I think a thing a lot of people are missing in the comments - which OP even mentions in the description above - is that this simulates their experience, not every experience. It's like the oft-repeated mantra "if you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person". For one person, maybe both eating and skipping breakfast aren't great choices - sometimes there aren't any good choices. You're either dealing with a caloric defecit and you're going to risk doing something that'll make you stand out - ie: unmasking - or you're doing something that doesn't feel good at the time, and will sap your immediate energy. It might be as simple as 'eating breakfast gives me time which I'll unwisely use for circular thinking or stressing'.
For me, even though I didn't personally relate to a lot of the situations and experiences - not a software dev, working for a small company that knows and supports my neurodiversity - the overall feel had just enough familiarity for me to go "yep", and it actually got me thinking about my own choices and self-care, on a day where I'd been beating myself up about things outside my control.
Realistically I have no idea of the scope required for this project and I'm armchair-project-managing... but I feel like "put the ETCS in a different part of the train" would've been my first go-to. Give the driver a 2-way radio headset and have someone in the guard van operating the touchscreen.
Thankyou. And thankyou to OP. I have exactly the same situation as them, and spend a lot of time beating myself up that I can’t help him realise his never-ending torrent of creative flow. But you’re right: I need to immerse myself in it with him. Thankyou.
Reading your comment with the linked project in mind, I started thinking about the idea of a “glove holding a sphere” sort of control system: the glove is the substrate for the ArUco codes, but the sphere could contain the accelerometers, but could also contain gyroscopes to provide inertial feedback? I don’t know anywhere enough about either technology but I imagine controlling a ship in 3d space would be a constant fight against inertia, and it would be awesome to feel that.
So my question is, a) how far does this take things, and b) how far can it take things? My understanding, limited as it is, is that these work as GPU shaders, and as such modify each pixel before it’s sent to screen; could you write an entire video driver that emulates the process from a physical standpoint, right down to things like the deflection of the electron gun and the phosphor reaction times? (I guess that becomes diminishing returns though…)
Can anyone let me know whether the 10-terabyte number is 1024-base or 1000-base? Would it fit on the formatted capacity of a Western Digital WD101FZBX Black, for example...?
I wonder if, instead of asking ChatGPT for a diagnosis, he could've got it to prompt for further questions he could ask?
My thinking is that given the nature of LLMs of connecting related information, it might be a good way to figure out the gaps in the diagnostic process, rather than actually provide one.
Because it's presented without any explanation to the rating system, my instinct is that some of them are rated for the traditional "cultural shock" reasons or "more offal than I'm used to" reasons, but some of them seem to be rated low due to "difficult to recreate to an appropriate standard", or just "literally impossible"?
I mean, it could just be "rated by visitors to tasteatlas.com" and it's not weighted by number of votes...
I think that's absolutely true; it's easy to demonize the algorithm itself which is, when all's said and done, just dumb code with a heck of a lot of "if" statements. The problem is generally systemic, and worse still, it's often financial: algorithms are a way to make plausible things that otherwise wouldn't be possible within financial and time constraints. They are, at best, shortcuts. The problem is, increasingly, they are being used as blunt, impersonal instruments in situations that require humanity, or compassion - they let governments and corporations disassociate from the reality that every record processed by The Algorithm actually represents a living, breathing person.
In the words of Terry Pratchett: "Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things."
For me, even though I didn't personally relate to a lot of the situations and experiences - not a software dev, working for a small company that knows and supports my neurodiversity - the overall feel had just enough familiarity for me to go "yep", and it actually got me thinking about my own choices and self-care, on a day where I'd been beating myself up about things outside my control.
Good work, OP.