OP's article is about children, yours is about adults.
OP's article's conclusion states "Furthermore, our study highlights the importance of studying neurodevelopmental disorders closer to their onset, rather than in adulthood when a lifetime of compensatory mechanisms may have already taken place"
As I understand, autistic people often get negative reinforcement from authoritarian mindsets of society (follow the general norm and the power structures instead of thinking for yourself) and that can be kinda traumatizing for autistic people
So what we need is to value that every person's perspective is equally valid, and their ideas are plausible, and no one is inherently superior, whether NT or ASD etc...
> Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value
>
> -Baha'i Teaching
> OP's article is about children, yours is about adults.
Studies on biological causes of ASD are notorious for failing to replicate and reaching contradictory conclusions. It is just as likely that you’d reach the opposite conclusion with children too
Because “ASD” isn’t really a thing, it is a whole bunch of different things with different causes and different symptoms semi-arbitrarily squished together under the one label, simply because those symptoms have some overlap. And every research sample is a random mixture of these different underlying conditions, and two different samples are unlikely to have the same mix, which is why studies of the same thing with different samples (even defined on the same criteria) frequently produce opposite conclusions. “Heterogeneity” is the technical term for this
One of the lessons that I would hope that the world learns from the rise of the radical right world-wide is that platitudes about universalism, egalitarianism, empathy, and basically everything that the Baha'i faith teaches makes people hate you and want to kill you. This has been true historically (see treatment of Baha`i faith by like everyone) and is true today. These platitudes that you and the Baha`i faith (and jains) espoused seem to trigger a revulsion to "weakness" and "submissiveness" among others around them. Early Christians had to deal with the same extreme hatred.
Autistic people suffer the same fate. Dr. Hans Asperger could only say the "smart" autistic people from certain death by showing that they are useful to the war machine and could produce rockets so Nazis could continue gassing people longer.
Even today, "Autist" as a slur or insult is used even more than "Retard" 10 or 20 years ago, and the connotations around "Autist" are very similar to "Incel". Most people genuinely feel a level of horror that leads to "I wish you didn't exist" when they are around a chris-chan tier autistic person.
The world isn't ready to accept universalism, or love, or happieness, or peace or any of that hippy shit. The world wants a boot from a strongman on its face - forever!
Chris Chan is an abusive person and has been for a very long time (before the "internet found him", he was making rape threats against girls in his highschool.) He freaks people out for good reason. It's not fair to autistic people to use Chris Chan as some sort of archetype for autism.
Why not? Being a horrible person equaling people liking you is exactly my point! He famously now has a finnish girlfriend (Flutter) who is much more attractive than him. This has lead to hilarious 4chan threads where the incels of 4chan lament at how CHRIS CHAN is getting laid and they aren't.
He's more evidence that trying to be "ethically good" leads to bad life outcomes and the moment that he embraced his "dark" side, his life outcomes literally got way better. He's evidence that god hates the weak.
Your initial arguments are interesting, but I don't think any interpretation of the old or new testaments would allow for conflating a society and what it rewards with the will of their "God". Sodom and Gomorrah would be the most obvious example of a situation where dark personalities must have done well only to end up grouped in a fast track damnation.
I think a lot of Chris-Chan’s issues aren’t due to autistic traits in themselves, they are due to being surrounded by a subculture of stalkers obsessed with doing all in their power to make those issues worse
I would say "Happy dappy dumbp dipshits" is not what I get from the Baha'i ideals
Some people are born leaders, thats their inherent personality tendencies. Often they are psychopathic, which is a congential thing, and hence not their fault in any ways. Rather, just like anyone else, they are also mines rich in gems of inestimable value
So how can you get someone like Stalin or whatnot, who can mesmerize the populace, make brave, bold and rational decisions in the face intense crisis, but at the same time help them somehow understand and internalize foundational principles of justice and equity so that their strengths can be manifest without tormenting people and thereby extinguishing so much human potential?
There's also Allen Carr's books about treating addiction, and they don't use negative reinforcement, at least the ones I've read
Rather it helps you learn to recognize the fallacies behind the addictive cravings themselves, and to thus resolve the core of why you turn to that in the first place
Still have to make the decision to recall those in the moment, but when you do you do neutralize the cravings
His first book was Easy Way to Stop Smoking
For digital addiction there's Smart Phone, Dumb Phone
For internet porn there's easypeasymethod.org (based on EasyWay to Stop Smoking)
They literally razed Bablyon to the ground including the entire population after over 15 months being under siege and afterwards trying to change the lands hydrology so that people couldn't resettle - probably one of the harshest destruction but not the only one.
I guess its an improvement - not one thats remotely impressive.
Are you being metaphorical when you say literally? Or is this a reference to the conquest by Cyrus the Great?
I'm not trying to be pedantic here. I'm just not familiar with any historical event you are describing.
From what I've heard, and I'm not an expert, I wouldn't characterize any of the conquests of Babylon as a 'razing', And the eventual abandonment of the city was more a result of slow decline and changing geological conditions.
I do like to learn about the history of the area, so if it's just something I'm not familiar with, please point me in the right direction.
And literally decades later the coronation of Nabopolassar founded the Neo-Babylonian empire, soon before the Assyrian empire that destroyed old Babylon crumbled. It remained a major settlement after the destruction, it just took them a few decades to rise again.
99% of historical accounts about the sacking and destruction of cities are exaggerated. Even Carthage grew as a settlement mere years after the Romans destroyed it (the whole “salting the land” thing is an 18/19th century invention).
