powerclue

Sounds like the old definition was missing a lot of people with disabilities.

I don't think I disagree, and I don't think I suggested that couldn't be the case.

Dx out here required all those steps plus attestations from family and teachers, historical accounts, written narratives, a check in with the GP, bloodwork and blood pressure, and ongoing follow ups at least quarterly.

Plus all that happens before you get an accommodation, which is a wholly separate process.

> They said that 38% of successful students are unlikely to be disabled.

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.

Have you gotten one of these notes yourself? It's not trivial. It's a huge pain in the ass, and everyone along the path is saying, "I don't believe you".

The "left handedness" graph change that occurred once we stopped punishing people for being left handed. Same sort of thing here. We'll stabilize once we get good at diagnosing it and stop stigmatizing it. We're in a period where the graph is changing, and that change is disruptive, but it'll level out.

The article is pretty clearly someone trying to drag disability on to the stage of the culture war because it's another group that's easy to other, imo.

That doesn't seem outrageously high for a high cap school?

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?

Plenty of people have moral concerns with having children too.

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?

Some folks have moral concerns about AI. They include:

* 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.)

If that's making it difficult for you to understand the comparison, I can select another. I think most folks could understand the analogy, but I'm happy to accommodate you if it's unclear.

Hard agree. I work in digital accessibility, use Macs and Linux at home and work. It's unfortunate, but Linux is a long distance from how accessible Windows is. It's improving, but there's a ways to go.

It's not toxic to not offer infinite support for a platform you don't have familiarity with. Just like if you are vegan it's not toxic to refuse to prepare a meaty hamburger.

Yes, a toxic version of this exists, but simply refusing to do a thing isn't toxic.

Better? No absolutely not. Capable? Without a doubt. I have a multi bay nas and it's like 1/6the the size of my pc case. My nas also makes removing and replacing drives trivial. There's a million guides online for my particular nas already and software written with it in mind. It also draws a lot less power than my gaming pc and has a lot quieter operation.

It's difficult for me to accept it's better given all the above.