polartx
I’ve recently learned my 5 year old is exhibiting behavior problems in kindergarten. His teacher has put the notion in his mother’s head that he may have autism and has provided his mother a fast track referral to have him tested/diagnosed. I feel strongly that he does not have autism; aside from being disruptive in class he doesn’t have any other characteristics—-he is very verbal, social, doesn’t avoid eye contact or physical contact. I’ve spoken to his Sunday school teachers, daycare workers, etc and they were incredulous that he potentially has autism.
‘Well if he doesn’t have it what’s the harm in having him tested at a facility that specializes in pediatric autism? If you’re right they’ll easily determine he’s not autistic, right?’ Is the question I can imagine being asked at my reluctance to consent to the testing and diagnostics. Frankly, I’m suspicious of the (potential) conflict of incentives that a clinic specializing in pediatric autism may have; I positive diagnosis is only good for business in the way that a men’s clinic is incentivized to find every patient that walks through their door has low testosterone. Especially considering the subjectivity and ‘spectrum’ that falls under the blanket term ‘autism’.
On a scale from likely to incredibly unlikely, how rooted in reality would you characterize my concerns? Also what harm, if any would come from a false positive diagnosis? Would it outweigh the harm of a person being an undiagnosed, high functioning person with autism?
This is a very common scenario: a sheriffs deputy holds a biased belief against an individual. Said deputy selects and overfits data from systems like this to obtain a warrant against said individual. Individual is arrested and enters the meat grinder that is the justice system where hundreds of experienced indifferent agents and millions of dollars are put to work to support that deputies biased accusation. That original bad actor can now disengage and go about their life. Meanwhile, our Individual must spend a fortune on legal defense to prove their innocence. Individual loses time, money, peace, and reputation pursuing the best case realistic scenario—having charges dismissed (though indefinitely tainting their record). The more realistic scenario is individual is unjustly punished to some degree through plea agreements or trial (if they can afford it) which could easily ruin the rest of their life.
I’m not on the ACAB extreme, I just personally know many law enforcement officers and work in the industry adjacent to the justice system.
Can anyone fill in the gaps to those conspicuously missing details?
Poor journalists. It must be hard trying to manufacture outrage when they’re obligated to provide the truth somewhere in the article
Fundamental is also defined as “so basic as to be hard to alter, resolve, or overcome.”
I would argue that ‘saving lives’ is not a ‘basic’ process; it is complex. However, informing someone’s next-of-kin of their passing, is a basic (ie fundamental) role of a healthcare facility.
Seems like noise cancelling has been solved for the listener (isolation + ANC) but I would sure love a hardware/software combo to come along and allow me to work truly remotely by blocking out noise/isolating my voice to the recipient.
Btw this is one of the TVs that has been “rooted” because dev menu was unlockable, yet there’s no bypass for the aforementioned.
Instead they painted with broad strokes every ELD device that interfaces with the diagnostic port as vulnerable (which is a blatantly false equivalence). Then like a magicians sleight of hand, they “demonstrate” their worm using an ESP32 development board. SERIOUSLY?! This is the equivalent of finding one Linux based device with vulnerabilities, then claim ALL Linux based devices have the same vulnerability. Then ‘prove’ it by buying a completely different Linux based developer kit, (emphasis on DEVELOPER as they’re designed to be tampered with) and infecting it with their own malware for maximum pearl-clutching effect.
Garbage shock pieces like this are the reason the public has lost faith in “researchers” and the “media” alike.
>If they want to advance, they need to be an A - and *everyone needs to identify them as an A.*
So in order to advance, you need to be overqualified for your position, and popular with every member of the team.
[Dowling v. United States](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/207/)
Tl;dr: Supreme Court ruled bootlegged/pirated media does not constitute theft as it does not deprive the legal owner of his/her property. That’s why they had to invent the term—“Copyright infringement”
I’ve never heard of that before…sounds made up
Have you ever wondered why the European North American settlers didn’t have a unified indigenous empire to contend with, such as could be found in Central and South America? (Ie Incan or Aztec).
I would posit that it was because the Hunter/raider/gatherer societies could not sustain growth beyond a certain point. For whatever reason, the North American indigenous tribes would not cross a threshold of government and infrastructure that is required to eliminate their reliance on raiding (the perpetual changing hands of limited refined resources), and game hunting (ie lack of livestock domestication and food storage that allow for permanent settlements, growth).
What the Europeans did to the Indians was as horrendous in execution as it was consequential to the decisions those tribes made during the hundreds of years leading up to the arrival of the Europeans.
Who knows what may had been if Columbus had been confronted with a unified indigenous empire with permanent settlements and defensive emplacements? Instead he found desperate tribes of marauding Indians, reliant on a singular food source and very willing to accept short term alliances for short term infighting advantages.
Its hardly a thing, IMO, for a descendant many generations removed to feel guilty over…let alone pay penance for.