gliese1337

The promise wasn't "implied", for many people it was *explicit*. And CEOs have now gone back on their word. Don't sugarcoat it!

I am used to it, but

1. It is rare for the details of how to actually accomplish each of those steps to be both documented and the documentation made accessible.

2. If you can describe it that succinctly, it really ought to be automated. If it can't be automated... then you left something out of your instructions, which goes back to point (1).

Carl Sagan and Arthur C. Clarke both thought that it might.

But "current thinking" is that we just don't know. Yeah, it might. Can't prove it either way.

Somehow, this never really clicked for me before.

Mind blown.

Thanks!

Not quite as bold, but there were similar results to me and my friends being the first ones in our school to build a functioning railgun during school hours, and dissolve lunch trays in PCB cleaner...

(No injury or [unintended] property damage incurred, but The Adults quickly realized that we hadn't actually broken any rules, and there definitely should have been rules to be broken.)

That doesn't fix the issue of the copyright holder being incorrectly identified. A musician uploading their own music should not have to give up their revenue to a company that holds a copyright on a different recording of the same public domain score.

Uh... is that how you think people understand non-native languages? 'Cause it's not.

If you are still at the point of translating in your head, you are not a competent fluent listener. Someone who is fully competent in Latin won't do that.

Also "CDs, or other flat disks", which fail at frisbeedom due to flipping over backwards (or rather, sideways, due to gyroscopic precession).

The article explains that it's due to having a center of lift at the front edge rather than at the center of mass.

Nobody said that faces and emotions don't matter. That's a strawman argument.

In fact, let's go ahead and just look at the actual Conclusion section:

    To conclude, here, we showed that mask use influences our ability to infer facial expressions at any age.

Yes, duh. We're not good at it anyway. (They claim that people are doing good when they get above 66% of judgments correct--still a D grade.)

    Furthermore, we showed that the human capacity to read emotions from facial configurations when a face mask is present becomes particularly reduced in toddlers. We suggested that this is related to different age-related developmental stages of face processing associated with emotional reasoning.

Yeah, not surprising. But toddlers still get most of their social input from their families, so the most impacted group is also the group we need be least concerned about.

    Such observation poses the question whether a privation of facial visual features, as the one we are experiencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, might alter or delay the development of social skills associated with face perception in early childhood.

It poses the question. That's it. They have no evidence that there actually is any alteration to social skills, and no evidence that that would be a bad or disabling thing if there were.

    Designing devices for personal protection that allows visibility of the lower part of the face may be crucial in all environments important for developing social and interaction skills in children, such as in education or rehabilitation, especially for those suffering from sensory or cognitive deficits.

Sure, that seems like a good idea. But it's not an excuse to not wear a mask if you can't get a transparent one.

    Knowledge from the current study can inform emotion-centered interventions and prevention programs that aim to foster socio-emotional processes linked to emotional understanding (Izard et al., 2008).

Yes, it absolutely can.

So, that's what it actually says. It very clearly does not say that kids will be psychologically damaged by not being able to see the lower halves of other people's faces in public, and it does not make any attempt to account for social learning in the home.

Not according to the article.

All that it claims is that it may impact their social skills. They hypothesize that masks may cause social development delays, and they measure that masks make it harder to judge emotions, but they do not actually tie that hypothesis to their research, and they have no justification that the hypothesized changes to social skills would actually be problematic--which is not at all given, since what counts as "good social skills" is heavily dependent on culture.

    After this pandemic is all gone and done why don't we all wear Guy Fawkes masks for the rest of the life if faces don't matter as you imply. Maybe that way we can preserve our privacy and fight CCTV surveillance.

You say that as if it's a joke, but...

Yeah. Let's do it. I am 100% down for that. If I want you to recognize me, I'll wear a name tag, and if I want you to know how I'm feeling I'll tell you.

Proof?

I see absolutely no reason to believe that, and plenty of reason to think it's total bunk. E.g., blind children exist, and they are not psychologically damaged by not being able to read faces.

    The OP didn't even say they were American

Doesn't matter. The same argument applies regardless of where you live.

    the choice isn't between current facial expressive norms and different ones, it's limiting the ability of children to read the most expressive part of our faces entirely.

So what if it is? I see no evidence that that is actually a problem. It is only a problem if you assume that we must maintain current social norms; otherwise, you can just update social norms to not depend on error-prone interpretation of faces in public. Congenitally blind people develop just fine without ever seeing any faces at all--and nobody is saying you have to stay masked 24/7 in the privacy of our own home, so it's not like seeing children are deprived of any and all facial stimulation anyway.