faeriechangling

Autism is literally medically defined as a series of deficits, latest criteria = DSM-V-TR

https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_n...

The only positive thing said about autism in that entire gigantic write-up is "Special interests may be a source of pleasure and motivation and provide avenues for education and employment later in life"

Why would doctors treat autism as being anything but negative with no positive when Autism is literally defined in that way? Of course, people since Leo Kanner and Hans Aspergers noted Autistics having extraordinary abilities, and people are vaguely aware of this, but doctors hold autistics in worse contempt than the general population mostly because you can't bill insurance to treat a "difference" or get a study grant to research a "difference". So the system they're in forces them to treat autistics as contemptible and even in need of curing. Besides that, psychiatry is after all the study of mental illness and disorders, not of mental differences, so there's a bias just from training.

Legal, UN definition, trying to cure a mental disorder is not eugenics. It is logically the same idea as eugenics though, the UN just didn't outlaw this idea since the mentally disordered were considered sufficiently inferior. Autistics can also be banned from sperm banks.

There's nothing to be done really as a mere not neurotypical internet dweller. The inertia of the status quo is like a train and many people benefit from it. The only real choice you have is to call yourself something like "Not neurotypical" instead of "Autistic".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dntgFIzNKrc First Reference to ADHD Found to be in 1753 by Kloekhof

Autism is younger, only since the 1900s, but I don't think there's really much dispute there's SOMETHING there because you see things like savants who are just inexplicable.

However, the rate at which we're diagnosing people today is totally unprecedented. The DSM and ICD-11 are also more like medical dictionaries than rigorously scientific reflections of underlying biological reality. They describe what Autism and ADHD are, but the categorisation is largely based on convention, clinical convenience, and a desire to fit a certain nosology rather than actual science. The best defence I have of it is "show me a better system" and I would point to RDOC (for research) and I'm reading about something new called HITOP.

Anyways we're diagnosing people a lot but I don't actually see the evidence either that prior research can be reproduced if you increase the patient population dramatically, ABA for instance is still insured in the United States based on research from the 90s when the average autistic child was very different than an average 2024 autistic child, and generally I see money and entrenched laws and bureaucratic guidelines and incentives as creating a sort of system which has no evidence of helping anybody which coincidentally results in a lot more money changing hands and more people getting government money.

Anyways I think the current system we have where we pretend that it's useful to say that Elon Musk and some guy who smashes his head into the wall until it bleeds to self-stimulate have the same disability is ridiculous.

Mostly anecdotal, my school psychologist back in the day sure believed it, and this would vary from place to place. She was a champion of "You give children the diagnosis that gives them the services they need". Autism being the one which gave children the services they needed, and she often expressed frustration at not being able to get such a diagnosis.

In general Aspergers basically meant no verbal delays, where Autism meant verbal delay. Autism was also around longer as a diagnosis. In general, I think theres a reason they changed the name of Aspergers to Autism and not the other way around.

Yes because the diagnostic label is over broad to the point of meaninglessness and people have their own independently valid reasons for wanting autism to be interpreted as either a mild or severe disability because the diagnostic label is over broad to the point of meaninglessness.

Autism and "severe autism" in particular need to be addressed using totally different words.

No, the problem was that psychiatrists could bill insurers more to treat autism than they could Asperger's. You aren't cynical enough.

If it wasn't a scientific distinction, why are we still identifying autism subtypes?

Glad they're working away at this.

I've stopped identifying as autistic despite having a dx because I was tired of the way it got me treated worse by the general public who presume I'm far more incompetent than I actually am and medical practitioners who do the same. Last time I sought help for a totally unrelated issue they asked if I had any prior dx and I was foolishly honest so I was subsequently referred to a day program for unemployed people with severe mental health issues. I'm full time employed so I couldn't even attend. This is the outcome of treating "autistics" as a monolith.

After the DSM-IV they decided to consolidate 3 different autism spectrum diagnosis's into one. They said this was scientific, but IMHO, this was done so everybody with Aspergers or PDD-NOS to be eligible for the higher funding levels those categorised as "Autistic" got. Which has done nothing but take away funding from severely disabled people while causing more mildly impaired people to receive inappropriate and condescending treatment, I am fucking eligible for a full time day program where a social worker will be paid to chaperone me because I'm just so fucking needy that's just what needs to be done. This change was great for the psychiatrists through, who simply received more money as a result of making this diagnostic change, nice conflict of interest there.

