set of devices:
1) a smart watch can read notification, messages, listen to music, podcasts, audio books, receive and make phone calls, voice chat, group chats;
2) a eink device to read books, browse internet for news (hackernews for example), emails;
3) game consoles or pc + project + vr for entertainment;
4) a tablet with keyboard for work (with access to servers in cloud) and netflix, youtube.
I really don't want to carry a phone with me.. it is big, attention seeking and to be honest, not very useful.
Yes, I use an old feature phone for voice calls. I'm fully aware I'm in a very small minority.
Indeed smart devices are the epitome of useless tech. In fact, I would argue they make life worse if one is conscious about their privacy and computing.
100% agree.
I think what stood out to me the most was that it did explain a lot of the decision making. I feel like often other docs don't explain the decisions that did go into their software at all
This is also what sets good code comments and code level API documentation apart - explaining the reasoning and intention for both implementation and for intended use. Essentially the why and how, not that what...
if I understand correctly the key benefit would be that models could be trained on smaller datasets and therefore reduce the time spent computing the models?
I am not convinced that this time saving is more than the time spent to engineer the combined and synthesised data.
Maybe you can tell him that and also tell him that I am quite interested in the device to check if it can reduce my heart palpitations!
reply