brothercolor

Agreed -- as a Deaf person who uses visual languages to communicate, it's allowed me to actually begin to express myself using a set of pseudo-language visual elements. Some of them roughly map over to ASL expressions; I am looking forward to when they add ASL-specific emoji, or ASL language support, or even hands in the new animoji.

Related: Bitcoin is [x] distributed [x] secure but NOT [] fast. It is a global clock that self-adjusts to tick roughly every 10 minutes, and that tick is used to extend an immutable ledger by adding verified transactions to it. The tick-time is chosen to allow for global propagation to happen. Incidentally this global clock can be used for other things than sending money, such as cryptographically tying something in the real world to a point in time.

Check out American Giant, all their stuff is amazing quality.

Bartleby the Scrivener is good too. The hikkomori prefer not to, as well.

Good point, maybe its the sound processing areas. A greater question is whether areas of the brain atrophy at all due to less stimuli coming through a specific organ.

All evidence I've seen point to brain plasticity; that areas used for specific things get re-mapped to other similar functions. For example, Deaf individuals experience a strong inner voice that activates similar centers in the brain as actual voices.

I hear you! I'm in the same boat, I shouldn't point fingers. I'll do what I can.

The internet is what makes Silicon Valley go round. Everyone, including Sam Altman, needs to be an activist. Asking for someone else to take point on something so fundamental is like asking Natives to take point on water prot-- wait.

Interesting idea on using ML to help non-signers understand sign language. In this thread's context, the ML is designed to help people hear better. In visual contexts (which sign language lives in) would this hypothetical ML help low vision or blind people see better?

Because people with 20/20 vision just need a sign language dictionary handy and some patience.

The deeply robust elder Deaf community itself is proof that the brain tissue loss described in the article is probably not due to the hearing loss itself. I have never heard of a culturally Deaf individual experiencing this kind of degeneration of the brain. If I had to hazard a hypothesis it would be on the social end of things, such as social isolation causing decreased function, similar to to the social contexts that encourage addiction.

In other words, when one loses hearing, the culture around them fails to accommodate that leading to increased anxiety, stress, and other kinds of undesirable outcomes that are shown to impact health. It is immeasurably tragic in many ways that this phenomenon is being used to sell hearing aids and more anxiety.

Neat! The audience for the tool seems to be someone who can hear, though. Has there been any awareness or discussion of those who cannot hear? Of those that cannot hear, a large majority use captioning or sign language. Video in a PIP mode, or captioning support, would go a long way in including everyone to the party. Also, the earlier these features are added, the more content is accessible.

There have been debates among those in the Deaf community on how best to make their videos accessible. Many in the Deaf community routinely add image descriptions and other kinds of captioning/access to their videos and images, usually on Facebook or other social media.

I have yet to see the greater hearing community routinely engage in this kind of universal thinking in access; thinking about people in terms of capabilities and designing their messages with as many capabilities in mind as possible given the technology at hand.

An quote from the article can be rewritten:

"Berkeley had two choices: spend a fortune adding closed captioning to the videos, or remove them from public view. Cost-conscious administrators chose the latter option."

or...

"Berkeley had two main choices: spend money and/or spend time making their content accessible to everyone, or backtrack on their commitment by removing from public view. Privileged administrators (who likely do not need the benefit given by making this content accessible) chose to hide the content rather than be responsible stewards for knowledge."