Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#71

Post by noir_lord »

crote wrote: post #43
OJFord wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only imaginable way, but it is the society we (in the vast majority of the world) live in, and I agree it doesn't really make sense to bash something not continuing to exist unprofitably when it was developed for profit. It's annoying when software support ends for anything, phones, Nest Protect, (any Google product!), but I think best to bear it in mind in buying anything that it's a possibility, who ar…

The problem is that companies are deliberately kneecapping their products by making cloud subscriptions mandatory and third-party repairs impossible. Refusing out-of-warranty repairs or discontinuing cloud services for obsolete products because it is no longer profitable wouldn't be such a big deal if third-party providers were able to replace OEM support. Traditionally, if I buy a $500 dishwasher, the OEM is respons…

All of which should be dealt with by governments.

As an old post on usenix I liked (paraphrased) went “of course they shit on the floor, it’s a corporation, it’s what they do, the job of government is to be the rolled up newspaper applied to their nose when they do”.

That’s the fundamental problem, our governments don’t stand up to businesses enough when they should and roll over too easily when they shouldn’t.

The relationship is far too cosy at the top levels as well.

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#72

Post by muststopmyths »

542458 wrote: post #39
inglor_cz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about the recent "People with blindness" obsession, as evidenced in the title? I am not blind nor deaf etc., but I am frankly fed up with it. In my case, should I call myself "a person with programming, Czechness and fortysomething years"? Nope, I am a middle-aged Czech programmer. Yes, that does not reflect my entire personality and humanity. So what. Better than this sort of language abuse.

I’d argue that a plain-English reading is actually the other way around. A “person with a car” is a normal descriptor, a “car person” is somebody for whom cars are a major life fixture. So accordingly I feel that “blind person” makes it more… conclusive? all encompassing? than “person with blindness”.

In TFA it could be as simple as trying to differentiate between fully "blind" people vs people with MACD (or other severe visual impairments as indicated at the end)

i.e, people with a condition that leads to blindness, full or partial.

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#73

Post by noir_lord »

XorNot wrote: post #49
OJFord wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only imaginable way, but it is the society we (in the vast majority of the world) live in, and I agree it doesn't really make sense to bash something not continuing to exist unprofitably when it was developed for profit. It's annoying when software support ends for anything, phones, Nest Protect, (any Google product!), but I think best to bear it in mind in buying anything that it's a possibility, who ar…

The mixed market economy is how most of the productive world operates, with varying degrees of mixed. Laissez-faire capitalism has led to disaster time and time again, but even the US is not that system (far from it - arguably China is closer by many metrics). It is a reasonable argument for the regulatory state though - which is to say, delays to market from regulation could have reasonable origins - like requiring…

I’d agree that China is more of a laissez-faire system than the US with one proviso, the CCCP mostly stays out of it until it doesn’t and then they descend like the wrath of an angry and vengeful god.

If you avoid that you have more freedom to operate as a corporation in China than in the US, of course in the US the corporations just buy sorry lobby the politicians.

It used to be much more understated than it has been recently though, that they’ve pulled the mask off more over time suggests they think they can get away it.

Interesting times.

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#74

Post by kelipso »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #60
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is dead wrong. I have never, ever, even in the most obscure context, heard it used as a slur.

Neither have I – but Wikipedia also cites the OED (paywalled, so I can't confirm this). If the OED really says that deaf-mute is used as a slur, then I believe it. Again, if you have positive evidence that deaf-mute is not used as a slur, then please correct the Wikipedia article.

You are just making things up and asking people to prove otherwise it seems like.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf-mute

you have

> Some consider it to be a derogatory term if used outside its historical context; the preferred term today is simply deaf.[2]

which refers to

Moore, Matthew S. & Levitan, Linda (2003). For Hearing People Only, Answers to Some of the Most Commonly Asked Questions About the Deaf Community, its Culture, and the "Deaf Reality", Rochester, New York: Deaf Life Press

and I am not reading that or considering it authoritative.

From 2nd ed OED you have,

deaf-mute, a., n. [After F. sourd-muet.] a. Deaf and dumb. b. One who is deaf and dumb.

1837 Penny Cycl. VIII. 322/2 s.v. Deaf and Dumb, In all these conditions of deafness, the person is consequently mute, or dumb. Hence the expression Deaf-Mute, as used in the continental languages, and Deaf and Dumb, as used in England and America. 1865 New Syd. Soc. Year-Bk. for 1864. 479 A deaf-mute child. 1881 H. James Portr. Lady xxv, He might as well address her in the deaf-mute's alphabet.

Hence ˈdeaf-ˈmuteness, ˈdeaf-ˈmutism, the condition of a deaf-mute.

1874 H. R. Reynolds John Bapt, ii. 109 The deaf-muteness of Zacharias. 1865 New Syd. Soc. Year-Bk. for 1864. 318 Congenital deaf-mutism. 1874 Roosa Dis. Ear 515 Deaf-muteism is caused by diseases of the middle and internal ears. 1884 A. J. Ellis in Athenæum 12 Jan. 55/2 This art [of lip-reading], the keystone of the modern bridge from deaf-mutism to deaf sociality.

which doesn’t indicate derogatory.

