36 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 80.1 ms ] thread
I long for the day that Earpods become hearing aids
Apple AirPods can behave a bit like a hearing aid. You can use the Live Listen feature on an iPhone to get an idea [0].

I’ve got a modern set of hearing aids that I actually ordered last week. They have Bluetooth built in, so they will actually function as earbuds themselves, allowing me to answer calls or listen to music and so on. So the reverse is already happening where the hearing aid acts as headphones.

One last thing to consider is that ear buds occlude the ear completely, where some hearing aids (like mine) are designed to physically allow sound through. In my case it’s better than total occlusion since one of my ears only has partial loss (total loss in the other).

[0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209082

Don't hearing aids have to be FDA approved? There's a huge potential for something like an Earpod to gain advanced hearing capabilities. The medical powers that be, however, just regulate the market
Yeah, which is probably why they cost thousands of dollars :(

They do get programmed to compensate for the specific hearing loss of the individual, but if there was an easy way to take a hearing test and program the earbuds at home to match, that would be amazing. The transparency mode on the Apple AirPods already uses the mic to pass through sound, but I don’t know of any way to amplify specific frequencies or to transmit sound from one side to the other (for one-sided deafness).

A version of cheap hearing aids not unlike being able to pick up non-prescription reading glasses for $5 at the drug store would be life altering for many. Imperfect is better than unattainable.
While on vacation recently, I gave my iPhone to the tour guide while he talked about the towns history. I had my AirPods in with Live Listen so I can chase around my 3 y/o while still listening to the guide. They work exceptionally well for that
Just wondering, did Ken (Barbie’s male companion doll) receive some attention too?

Or is male body represetation is still tied to unrealistic body standards?

> Other dolls in the new Fashionistas collection include a Ken doll with vitiligo, a condition in which the skin loses its pigment cells, causing it to appear blotchy. The line also includes a doll with a prosthetic leg, a Barbie who uses a wheelchair, and male dolls that are less muscular than the original Ken doll.
Sounds like sales declining and not being able to think straight in the panic
Toughen up a little bit, it’s a doll.
I doubt that.

Underrepresented people have this relatively new platform called the internet that helps them find their voice and be heard by other people, sometimes even if just shit posting and doing some variation of "drunk dialing." I'm guessing that's a factor here.

Yes, I also only consume products that reflect my particular stereotype. If you want my dollar, you'd better feature a fat bald guy who sits in an office chair 14 hours per day shitposting on reddit.

I shall be waiting for the Barbie doll announcement.

(comment deleted)
I'm wary of this argument from sarcasm because I've seen it used to marginalize people who do want other options.

I've seen it countless times, for example in the Warhammer community (in case you aren't familiar, Warhammer is a tabletop game where you wage war with toy soldiers; there are also countless videogame spinoffs). A major point of contention is that Space Marines, the poster boys of the Warhammer 40K universe, can only be men. Why? Because current fans say so. To be clear: Space Marines are genetically engineered, cyberenhanced, drug-addled monstrosities -- any resemblance to actual humans is long gone. So fans (usually male) argue that women cannot be supersoldiers because women are weaker (ignoring countries who do employ women in frontline combat roles), even though Space Marines are engineered monsters wearing powered armor.

This is the stuff of endless flamewars. But riddle me this: a common argument these very vocal male fans deploy is "of course, players are so fragile they can only play with toy soldiers that resemble them, that's why women supposedly need female Space Marines!". But they are the ones threatening to rage quit the game if Games Workshop (the IP owner) ever changes the background lore of the game to allow female Space Marines. Women never threaten to quit because Space Marines are currently a male only club.

It's not like female Space Marines or disabled Barbie are going to prevent anyone from buying the previous versions of the toy. They just introduce more options where there were fewer.

Regardless of Mattel's motives, your comment seems to imply you think this decision is a mistake ("not being able to think straight"). Why?
Because honestly it just appears like trying to grab off a handful new customers by dumping countless iterations of the same sucked-dry product into a rapidly declining market. Similar to putting dozens of these crappy websites up that all sell the same crappy product no one wants.

Children don’t care about a skinnier Ken and a disabled Barbie. Not because of the special attributes of these iterations, mind you, they don’t really see these differences yet anyway. Maybe a few parents will appreciate those but that should be about it.

I don't see what's wrong about trying to grab new customers. Mattel is a business, after all.

Countless iterations of the same thing is what Barbie was already doing. There's a parody of that in The Simpsons' Stacy Malibu ("it has a new hat!"). This seems a bit riskier and slightly more profound than giving Barbie a new dress. I looked at the photo of the new dolls and they don't look like iterations of the same thing: each looks strikingly different to the rest.

Then again, do people look at Playmobil or Legos and complain that they are "countless iterations of the same thing"? Because they certainly are!

As for the differences: my 2 year old sees them already. And even if not, aren't toys also about teaching something?

> Maybe a few parents will appreciate those but that should be about it

How can you speak for parents and know how many will or will not appreciate this?

> Because honestly it just appears like trying to grab off a handful new customers by dumping countless iterations of the same sucked-dry product into a rapidly declining market.

The way you phrased this, it sounds like you’re implying that expanding your product line to new customers when your sales are declining is a bad idea. But… I can’t imagine how you think businesses work, then. Like, what’s Plan B? Ride the ship into the ground?

Do you have a sense of how many people in the world live with a disability and/or have a close family member who does?
If you had read the linked article (like a 1 minute read), you would see that he did
Still waiting for the first Barbie with an average face. But I guess as the manufacturer of pretty dolls, it’s impossible to satisfy all of those demands.
average as in not very pretty? so you have a definition of pretty and you are okay with it being the standard however just want an average faced doll?

I wouldn't consider myself very knowledgable such as topics like these, so just curious about what the thinking is behind it.

I think the parent poster means Barbie dolls that look more like regular people. Classic Barbie looks like a model.
Yes. I was trying to criticize that Barbie dolls hold up an unrealistic beauty standard while trying to be inclusive about disabilities, color or gender.
I don't understand their comment. "Average" women are pretty imo. Do they mean below average?
"Average" faces tend to be attractive, due in part to symmetry and lack of blemishes. If you mean "plain", however, I am sure you will soon get your wish. Although there are certainly many options available now, to obtain such a toy, if you don't insist on having that particular brand.
There’s an undeniable appeal with toys like these as a means to normalize and explore the world around you freely in miniaturized and simplified form.

So I hope the appeal of toys like these extends beyond just “seeing myself represented” - ideally, kids get to play with a variety of likenesses beyond just “the one that looks like me”.

(Aside: the final paragraph of the article is 100% unnecessary, corporate virtue signaling, with no relation to anything else in the article aside from being Barbie related.)

They claim the goal is both for the kids to see themselves represented but also to pick some toys that do not resemble them.
I'm guessing that you hear a lot more complaints from marginalized people who can't find representation of people like them than you do privileged people whining about a lack of representation of people unlike them.

But it's certainly equally important to have both.

Edit: I mean both outcomes: people able to find dolls like them and people able to play with diverse dolls.

(comment deleted)
What next? Fat Barbie? Pimple Barbie? Bald Barbie?
Bald barbie would allow selling wigs, so not horrid idea...