derek

Your closing sentence hints at the root of the misunderstanding here. It also fails to strengthen your initial claim at all. This study's Lay summary sets it out perfectly.

Many autistic individuals report feelings of excessive empathy, yet their experience is not reflected by most of the current literature, typically suggesting that autism is characterized by intact emotional and reduced cognitive empathy. To fill this gap, we looked at both ends of the imbalance between these components, termed empathic disequilibrium. We show that, like empathy, empathic disequilibrium is related to autism diagnosis and traits, and thus may provide a more nuanced understanding of empathy and its link with autism.

Autistic folks don't always exhibit the socially defined traits of autism. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right? So while your [claim] [double-down] [pre-emptive concession] [claim] ends with a claim that's reasonable it is also fundamentally disconnected from the initial claim (which is, at best, half-true). Social and non-social traits are additional dimensions on a complex spectrum. Defining autism only by it's more visible / stigmatized traits perpetuates the false equivocations of abnormal with disordered and disordered with diseased.

Sent with love ❤️

This is admittedly a bit pedantic but it's not that the risk doesn't exist (there may be quite a lot to gain from having your info). It's because the risk is quite low and the benefit is worth the favorable gamble. Not dissimilar to discussing deeply personal health details with medical professionals. Help begins with trust.

There's an implicit trust (and often an explicit and enforceable legal agreement in professional contexts (trust, but verify)) between sys admins and troubleshooters. Good admins want quiet happy systems and good devs want to squash bugs. If the dev also dons a black hat occasionally they'd be idiotic to shit where they eat. Not many idiots are part of teams that build things lots of people use.

edit: ope replied to the wrong comment

A speaker's public record provides context for their current commentary. Trump's tells us he is a bigot. Specifically a white supremacist. His recent rhetoric leans in to this. When pressed to clarify, justify, or recant these statements he either deflects or doubles down.

There is no reason to think he is suddenly well intentioned, operating in good faith, or otherwise deserving of some deference of judgement.

How?

Crazy? No. The timing and optics would be wrong since Sanders wouldn't help Harris' campaign play to its advantages. Finding younger candidates with consistent and (hopefully) progressive records, who aren't currently targets for the Right, and who hold little political baggage, is a better play.

By the same reasoning I think Newsom and Buttigieg aren't good picks even though they'd do well in the role. The new Dem Pres campaign should make sure the Right's propagandists have to work hard at effective attack ads. Running any Left-Wing Face misses this initiative.

For context: I'm still bitter about Bernie being pushed out of previous Presidential campaign runs, still think he was the best choice both times, and know he'd make a great VP.

I'm excited to see they're going fully open source. Looks like the last steps to making the sync server self-hostable are in the works. Do you use their paid service? If so: any complaints or caveats?

Start here: https://nesslabs.com/how-to-think-better This isn't an endorsement (though I do like ness labs). That article offers practical evidence-based starting points and additional resources at the end.

There are many people/systems/schools that will offer strategies and solutions. Some are practical and effective. None of them are a replacement for learning what it means to think well, learning how to think well, or actually thinking well.

The next step is learning the jargon of philosophy so you can ask meaningful questions and parse the answers (this is true for any new discipline). I recommend reading anything on the topics of epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics, which resonate with you. Then find others to discuss what you've read. You do not have to be right or knowledgeable to earn a voice in the conversation: only an interest in discovering how you might be wrong and helping others discern the same for themselves.

If you haven't read any classical philosophy but are interested I recommend Euthyphro. It's brief, poignant, and entertaining.

I hope this helps! Happy to discuss further as well.

I don't immediately disagree with this. Reactionary decisions breed instability and progress requires a foundation. Though with the Nation's already flawed fundaments being actively bulldozed I am compelled to ask: what calculated tactics may we reasonably trust are in play?

Biden has played politics well enough. I'll grant that. Especially while navigating the obscenely successful obstructionist Republican strategies which strangle the Legislature. The fact he's accomplished anything of note in this climate could reasonably be spun as impressive.

Is the bar for America's "left-wing" set so low, and the expectation they'll cow to corporate interest so common (and rightly so), that this spin, these accomplishments, are honestly lauded as the laurels on which the Biden administration may ride to a second term? Forgiving student debt. Ensuring fairer access to home loans. Expanding healthcare coverage for veterans. All good things! No doubt. Is it fair to expect the American people to think this is enough? While higher education, homes, and healthcare become increasingly inaccessible?

Addressing symptoms in this way placates the agitated while maintaining the status quo and setting precedent to, ostensibly, address root cause at a later time. It assumes that the wheel of progress turns slowly. That progress will win out if it is patient and persistent and noble.

The past twelve years have proven this is not so.

The religious right-wing has worked diligently over the last ~70 years to create the current theocratic zeitgeist on which the MAGA parasite is parading to victory. It is not a sudden and surprising uncoordinated incidental movement preying on the Bible belt's misguided moral anxieties. Haphazardly funneling the reactionary rhetoric of today into a Four Years Hate to seize power and further the ideology of Paul Weyrich. No. It is a dedicated effort. A calculated tactic. Others are replicating it and fascism is on the rise world 'round.

Successful opposition to the oligarchy-backed, well organized, long-planned, and now popular out and proud American fascist hate campaign will not be found in treating symptoms or placating concerned citizens or maintaining the status quo. What, then, is the Progressive answer? What tactic is the Biden Administration, or the Democratic Party, or anyone anywhere deploying that we should "grow the fuck up" and wait to see the impact of? Why should I, or any concerned citizen, trust that this is so?