SaidinWoT
If you are actually drawing on a larger amount of data, specifically pertaining to the mechanisms of people's internal experiences, that'd be useful to know. If you are not, I'd gently suggest that you're working from a flawed statistical assumption, and that looking at the numerous interactions in this thread where people describe materially different internal experiences ("I can only recall tastes in terms of descriptors" - "I can experience a taste by imagining it"[0]) may be more informative without presuming universal consistency.
I just responded to you elsewhere assuming that you're operating from a baseline experience of depending on visualization, but this comment has made me think you might actually also lack it, and that your assertion that aphantasia must be debilitating is from an assumption that the lack we're describing is something beyond your experience. Since it's all a matter of your internal experience, though, it's impossible for me to know.
I totally get that you, having lived a life where mental imagery is such an integral part of your baseline experience, assume that many of the things you rely on it for require it. However, the human brain is impressively adaptable, and it turns out many, many aspects that people assume are linked (and may well be for them as individuals) are not globally so.
This thread is full of such realizations - people assuming ability at chess, art, tetris, spatial reasoning, abstract reasoning, architectural design, conceptualizing of DB schemas, etc. must be correlated with facets of thought like strength of mental imagery, presence of an inner monologue, ability to dream, etc. In all of those cases, people have chimed in with (anecdotal, to be sure) counterexamples. It turns out brains are generally capable of doing a lot of different things in a lot of different ways.
I personally have aphantasia and have quite good spatial reasoning, including with mentally rotating objects. I think it's fair to assume that visualization and spatial reasoning are mostly (but not entirely) orthogonal spectra, and it's completely possible for people to fall anywhere on either, just based on how their brain developed its internal strategies throughout normal life.
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26792259_Loss_of_im...
Ed Catmull, former head of Pixar, also has aphantasia[0] and had the staff take the only real diagnostic that exists (the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire[1]) and found that, on average, the animators had less ability to visualize than the production managers. Obviously they varied significantly - the article mentions one that could play the entire movie in their mind - but lack of mental imagery clearly does not preclude professional level artistry.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47830256 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vividness_of_Visual_Imagery_Qu...
> Do you think that's accurate?
I don't think someone with aphantasia (of which I am one!) is really capable of assessing this - which details our memories have routinely omitted is an unknown unknown until we're explicitly made conscious of the gap.
With regard to your example of a movie, I think you may be overweighting the importance of visualization in recalling narratives (and details within them). Fiction books (for adults, anyways) generally lack visuals, yet readers across the entire visualization spectrum[0] can engage with them and recall/discuss scenes, plot points, etc. Absorbing the narrative of a movie isn't so far off from that. I just took my kid to see Inside Out 2 earlier this week, and have a pretty clear recollection (sans whatever gaps I'm incapable of being aware of) of all of it.
[0] I think, but am not sure, that it strengthens my point here to note that people who visualize the story as they read it are nearly certainly visualizing it _differently_, but that almost never poses a problem for engaging with others about it.
"think of" is far too ambiguous here to really meaningfully drill into the differences of _how_ people think about things. I know that a stop sign is a red octagon (with a white boundary) with the word "STOP" in the center. I could draw you a plausible picture of one without issue. Thinking about it just involves no imagery.
Information you might rely on visualization for, I don't (because I can't). I couldn't tell you with any confidence what my family that just visited this afternoon was wearing (something I assume is easier for people who would remember it visually), but I can recall what happened - in what order, where, who said what, etc. - throughout their visit.
Both examples have sections where the model simply left in placeholders for concepts - in example 1, "Summary of Key Takeaways" repeatedly references `[Book Topic]`, while example 2 starts doing so much earlier in "Overview of the Book".
What is the goal of this project? If it is meant to be more than a learning exercise, I'd hope for a lot more investment on quality control for the final output (but then I'd perhaps be even more worried that people would trust that output uncritically).
"Michael Jackson was born on August 29th" is the most likely answer to contextless queries like "When was Michael Jackson born?", but that does not make structurally identical sentences with different information false, merely less probable to be contextually correct.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_(radio_comment...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_(writer)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_(disambiguatio...
If the type were `Int -> Int`, it could do a lot more.
Basically, aphantasiacs tend to do just as well at spatial reasoning tasks as people with imagery, but tend to be somewhat slower and do not exhibit the gender gap that has been identified in the broader population.
I'm aphantasiac as well, and can identify with some of the experiences you've mentioned in this thread, and not at all with others. My spatial reasoning is great, and I'm a singer who has no problem at all with singing along to songs - if they're sufficiently regularly structured, even singing along with the chorus the second time it happens in a song I've never heard before. However, like you, I cannot replay sounds in my head. Memories are easily put behind me.
We're clearly very early in understanding what impact aphantasia has on people. It's a fascinating topic, and always interesting to teach people about.
Female comes through Old French "femelle", which ultimately traces back to Latin "femina" (where we also get "feminine", et al.).[0] Male comes through Old French "masle", derived from Latin "mas" (from which we get "masculine").[1]
It does appear that the ultimate transformation that aligned their spellings _does_ come from the many-centuries-old belief that they shared a common root (see the article on "female").
Woman was indeed a modifier on "man", originally "wifman", but at a time when "man" was almost exclusively in the sense of a human being (e.g., "mankind"). Prior to that, the sexes were "wer" (as in "werewolf") and "wif".[2] A couple centuries after "wifman" is first attested (around which time "werman" was also present), "wer" died off in favor of "man" and we ended up with the roots of our modern words.[3]
None of this to say that people should not continue evolving the language - the modern connotation and perception is far more important in informing how things continue to change. Just hoping to point out that the words actually _weren't_ derived that way.
Your point does, of course, still stand in the facts that "female" was modified to resemble "male" and "wifman" remained when "werman" died out, but this doesn't seem (to me) as demeaning as the idea that they have always been modifiers of the words referring exclusively to male humans.
[0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/male#etymonline_v_42792
[2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman#etymonline_v_10826
There are two separate color correction modes, on the most recent version of Android named "Color correction" (under Accessibility) and "Simulate color spaces" (under Developer Options). The former would ideally improve things, while the latter would almost certainly make things worse.
> A check returns from the enclosing function by returning the result of invoking the handler chain with the error value.
> A return statement in a handler causes the enclosing function to return immediately with the given return values. A return without values is only allowed if the enclosing function has no results or uses named results. In the latter case, the function returns with the current values of those results.
> A handler chain function takes an argument of type error and has the same result signature as the function for which it is defined.
> If the enclosing function has result parameters, it is a compile-time error if the handler chain for any check is not guaranteed to execute a return statement.
So any handler defined in ReadFile would be required to return (string, error) or not include a return at all (such that other handlers got their chance to interact with the error).