powerclue
World Health Organization: 16%
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-...
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs: 15%
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/resources/f...
CDC: 25% of Americans
https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articles-documents...
ROD Group: 22%
https://www.rod-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/The-Glo...
Plus all that happens before you get an accommodation, which is a wholly separate process.
Which is an unreasonable claim.
I have a disability that impairs many aspects of my life. I was still capable of getting through college and am successful in my career. Having a disability does not mean you can't do academics.
15-20% of the world is estimated to have a disability. So Stanford population is high, but approximately double the average of a random global population sample.
Now, think about the selection pressures Stanford applies. Stanford selects students who are fighting for top academic honors. Those students are dealing with brutal competition, and likely see their future as hanging on their ability to secure one of a small number of slots in the school. Anxiety would be genuinely higher in the student body than, say, students at a mid rate state school.
Stanford wants students with strong test scores, especially those who are strongly capable in mathematics. High spatial awareness, cognitive integration, and working memory can be positive traits in some autistic people and some find strong success in standardized environments and in mathematics.
We're also improving diagnostic tools for autism and ADHD, and recognizing that the tools we used missed a lot of cases in young women, because they present differently than for young men.
Imagine a house party where the guests are selected at random from MIT or Stanford, then imagine you selected guests at random from, say, all Americans. Are you telling me you'd be surprised if the MIT and Stanford crowd had a noticeably different population demographic than the overall American population?
And while some might be doing what you say, others might genuinely have a moral threshold they are unwilling to cross. Who am I to tell someone they don't actually have a genuinely held belief?
* The environmental cost of inference in aggregate and training in specific is non-negligible
* Training is performed (it is assumed) with material that was not consented to be trained upon. Some consider this to be akin to plagiarism or even theft.
* AI displaces labor, weakening the workers across all industries, but especially junior folks. This consolidates power into the hands of the people selling AI.
* The primary companies who are selling AI products have, at times, controversial pasts or leaders.
* Many products are adding AI where it makes little sense, and those systems are performing poorly. Nevertheless, some companies shove short AI everywhere, cheapening products across a range of industries.
* The social impacts of AI, particularly generative media and shopping in places like YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, etc are not well understood and could contribute to increased radicalization and Balkanization.
* AI is enabling an attention Gish-gallop in places like search engines, where good results are being shoved out by slop.
Hopefully you can read these and understand why someone might have moral concerns, even if you do not. (These are not my opinions, but they are opinions other people hold strongly. Please don't downvote me for trying to provide a neutral answer to this person's question.)
Yes, a toxic version of this exists, but simply refusing to do a thing isn't toxic.
It's difficult for me to accept it's better given all the above.
We had a recall we called to try and schedule several times, and they always said, "we have no appointments available right now, but if you want to pay $400 for a new center console computer part too, we can get you in this week."
Shady.
(FWIW the car itself had so many issues. It didn't seal, so at highway speeds it would cause pressure waves inside, the door handles broke a bunch, the dashboard would regularly crash and need to be rebooted and we'd lose the speedometer, a bunch of fit and finish issues like threads that dangled from panels... and more)
Biggest waste of an opportunity I've encountered.
It's like going, "weird that they named it hemoglobin when it bears no physical resemblance to hematite!"
This study found that adding or removing rewards for performing well can pretty dramatically impact performance.
"it is unclear to what extent the positive manifold reported in intelligence research since Spearman (1904) might be explained not through a shared component of intellectual capacity, but through a shared component of effort or time investment in testing tasks."
So, yes, we don't know, but the ways we don't know should also include "we don't know if iq testing is even measuring intelligence rather than stick-to-it-ness".
You've developed a "No true Scotsman" definition for desktop Linux that seems far from the common understanding that "if you use Linux as your OS on your desktop, you are a desktop Linux user".
If you feel your definition of purity tested "only Linux binaries or it doesn't count as a Linux desktop" is better, I'm not going to tell you you are wrong, just expect that you have a definition significantly out of the norm and will have a challenging uphill battle in getting others to adopt it.
I think this is a nuanced call, personally, and I think there's some room for disagreements here. I just happen to believe that maybe the right decision is to fork at some point and spin off legacy forks when there's a vanishingly small suite of things that cause friction with progress.
Game devs working in Linux is always a lagging indicator. Once there's a market share, they'll go there. Once it's the preferred os for people, you'll be able to develop on it. Games is already an incredibly risky market sector.
Instead, I encourage you to look at blender. It's gone through a "cute hobbyist/prosumer tool" phase and is now in the mega million dollar movies and games use it as their primary tool. Desktop Linux is on a similar curve thanks to Valve. If enough people start using it at home, industry will flip over.
I have to decline and explain in social settings all the time, because I will not eat meat served to me. But I do not need to preach when I observe others eating meat. I, like all humans, have a finite amount of time and energy. I'd rather spend that time focused on where I think it will do the greatest good. And that's rarely explaining why factory farming of meat is truly evil.
The best time is when someone asks, "why don't you eat meat?" Then you can have a conversation. Otherwise I've found it best to just quietly and politely decline, as more often than not one can be accommodated easily. (Very occasionally, though, someone feels it necessary to try and score imaginary points on you because they have some axe to grind against vegetarians and vegans. I've found it best to let them burn themselves out and move on. Life's too short to worry about them.)