Soleos @ Soleos @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

340

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's up to you if it helps you to think of it that way. However, if everyone is on the spectrum, then "autism" is less useful as a term for categorizing a group of people with a shared condition that may need help/accommodation in specific ways. How do you provide special services for autistic people when everyone is "on the spectrum". There's a solution, but requires a different way of categorizing people.

"spectrum" is a useful analogy to the EM spectrum, which is a literal spectrum. The autism spectrum is not a literal spectrum, we call it that because it's a useful way to understand neurodiveristy. However, like any analogy, it eventually falls apart as you go deeper into applying it. It's not the complete way to understand autism nor is it the only applicable analogy.

Autism is not fully understood, but it is characterized by several dimensions that each involve variation from the norm due to a complex of causes. This is why the "spectrum" analogy falls apart--it reduced autism to one dimension. Another analogy might be a crystal that grows in multiple directions, with more growth from the centre being divergence from the norm. Some crystals grow a little bit in all directions, some grow only in a couple directions, and every other combination of amount x direction.

Shoutout to SG-1! I grew up on it and it has a special place in my heart. They had their stinkers, but boy did they have range, from black comedy gold to action adventure to existential awe to solid political commentary, and with a fantastic ensemble of characters.

So... Now we put Mexican stickers on every Republican's car, mailbox, and window sill right?

Sorry, I shouldn't be so obtuse on the internet. The point is that corporations in general are not exactly non-people. They are a groups of people. The greed, selfishness, choices to violate privacy, these are all of people, granted in conjunction with the machine of late-capitalism. But there is always this false assumption that just because it's "people" and not a "corporation", it's inherently better, or for the benefit of all people. Your choice isn't between a group of people and some faceless entity, your choice is between different groups of people.

The same people who make up the faceless corporations will participate in your "owned by the people" system. Just look at the US government, supposedly "by the people and for the people", which controls/regulates corporations. Where there is power there is politics and where there is politics there is the accumulation of power. You have to do more to manage the accumulation of power that oppresses than just say "oh just let all the people own the system".

Hey friend, I'm people, I've got a face, and I'm no corporation. Can I control your privacy? I promise I'll be good ^^

Sometimes quantity is a quality.

It's probably something mundane like AAA releases come with more preparation for peak traffic.

The point is fraud. They give you just enough to think they will cover you when you really need it. And by then, they've already extracted the optimum amount they were gonna get from you.

Garbage humans in, garbage AI out

I think the objection to the term is fine, you don't have to see yourself as a parent or your pet as your kids. It's an imperfect analogy for familial closeness and caregiving role--im sure other terms have their advantages. I was more suggesting an explanation for why it makes sense for some people, especially those who adopt puppies. After all, parents to human children stay parents regardless of the children's age... Which gets to the semantic hiccup behind this disagreement, there are two usages of child, one usage denotes familial relationship and social role, and one denotes age. I'm not a child, but I am the child of my parents.

Words are socially constructed, develop new meanings, and vary between cultures. Pet parent might be a new definition distinct from biological parent. Some people feel comfortable calling every family friend of their parents' generation auntie/uncle and others find it weird because it defies their blood-relation conception of the term. That's okay. Live and Let live.

Though, I think comparing the analogy of pets as children to treating pets as plushies says more about how you view children than anything :P

It is weird for the traditional view of pets as property, beasts of labour, ornaments, or other living in-person. However recent decades has seen a popular shift towards treating select sentient animals (experience emotions) with some degree of sapience (reasoning/higher cognition), like cats and dogs, as people. Humans treat them as individual persons with their own subjective experience, desires, and lives worth living.

So when a human adopts a non-human animal under this view, they are also taking on the responsibility to care for the animal's needs and we'll-being, not just for what the animal provides the human (as would be the case of a beast of burden) but primarily for the sake of the animal's own worthwhile life--the human takes on a guardianship/parental role. This is why people are more and more being referred to as mom/dad/parent of their pet. More and more people are adopting animals as non-human children. Vets like to enforce it because it reduces animal cruelty and makes people more likely to do basic care.

This isn't to say many farmers don't try to give their animals a good life or recognize them as feeling beings with their own personality. They do, but not to the same degree as treating a pet as a non-human child.

Well it's a lab in China, and neutrinos are small, like viruses. So clearly they're developing a quantum virus to destabilize the west. Come December, we will see the first cases of the ominous QUOVID-25.

Because the arrow always points to the bigger number, silly. /S

"Information wants to be free..." No! Not like that!! 😫

Not anymore, it runs off AI. All you have to do is feed the data centers catastrophic amounts of fresh water.

Fuck Trump. That being said, you ARE actually making this up. From the article, they're revoking the co-owner's wife's I-130 because they don't have proof they lived together while married. The co-owner has not been deported and he has not lost his green card.

-edit- There is a notice from one company issuing a lawsuit saying he was detained and had his green card revoked (June 9). He was released on bond on July 7, i.e. not deported thus far. Green card status unconfirmed.

Requires account

If you're out of the loop, I found this article fairly helpful for a primer on the issues. It's CNN, but I can't be arsed to find a more kosher source.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/25/us/tea-app-dating-privacy-cec

Life is hard and complex. Be kind.

Humans generally choose and behave based on how we feel. That's neither good nor bad, it's what we are--emotional beings.

The risks of social interaction is often the cost of meaningfulness.

Perhaps, neither of us seem to have statistics here so it's a little moot. But I was talking more about my impression of Lemmy, the scope of OP's question, rather than the internet at large. I'd be curious to hear your alternative explanation tho!