That's a bit light on details. Here's an account by king Sennacherib:
> I destroyed the city and its houses, from foundation to parapet; I devastated and burned them. I razed the brick and earthenwork of the outer and inner wall of the city, of the temples, and of the ziggurat; and I dumped these into the Araḫtu canal. I dug canals through the midst of that city, I overwhelmed it with water, I made its very foundations disappear, and I destroyed it more completely than a devastating flood. So that it might be impossible in future days to recognize the site of that city and its temples, I utterly dissolved it with water and made it like inundated land.
However since he was punishing Babylon for rebelling one time too many, he had reason to exaggerate.
Hmm, what do you mean? Like, compared to ancient times, or compared to a previous point post-WWII?
Certainly the organization of one side of this conflict into a state rather than militias naturally has tempered things since the early days where entire villages were being wiped out at random, but both sides are pretty openly engaged in terrorism to this day (targeting civilians for political reasons).
Not remotely! Unless you meant Preact. React ships an entire rendering engine to the front-end. Most sites that use React won't load anything if javascript isn't enabled
Yes, it is. Unfortunately HN has a crazy bias against JavaScript (the least crazy part of the web stack) and in favour of HTML and CSS, even though the latter are worse in every meaningful way.
It isn't crazy, judging by the number of times I've seen posts here and on other blogs talking about a 100k web page ballooning to 8Mb because of all the Javascript needed to "collect page analytics" or do user tracking when ads are included. Granted that may not be needed for personal websites, but for almost anything that has to be monetized you're going to get stuck with JS cancer because some sphincter in a suit needs for "number to go up".
> I've seen posts here and on other blogs talking about a 100k web page ballooning to 8Mb because of all the Javascript needed to "collect page analytics" or do user tracking when ads are included
Perfect example. HN will see a page with 6Mb of images/video, 1Mb of CSS and 200Kb of JavaScript and say "look at how much the JavaScript is bloating that page".
I don't even know where to begin with the pretence that you can compare HTML with JS and somehow conclude that one is 'better' than the other. They are totally different things. JS is for functionality, and if you're using it to serve static content, you're not using it as designed.
I don't particularly care about "designed for". If you've got to serve something to make the browser display the static content you want it to, the least unpleasant way to do so is with JS.
Least unpleasant to the developer. Most unpleasant to the user. It breaks all kinds of useful browser features (which frontend devs then recreate from scratch in JS, poorly; that's probably the most widespread variant of Greenspun's tenth rule in practice).
> It breaks all kinds of useful browser features (which frontend devs then recreate from scratch in JS, poorly; that's probably the most widespread variant of Greenspun's tenth rule in practice).
Nah, it's the opposite. JS tends to perform better and be more usable for the same level of feature complexity (people who want more complex sites, for good reasons or bad, tend to use JS, but if you compare like with like), HN just likes to use them as a stick to reinforce their prejudices. (E.g. if you actually test with a screenreader, aria labels work better than "semantic" HTML tags)
> E.g. if you actually test with a screenreader, aria labels work better than "semantic" HTML tags
Interesting how this is opposite to the recommendations from MDN, such as:
Warning: Many of these widgets are fully supported in modern browsers. Developers should prefer using the correct semantic HTML element over using ARIA, if such an element exists.
The first rule of ARIA use is "If you can use a native HTML element or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so." -- which also refers to: https://www.w3.org/TR/using-aria/#rule1
Though I can believe that real life may play out different than recommendations.
Also, as I understand it, ARIA is orthogonal to JS, and it doesn't alter behavior for browser users.
Another thing is how to help them learn self control in the face of the massively sophisticated research into how to get them hooked into SM. Allen Carr's book, Smart Phone Dumb Phone, seems pretty insightful and helps the reader understand the root psychological principles behind tech addiction
Perhaps that would be a helpful resource? Another Allen Carr book, Easy Way to Quit Smoking, has a reputation of helping smokers lose their cravings for cigarrettes after undersanding the falasies behind their cravings
Learning those principles at formative ages would probably go a long way
First of all, how much is this your issue, vs the society's problems impacting you?
The main causality I'm seeing here is that the uber-wealthy are clinging to their money like a crack addict to their next fix. Specifically by often paying their employees the absolute bare minimum they can, based on the circumstances. The result is that, to achieve basic financial independence, most people need to spend a herculean effort, often along lines that aren't in line with their fundamental aspirations, and which might not even succeed
And since this wealth disparity is an issue we take for granted, we often grow up learning to think of "being wealthy" as the root of all human aspirations, when in fact all that can do is satisfy only a person's most basic of basic needs
Hence we don't learn how to find what our true aspirations in life are, and hence if we do achieve financial independence, we often feel something is missing
An example of this can be learned from the book by Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz, "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States" where she talks about how, before the Genocide dessimated their societies and cultures, the indigenous peoples had a lot more time for recreation, ceremony, and arts than the europeans did. This tells me their economies were more efficient, probably because they didn't have the ever expanding greed of an elite class to satisfy
This would open people up to exploring their true aspirations beyond survival
In my personal experience, at some point I suddenly felt the need to become a mental health counselor. Eventually I started studying neuroscience through MIT lectures on youtube. I honestly cannot describe how enthralling that was. It wasn't something that would get me rich. It was just fascinating and eye opening, and something that could probably lead me on a path of doing basic research in the future that would, who knows, help homeless drug addicts, especially those who are victims of systemic racism
So in the future, I think I need to focus on stuff like that more
