Looks interesting! There is always a tension between high level paradigms like this and just writing the damn GLSL. glslify is another solution in this space that lets you have more fine control over the GLSL, which is usually way less verbose than a high level API.
One major reason for creating TSL is that it's no longer just about WebGL and GLSL. There's also WebGPU and WGSL which is very different to GLSL. The goal of TSL is to compile to both of those plus any future targets.
Whoever at Google thought this was a good idea should no longer be involved in search! Reddit is a terrible source of information, it's all confirmation bias and unqualified people giving advice upvoted by unqualified people to vet it. It's worse than Yahoo Answers because it looks more trustworthy on the surface but has worse quality of information.
That describes the whole internet. It was never meant to be anything more, so that's what we got.
Which was fine, until we had the bright idea of feeding it all into a neural network as a collection of facts.
Then we gave that neural network a voice and a personality. It spoke with the utmost confidence as the expert on any subject.
Truth, lies, facts and falsehoods all blended together and regurgited in an infinite stream of babble.
I vacillate between LLMs being an interesting fad with limited usefulness and an apocalypse that'll throw the world into chaos. I'm back on the fence again I suppose, leaning towards the latter.
Unfortunately, listening to Dennett debate Sam Harris on free will made me lose faith in Dennett’s credibility. He was not able to understand the very clear argument of why we don’t have free will. Hearing him literally being unable to understand was surprising.
I should go watch that debate. From "Elbow Room", the rough idea I've gotten out of it is that traditional Free Will is meaningless and so he invented a new definition which we might now call Agency.
I don't recall how far he took it, but for me determinism is very helpful (if not required) for predictability, and predictability required for meaningful Free Will. So I'll have to go watch the debate, but my bet is that Dennett was willfully (pun intended) refusing to accept the other-definition of Free Will in favor of his own. I'll report back after I listen to the debate :)
Google’s AI results show “According to a Reddit user…” now, including for things like health / wellness searches. It’s horrifying. Reddit is a cesspool of the commons. It’s an information garbage dump where uninformed people are upvoted by uninformed people. It’s the Yahoo Answers of our day.
This is absolutely horrifying, that is the correct word to use here.
I've experienced it firsthand. Reading about a topic that I have very little knowledge about, nodding along thinking that this makes sense. Then doing some research and finding that the comment wasn't entirely wrong, but just wrong enough to cause harm to a users understanding.
It is very easy to see when it is a topic with which you are intimately familiar. Seeing people on video game subreddits confidently discuss game development and being not just wrong about game dev, but wrong about any software development practices.
If Google is really promoting Reddit comments as answers to real search topics... as cliche as it sounds, Idiocracy is upon us.
In the hierarchy of road hatred, loud motorcycles are by far the most hated by all others (cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc). Happy to hear there's no science/safety reason to encourage loud motorcycles.
I don't normally condone body shaming, but as somebody who really struggles with sudden loud noises, I will always insinuate that those with loud cars and motorbikes are compensating for something.
As someone who rides an unmodified bike, I hear the transmission more than the exhaust, which is more high-pitched. I can understand wanting better acoustics. But really annoyingly loud bothers me too and I never hear bikes in my car until they're past me.
What mechanism causes TMP activation / ECM breakdown to cause eye reshaping required to reverse axial elongation? There are no known mechanisms of this, so any claim of reversing or "ending" myopia don't have any basis.
How do minor correction improvements anecdotally reported track choroidal thickness? Oh, they don't?
I personally went from -3.0 diopters to almost 20/20 vision. So either I'm experiencing a fabulous placebo or the 'known mechanisms' aren't as comprehensive as we've been led to believe.
Sorry, but I know EndMopia believers don't know what the choroid is. Science knowledge is terrible in this space.
An arbitrary "correction" of two diopters is within the margin of error of the possibility of initial overcorrection, choroid changes, inherent small variability in eye tests, and tricking yourself into believing your vision is better than it is. -3 is trivially myopic, but if you do manage a 4 diopter change, verified by an ophthalmologist, not an optometrist, then you would be a medical miracle and worthy of multiple case studies. Get on it if that's the case!
ReducedLens is absolute quackery! This is why I hate myopia discussions. Myopia is not reversible, if you think it is, you don't understand what axial elongation actually means.