As a society, we decided having certain labels of disability entitled you to special legal rights and certain financial benefits. Where I live any autism diagnosis, no matter how severe or mild, gets you a flat amount of money, whereas other diagnosis's even if the condition is more severe than autism get nothing. What do you think parents, who can shop around from a variety of private psychiatrists, looking to access therapy for their child that autistic kids also get do? So you might get a kid with ADHD or Anxiety or some speech disorder, and not getting an autism DX, but getting treated like a moderately impaired autistic.

I honestly loathe, absolutely loathe the status quo of autism diagnosis and treatment and am happy for any change to be made that splits the diagnosis up because it creates at least a hope of "Severe autism" receiving higher funding levels than the rest, and "autism light" starting to get similar funding levels to other disabilities so there isn't a perverse incentive. I have not made an online comment on any website in 1 month but this inspired me.

The competition are selling trucks that are significantly less capable than gas trucks selling for loads less.

Tesla is selling a very expensive conversation piece out of a sci-fi movie. There's nothing else really like it.

I notice the generational improvements in battery life and still have a practical need for them.

> Everyone on the supplicant end noticed this

I’ve downright gotten philosophical about it. The way my and other people’s suffering is used as a prop in other people’s stories.

The way I see it, if some people get personal satisfaction and a good reputation from being the stars, and their stardom leads to them helping people, I shrug. If you’re in a desperate situation you use the resources you have in front of you, and even say whatever it takes for them to help you more. I just don’t trust their motivations as people who “help the disadvantaged” can have INSANE saviour complexes and hurt those around them so they can heal them. Because they don’t actually care about you - they care about saving and being seen saving.

You’re perceptive to have caught on to the game so quickly. It took me years.

I have tried the quest 3 and it’s like looking through a distorted version of the world through a low resolution camera with Vaseline slopped on top.

It’s impressive technology but it’s far from seamless. There’s less colours, less resolution, worse depth perception, more latency, and worse nightvision than your actual eyes. The quest makes your head quite a bit larger and you’re more likely to hang your head into something. It is very far from seamless.

They have a long way to go. Audio pass through still isn’t good enough for me to trust it never mind video pass through.

When I look at the commonality between all the successful consumer electronics, it's really about how easily they fit into people's lives. The AirPods and Apple Watch were two of the most recent smash hits because they are an improvement on what existed before

For me to watch a video on a phone, tablet, laptop, or TV is easy. Turn on screen. Play video. With wedding photos, you can make them your phone screen background, you can printout photos and put them on your wall, they fit into your life.

With VR, I have to blind myself to my surroundings, I have to either not move around sitting perfectly still or clear out a bunch of space. What has become more popular in recent years is Podcasting and a huge reason why is because how nonintrusive it is, you can listen to a podcast doing the dishes or on your way to work. VR is the opposite of nonintrusive.

I feel the immersion of VR is what's holding it back, not why it will be successful. It's only when mixed reality takes off that I think we're going to see a big change.

There was a guy Michael De La Maza who literally just drilled tactics and broke 2000 USCF and then quit chess, and if you look at his games yes he really really did not understand openings. So 1400-1600 is well before when you’re going to plateau without knowing openings.

1400 yes learning a trap line can improve your results, so if you subscribe to the Eric Rosen school of opening theory you can benefit from openings. I’ve just never thought it’s worth learning much about conventional openings until about 1600.

Learning openings beyond a very basic level is not going to help the club player very much and it’s generally a good way for them to waste their time, at least from an improving your ELO perspective.

Being the best out of the opening will typically put you a “quarter pawn” ahead, maybe putting you ahead as white or equalizing as black. Then if you’re a novice you will immediately hang a knight and end up 2.75 pawns behind. Then your opponent will hang a bishop and you’ll be a quarter pawn ahead again.

The other problem with learning opening theory against novices is you will learn 30 moves a side of Ruy Lopez opening theory and your opponent won’t get 10 moves without leaving theory rendering your study moot.

There’s far more emphasis on memorizing openings at the grandmaster level because people are playing a tight enough game elsewhere for that slight advantage to really matter, and because of all the pre-game preperation where teams of grandmasters and chess engines will come up with novel moves to throw an opponent off balance while the star player memorizes the lines. To the point of grandmasters like Bobby Fischer complain it ruined the game and inventing variants like chess960. All super grandmasters have outlier memorization abilities.

Generally club players just need to rote memorize not too deeply and understand the broad sweeping ideas and key moves of the openings (when white does that, counter them with this). That should allow them to come up with reasonable moves on the fly which might be the best or third best moves. Memorizing fewer openings at first is probably better. At the more casual level memory is much less important.

