Of all the misguided, abusive studies. It beggars belief that a board somehow approved this.
What happened here is simple: the autistic kids got better at masking in order to placate the researchers who were shoving poop up their butts. In the hope of making it stop.
This might have been plausible if this study came out of nowhere but there have been placebo controlled studies inducing/reversing autism-like symptoms in mice with fecal transplants and studies linking individual git microbiome metabolites to symptom severity in both animal models and humans.
Yeah the research is still preliminary but it's still pretty strong evidence that it's a research direction worth exploring.
to be honest I doubt people were masking in response to poop shoving, poop shoving is not the worst and presumably the control group just had non-poop
what seems more plausible to me would be ~<<poop helped something, something made life easier, autistic life is less obvious and disruptive to non-autistics when life is easier>>
> We note that due to the open-label nature of this initial trial, all of the assessments are subject to placebo effect, however the long-term improvements we observed here are promising.
That study measured a drop from 83% to 17% in severe autism, and one behaviour typical of severe autism is slamming one's head into the wall, among other things.
I think it's overly dismissive to summarise a drop in these behaviours as just "less obvious and disruptive to non-autistics". I can't imagine slamming your head into stuff is pleasant regardless of whether you have autism.
No, but per my earlier reply, it's one behaviour typical of severe autism, among other forms of self-harm. Pretending that broader society only wants to reduce the severity of autism symptoms for their own convenience is ignoring the very real suffering that's happening.
It's missing a few elements for realism:
- Passengers on either side of you taking both your armrests
- Continually crying baby seated just in front of you
- Person behind you coughing without covering mouth every 2 minutes
- Kids fighting for control of a tablet across the aisle from you
- Tiny cans of Coke
I generally prefer small increments yes but I don't shy away from larger changes where necessary. Just like everyone hated reviewing a 4000 line PR before LLMs, we all still hate it now, provided you actually do review things properly and not just tell Claude to do it or skim it lazily.
I wouldn't say I make the LLM restrict it's output, rather I'd say I just don't ask for a lot at once. If I want to create a new page in our web app I'll split it up into multiple tasks - create the new page with the required layout and add it to the navigation. Create a new component we need for this page, put it on the page so it can be tested. Create another component. Add an endpoint to the API for getting the necessary data. Use these existing components and the new ones to build the final page. At each step I test and verify that it works properly, and review the code to make sure it's reasonable. I might make several pull requests or just one depending on the size of the task and what makes sense to me. In general I want a PR to be testable, just a component isn't testable if it isn't used so it has to be used. I also don't do a PR that isn't production ready, so I won't submit a PR with just a test page.
If it's a very simple page where we have most or all necessary components I might just send a screenshot from Figma along with instructions to use existing components and what data to use, CSS variables and whatever else and have it try to one-shot it. I generally don't want a PR to have more than a few hundred lines total. I review and test the code at each step and finally I review the whole PR myself before submitting it to colleagues.
Yeah this is a very very common and fundamental operation in programming. Always use the “refactor” tool in your IDE instead of trying to change every instance of a variable name by hand.
It’s like using a linter: you do it because it’s the right thing to do and doing it without the tool confers no benefit and is prone to error.
> i demonstrated replacing _all_of them at once, not replacing them each by hand.
Not really, that is search and replace. IDE's do typesafe refactoring. If you change the Find method in class A, you should only change occurences of x.foo(), where x has type A. You shouldn't accidentally change all B.find()'s.
That is my advice for everyone completing their first Python tutorial: learn a typed language next if you aspire to do serious work. It also saves you writing many manual tests that you had to make otherwise, as the compiler makes that superfluous. Plus your IDE becomes a superpower.
I generally agree with you, but I do think that terrorism is objectively the wrong way to protest. I’d say the Unabomber’s victims and their families were slightly more than “bothered”.
What happened here is simple: the autistic kids got better at masking in order to placate the researchers who were shoving poop up their butts. In the hope of making it stop.
reply