Interesting article! :)

I hate what the fossil fuel and auto industries are doing just as much as the next person, but the article by itself is not strong evidence of a causal relationship, only of an association. Their own conclusion in the abstract is literally: “Exposure to TRP, NO2, PM2.5, and PM10 during pregnancy and the first year of life was associated with autism. Further epidemiological and toxicological examination of likely biological pathways will help determine whether these associations are causal.”

It could for instance be that for some reason, parents with higher autistic traits tend to be less bothered by/concerned about the noise, smell etc from roads. Which could explain differences in parents’ exposure, since autism has such a strong hereditary factor. I’m not saying this is the case, just pointing out one of many possible alternative explanations.

Overall the study can be used to say we have another reason to be cautious and reduce car pollution as fast as possible, IMO. But building weak arguments based on it only makes it easier for corps to defang this type of research.

You say you don’t care who they are but you’re the one who first claimed to know that, when you called them “an anonymous user who has never contributed to foss outside of a whiney bug report or two.”. You seemed to think it very important. Moreover, it’s not impossible for the user to have been impersonating a FOSS developer for a couple of years, but what do you think the probability of that is? What would they gain? It seems far more probable that they simply are the same person.

Noone called the developer a “petty bitch asshole” from what I saw, putting words in others’ mouths doesn’t seem to help the discussion.

I agree with your overall sentiment that we can sympathize with the dev, even if they’re obviously not perfect themselves. FOSS is hard for everyone engaging with it.

It is a games console emulator project. Noone’s livelihood or business hinges on this AFAIU, and there are alternative emulators for the PS. If anything I’d hope people - maintainers, contributors, users - would be more cool and relaxed about it. It’s the kind of project I wish would give everyone involved more energy and experience for other endeavors in their lives. What’s even the point if it’s not fun?

It is literally a case study with a single pair of subjects. At first I thought the OP pop sci article was just focusing in on one pair of participants of many. Most of the discussions in threads here seem wholly unwarranted. There are loads of random factors that affect people’s development, many of which can’t realistically be measured in a study. Maybe one of them happened to become friends with with a classmate that’s really into literature and so they started reading a lot! Maybe they are both sensitive to sounds, but only one of them happens to live near an airport, disrupting their sleep at night.

It is not surprising that one particular set of monozygotic twins happens to markedly differ with respect to some traits. There are always outliers in large twin studies too, and researchers don’t usually get that hung up about them because everyone knows there are countless factors involved. To be able to have any certainty about the effects of a particular factor you need scale that lets you separate them from the random noise. It’s just basic statistics, like what is even anyone doing here. The study itself does make sense, but should be interpreted as extremely exploratory in nature, not something to draw any conclusions from. IMO the researchers themselves are irresponsible in this regard, as they speculate much more than what’s warranted in the discussion and conclusions sections. Like, one of their conclusions is “They [the twins] also show that cultural climates can modify values.”. First, that is something already widely known and accepted, but second and more importantly, that is not the kind of statement you should make based on a single pair of subjects.

It also doesn’t help that the AI companies deliberately use language to make their models seem more human-like and cogent. Saying that the model e.g. “thinks” in “conceptual spaces” is misleading imo. It abuses our innate tendency to anthropomorphize, which I guess is very fitting for a company with that name.

On this point I can highly recommend this open access and even language-wise accessible article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 (the authors also appear on an episode of the Better Offline podcast)

The “about” page indicates that the author is a freelance frontend UI/UX dev, that’s recently switched to “helping developers get better with AI” (paraphrased). Nothing about credentials/education related to AI development, only some hobby projects using preexisting AI solutions from what I saw. The post itself doesn’t have any sources/links to research about junior devs either, it’s all anecdotes and personal opinion. Sure looks like an AI grifter trying to grab attention by ranting about AI, with some pretty lukewarm criticism.