Rote memorization is absolutely a mainstay of learning both openings and endgames.

It’s usually a part of tactics training as well although not as purely, the polgar sisters for instance were drilled on the same chess positions day in day out in a spaced repetition system. This is going away a bit because chess puzzle databases have so many unique positions that there’s less need for repetition.

Must be why I keep getting promoted.

You might be inverting cause and effect.

Depending on the person they can be worse since sugar alcohols tend to cause digestive issues whereas sugar doesn’t.

I usually hear feminism defined as "pro-equality", equality being defined by women.

In their own marketing they show several of these monitors being used side by side and bill their computers as supporting multiple of these displays. I don’t recall them ever showing a monitor adjustment.

He was already effectively a political prisoner. The US made enough of an example of him I guess. Expose US war crimes and this will happen to you.

Nothing really wrong with this. Constantly changing prices means a great deal of busywork and stores constantly have the wrong prices posted the way things are now.

I'm not going to argue for the virtue of updating prices for products by hand out of FUD over surge pricing or the like. If people are really upset about it we can legislate that prices can't be changed more frequently than weekly.

Depends on the disability. ChatGPT was discriminating against autistics.

Maybe they’re plausibly less productive in specific fields but the reason they’re not hired in many fields is not because they’re less productive. It’s because they are less popular.

High drug prices also incentivize companies who don’t do R&D themselves to corner the market on existing drugs and raise prices.

As for “free ridership”, the US only has so much military and economic power to compel the rest of the world to give them money because THEY own certain molecules and not anybody else. It is actually totally absurd to think the US can unilaterally set prices because of a self-inflicted victim complex. If the US wants less free riding it should spend less on research which is fundamentally impossible to profit from without mass scale coercion, or maybe should kick off some cooperative research funding agreements.

The TPP shakedown meant to force the global poor to pay tribute to US pharma in the guise of a trade agreement went down in flames and it went well below actually expecting poorer countries than the US to pay more for drugs - which is a bad pricing strategy anyways driven by envy since you will not achieve optimal profits if you price people out.

Work from home might result in 90% productivity. A disabled employee out of work certainly results in 0% productivity.

>Given the absolutely massive disadvantages WFH imposes on an entire company it's almost certainly going to continue to be considered a unreasonable burden.

I've seen a company spend 10 grand to make a specific door automatically open for a guy in a wheelchair only for that person to move on to a different office 2 months later. So this guy would, get up, shower daily, fling him and a wheelchair into a modified car and get out of the car twice a day, drive over an hour round trip, navigate poorly made sidewalks without curb cuts, go up an elevator, just to eventually arrive at the button on the door so we could of course, celebrate the equality with which they are treated. Oh yeah, and he also had to do a bunch of extra work every day of his life in other ways. But a lot of these problems were related to time he was technically off the clock, so on paper, he was treated equally.

I sort of think it's completely mad the unreasonable burden disabled people have stoically shouldered for so long. I am really happy that COVID has really changed people's perceptions enough that more people seem to be asking for and being permitted accommodations and are generally less stigmatised for doing so. I'd really like to see the research that allowing the disabled specifically to work from home imposes a massive burden on the entire company.

I don't accept the argument that the fact that the majority of the population is not working from home, means we shouldn't allow a minority of the population to work from home. The whole point of disability accommodations is that the accommodations are NOT the norm.

Employers systemically illegally discriminated against employees by falsely alleging that accommodating them with work from home was an undue hardship, and would just point at other employers not doing it to demonstrate this.

COVID forced WFH for business reasons and thus employers are no longer as easily able to illegally discriminate against their disabled employees since it's patently obvious that the accommodation is possible and it doesn't present some existential threat to a business to provide it. It's also that employers are simply more geared up to allow work from home and it's less of an actual burden in time and money.

I never took Chomsky’s foreign policy views that seriously or knew them to be taken that seriously. He just had at most a refreshingly contrarian perspective that didn’t normalize the American Imperialism so many take for granted.

It could also stand to go out of its way to try and give more prestige to people who manage to get influential papers retracted.

You sort of need an incredibly specific use case like this to justify dropping $3500 on it...

Biggest problem with the product is just the price.

Not really interested if it’s not cross platform and standards compliant but this will work well for 99% of the market.

I'm using exportable passkeys in .kdbx format right now. There's no reason conceptually why passkeys have to be non-exportable. Regular keys are only seldom implemented in that way.