Plus I have never heard it used in a derogatory manner. Also from an argument or debate perspective, when stating something improbable, you should not be asking people to prove improbable things wrong and instead should be showing the proof of improbable things yourself

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#75

Post by wizzwizz4 »

kelipso wrote: post #74
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither have I – but Wikipedia also cites the OED (paywalled, so I can't confirm this). If the OED really says that deaf-mute is used as a slur, then I believe it. Again, if you have positive evidence that deaf-mute is not used as a slur, then please correct the Wikipedia article.

You are just making things up and asking people to prove otherwise it seems like. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf-mute you have > Some consider it to be a derogatory term if used outside its historical context; the preferred term today is simply deaf.[2] which refers to Moore, Matthew S. & Levitan, Linda (2003). For Hearing People Only, Answers to Some of the Most Commonly Asked Questions About the Deaf Commu…

From that article, you also have:

> In informal American English the term dumb is sometimes used to refer to other hearing people in jest, to chide, or to invoke an image of someone who refuses to employ common sense or who is unreliable.[9] In the past deaf-mute was used to describe deaf people who used sign language, but in modern times, the term is frequently viewed today as offensive and inaccurate.[10]

I have shown all of the evidence available to me. “I am not reading that or considering it authoritative.” is not a counterargument.

> From 2nd ed OED you have,

The 2nd edition of the OED is not paywalled. (It also has several methodological issues: https://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/oed-editions/oed2/) The Wikipedia article references the paywalled online edition, which is probably the 3rd edition entry. All of this information was available to you. Please do not accuse me of "just making things up" without at least checking.

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#76

Post by kelnos »

lynx97 wrote: post #65
jzb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t “visually challenged” (or similar) a useful term for people who have visual impairments, but aren’t technically blind? Do you have the same objection to, say, “visually impaired” if a person is trying to talk about all people with various vision problems, up to being fully blind? If those are unacceptable, what would you use in that case?

It's an attempt to whitewash the issues, and not use words which imply real problems. I prefer visually impared, however, in the US, legally blind basically says the same thing. My gf (blind herself) recently met a teacher on a train, who told her she is working with her class to find a new word to replace "disabled". IMO, just so that she doesn't have to deal with reality. And, mind you, no disabled person around...…

> It is just sad what some people are doing on "behalf of us"

I find this very frustrating. Most of the time it seems that people who do this sort of thing haven't even talked to a disabled person and asked what language offends them or makes them feel bad.

> just so they don't have to grapple with the fact that some people have a harsh life.

The cynical part of me thinks that often it's not even this; it's just virtue signaling.

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#78

Post by kelnos »

squigz wrote: post #58
inglor_cz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think about the recent "People with blindness" obsession, as evidenced in the title? I am not blind nor deaf etc., but I am frankly fed up with it. In my case, should I call myself "a person with programming, Czechness and fortysomething years"? Nope, I am a middle-aged Czech programmer. Yes, that does not reflect my entire personality and humanity. So what. Better than this sort of language abuse.

> What do you think about the recent "People with blindness" obsession, as evidenced in the title? Is there really an "obsession"? Also, while I don't deny there's some discussion here, I think you really have to squint to read the title in such a way. In any case, I ... really don't care. As another commenter says, there are other, bigger, more important hills to die on than getting worked up about people trying to…

> Is there really an "obsession"?

Not sure that specific phrase is an obsession, but I hear a lot of language-police-type people who try to shame others into changing some phrases like this. The one I hear most often where I live is to use "person experiencing homelessness" rather than "homeless person", the idea being to not to consider "homeless" as a part of their identity, but to acknowledge that it's a (hopefully) temporary situation they have found themselves in.

I get what people are trying to do here, but I think it's unnecessary, and just increases people's cognitive load and adds verbosity to expression. And gives disingenuous people more ammunition to derail discussions. And as you say, it seems like most of the people pushing for things like this haven't even talked to a blind/disabled/homeless person to ask what language offends them. I don't know any blind people, but the people I've talked to with various disabilities had no issues with being called "disabled".

> You're "frankly fed up" with something that barely affects you at all. Why?

Not the person you're replying to, but I assume the problem is that other people often shame or "correct" them when they use the "wrong" terminology, which is not only annoying, but can even cause real-world problems (e.g.: use the "wrong" term at work and maybe your career prospects get worse).

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#79

Post by Wingman4l7 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #22
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #11

For the sake of the patients, I hope there's a better long-term service plan than Second Sight Medical Products had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retinal_prosthesis

There's a long, detailed article on the lives of patients after Second Sight started downsizing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete

Came here to post this in case it hadn't been.

This case is very infamous in the disability & tech academic research community -- kind of their version of the Therac-25 in terms of ethics, damage to people, etc.

Re: People with blindness can read again after retinal implant and special glasses

#80

Post by nemo44x »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #54
kingkawn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deaf-mute is not a slur in the US

Wikipedia says it is, citing the National Association of the Deaf's Community and Culture FAQ (among others). If you have sources that say otherwise, that suggests a NPOV issue with the "Deaf-mute" Wikipedia article.

There’s a few nut-jobs in the deaf community that cause a lot of trouble. The same people that are against “curing deafness” because to them deafness isn’t disability to be cured and any work towards that is an insult to them.

Not worth listening (ha!) to them and things like Wikipedia are just an outcome of their pressure campaigns.

Post reply on HN