Of course, there are different opinions, but here’s my take (as a Swede, but not an expert in politics/history):

The issues didn’t start during the last decade. In the 90’s, it was politically decided that schools wouldn’t be nearly as centrally managed by the state as they had been, instead municipalities would handle most school-related politics and administration locally. It was also decided that parents are allowed to choose more freely where to send their kids. This weakened public schools. Moreover, legislation was introduced (in the 00’s I think but I’m not sure) that allows for-profit private schools, which historically AFAIK had been prohibited.

Parents usually don’t have to pay anything extra to send their kids to private schools, and for each private school pupil more tax money flows into the private instead of public schools. The private schools are of course incentivized to attract children from families that are well off, since they tend to perform better (boosting the school’s score and thus reputation), have parents that can e.g. drive them from a longer distance, and just generally have less issues and so cost and complain less. For instance, it’s been reported that some private schools refuse (openly or through loopholes) e.g. special needs pupils since the tax money paid to the school for them isn’t worth the cost (and “bad PR”, no doubt) of actually giving them a proper education.

Sweden has also had a high rate of immigration the last decades. Immigrant parents understandably tend to not be as savvy about the school system and have less time/resources for getting their kids to “nicer” schools further away. Immigrant kids also tend to require more attention, both due to needing to learn Swedish and because psychological problems, e.g PTSD, are more common among many immigrant groups. Also I haven’t seen any studies on this, but IMO the private schools’ advertisements (on billboards etc) tend to be very geared towards “white” kids/parents with no immigrant background.

In 2007 a tax benefit for “homework help” among other things was introduced, halving the price parents have to pay for private tutors at home. This again benefits families that are well off and lets private companies in education siphon tax money.

All this means a cycle of segregation seen in so many countries. Public schools are burdened with students that require more resources, while private schools do everything they can to snatch up low-maintenance pupils. This makes private schools seem to perform better and gives public schools bad reputations. Racism and class discrimination also plays into all this of course.

It also doesn’t help that teachers’ salaries and social standing have decreased, partly due to the same general patterns.

This degradation of the public school system has continued during both left-wing and right-wing governments, though it’s often accelerated during right-wing governance. For instance, the social democrats party was the one to push in the 90’s for shifting responsibilities from the state to municipalities. There is an ever growing issue with corruption across the political spectrum (but worst/most blatant on the right), where it’s become quite common for politicians to push for decisions that benefit private companies, then retiring from politics and joining said companies’ boards etc.

Do you mean you rigorously went through a hundred articles, asking DeepSeek to summarise them and then got relevant experts in the subject of the articles to rate the quality of answers? Could you tell us what percentage of the summaries that were found to introduce errors then? Literally 0?

Or do you mean that you tried having DeepSeek summarise a couple of articles, didn’t see anything obviously problematic, and figured it is doing fine? Replacing rigorous research and journalism by humans with a couple of quick AI prompts, which is the core of the issue that the article is getting at. Because if so, please reconsider how you evaluate (or trust others’ evaluations of) information tools which might help or help destroy democracy.

What would you then consider to be a “reliable source of information”? It sounds like your criteria for that are so high that it’s unlikely anything would reach up to that level. After all, should we ever trust any source as “the ultimate source of facts”? If all you wanted to point out was that noone can absolutely trust all of Wikipedia then fine I guess, but I would hope and doubt almost anyone here would have that mindset.

I would also say that many Wiki pages have a mix of overall neutral or positive-leaning text about the subject while e.g. a criticism section includes very good negative-leaning info. As an example, the Disney page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company) has mostly neutral or positive information about the company, no doubt much of which is written by Disney fans. But it also has a good and sometimes savage criticism and controversies section. I have of course seen Wiki articles that are very skewed, but I’ve also seen very skewed research articles, lexicon entries etc. Wikipedia’s rules and the community of moderators trying to apply them as best as they can gives it a better chance than many other sources to correct in time at least.

Another point is that less and less counts as “the most generic of things”. The basic facts of biological development, evolution, even meteorology and chemistry are being increasingly questioned with nonsense. There is an immense value in all the hard work poured into improving, spreading and preserving that “generic” information. Wikipedia is a collective treasure shared with all the world. It shouldn’t be taken as gospel, nothing should like you point out, but despite its imperfections it’s worth so, so much.