> You can train a human using the exact same skills you use to train a dog.
Depending on the context, this can traumatize a human though. This idea has been the basis for both gay conversion therapy and applied behavior analysis. The latter I have had the misfortune to directly experience myself.
In my experience there are either acutely unaware or too aware which then leads to insecurity and self-sabotaging behavior.
Speaking from my own neurodivergent experience: I tend to be a bit slower and get distracted easily, but when circumstances are optimal (silent office, clear expectations, etc) I can function on about the same level as my neurotypical peers.
While I don't 'blame' neurotypicals, I do recognize that most office environments are not that accessible for me and other neurodivergent people.
This might be anecdotal evidence. But seeing this is really jarring, as I find the Dyslexia font actually easier to read. My girlfriend actually has dyslexia and also finds it easier to read. (maybe it is just more comfortable to read, not necessarily faster? Same with dvorak vs qwerty)
There are more and more cases where my personal experience seems to contradict with science. And I am not sure what to make of that.
There is one driving around near where I live in Amsterdam as well.
I am quite tall, even for Dutch standards, but the hood reaches my shoulder easily. It also drives around quite a busy neighbourhood. So I expect this specific car to kill someone within the next 5 years or so.
That is not meaningfully open source. Even if that would be the full source code, it still wouldn't have an open source licence, although then it technically would be free(as in freedom) software, not just open source, but most people assume open source = free software.
I trust the obsidian team, but I don't trust the plugins.
Solution to what? You are arguing against a position that you yourself invented. Just observing that succes is a combination of skill and luck (and thus arguable not 100% fair) doesn’t mean it has to be solved.
Also your other comments makes me think of the term “sealioning”. Hope this is unintentional.
But if the system is unjust it is also our moral duty to attempt to dismantle it no?
Just accepting the system and abusing it is not going to make the world a better place. This is why other commenters are upset, as you blatantly abuse immoral structures.
Yes, I always let it be known early in the interview process. Sometimes I get rejected.
I have medical reasons. I have autism, and experience has taught me that working 40 hours simply burns me out within 3 months. I usually ask for the 4-days without mentioning the autism. But if they ask why, I won't hide it either.
I read a lot of criticism on guides like these. And that makes me wonder, am I the only one that thinks that the 'inclusive' language is simply more clearer?
* blocklist/blacklist, I find blocklist clearer because it does what it says. Same for whitelist
* master/main, same as above, main describes it's function more accurately.
Regarding the genger wording, I have memories as a child where I was confused because for some reason, only the boys where adressed. Not thinking it through, I simply assumed that was intentional. And thus, if a teacher said 'boys, lets go that way!' I would be arguing with the girls since I thought they where not supposed to follow along.
Of course, this is not the case for ALL proposed inclusive language. I simply notice that most of the time, the inclusive alternative is a lot clearer.