Your eye's axial elongation is caused by the eye growing longer, which means *more cells in the eye.* Your eye grows in response to visual stimulus, without the brain's involvement. Your eye shape physically changes by *extra cell production* to cause axial elongation. This process is called emmetropization. It's extremely well understood. Peripheral defocus lenses and low dose atropine are proven to work in reducing speed of myopia progression because they reduce the stimulus causing the eye to elongate. Let me say that again: The way axial elongation happens is well understood, and we have known interventions to interfere with the growth stimulus. We know how to control myopia.
There is no known way to reverse this growth process. The only scientifically proven intervention for reducing myopia is surgery. There is no concrete evidence of for any other intervention, nor is there any other known mechanism for causing the eye to reshape itself to reduce axial elongation. For the eye to become truly less elongated, your body has to break down the extra cells in the eye and cause reshaping. An example of this is wound healing: your body breaks down the ECM with TMP activation. We know how the *opposite* works, the eye grows in response to overfocus to find focus. When too much is in focus in your peripheral vision (near work, holding things close to your face), the eye thinks it's over-focusing, and physically grows to find focus. Near work is the issue. Outdoor light probably isn't the issue, it's probably because when you're outside, you're not doing near work.
For those who do experience improvements, it's not from changes to the cellular structure of the eye. There are multiple temporary known mechanisms for your eye changing focus. One of them is the thickness of the choroid, a tissue layer in the back of the eye. Another is possibly muscular, your axial elongation is known to show variable diopters during the day (maybe +-0.25 but I don't know the actual variance). Studies do show fast-acting axial elongation reduction (minutes to hours) in response to defocus, but this is obviously not from the eye reshaping itself, so this is obviously not reversing myopia, this is just changing temporary variables in the eye. For the majority of people who report "reversing" myopia, it is usually a negligible change (2 diopters) which is easily explainable with these mechanisms, rather than the false belief it's actually changing the elongated eye shape. Ortho-K is another known temporary / superficial intervention.
The burden of proof of truly changing the axial elongation and fundamental structure of the eye cells is on you, and on the EndMyopia quacks. There are no studies that demonstrate significant diopter changes that would demonstrate the eye is reshaping itself to actually reverse myopia. You are welcome to find the studies on the Bates method and wearing undercorrected lenses yourself, they don't work and possibly make things worse.
Ok, here's proof of axial length changing following application of the method for years:
There was a member on the forums who was measuring his axial elongation while at the same time applying the reduced lens method. His result is shown in the following plot.[0] It is a significant improvement that can't be ignored, and can't be explained by day to day fluctuations or measurement error. So we know that at least some level of axial elongation can be reversed, and the idea is not complete quackery.
Also the reduced lens method has nothing to do with the Bates method, or undercorrection that leads to blur adaptation.
> "The only scientifically proven intervention for reducing myopia is surgery"
Which surgery reduces myopia? If you're thinking of LASIK then it doesn't change axial elongation.
Great. I would love to be proven wrong. My partial blindness from myopia related diseases will likely progress to full blindness as I age. I would love to be shown my worldview is wrong. For example, I didn't know anything about relative light color refractive differences until this HN post. I hope that science discovers a previously unknown mechanism or method for reducing axial elongation.
I also wish that eye doctors knew about the existing evidence. I wish that all opthamologists knew how emmetropization worked, I wish all lenses were peripheral defocused, and I wish more eye doctors prescribed low dose atropine to children, because the evidence is clear. And I sincerely hope that more eye doctors get sued for not using these tools in their practice. Ignoring science based evidence of myopia control in a field where you only need to know about 20 things is negligence.
Proving axial elongation is reversible is not done by a n=1 pet theory forum post measured in a home lab by someone who doesn't know what their choroid is. These forums are filled with people with mild myopia, not high myopes, who are "just starting my journey!" or "I had a small correction and I plateaued!" but are still zealously telling everyone else how to reduce their myopia. n=1 is fine for Reddit tier evidence, but without studies, it doesn't matter.
What is the source post of this? Is this chart really showing 0.1 millimeters of vitreous chamber depth change over 4 years? That almost sounds irrelevant, so maybe I'm missing something.
"Myopia is not reversible, if you think it is, you don't understand what axial elongation actually means."
There was a member on the forums who was measuring his axial elongation while at the same time applying the reduced lens method. His result is shown in the following plot.[0] It is a significant improvement that can't be ignored, and can't be explained by day to day fluctuations or measurement error. So we know that at least some level of axial elongation can be reversed, and the idea is not complete quackery.
reply