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

deleted by creator

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.

That used to be true. Speaking strictly constitutionally “invisible” is still a bit of an overstatement but not unfair. Regardless modern US VPs have some standardized additional roles (National Security Council member being the biggest one) and others assigned per administration which can and reportedly have impacted the administrations they’re party to.

I’m not sure I take your point about Harris’ invisibility in particular. She’s set a new record in her capacity as President of the Senate by casting the most tie-breaker votes in US history. On the flip side she’s drawn a lot of flak while working on the Central America Forward initiative (justified or not is a separate discussion). Her perceived invisibility isn’t because she hasn’t been getting publicly visible work done.

1. Her father is Jamaican.
2. Ultimately we all descend from African-born people. That doesn’t mean all humans are Black.
3. Charlize Theron is African. She’s not Black.
4. Black, as a label, is as much a shared cultural and countercultural identity as it is a familial heritage and racial identity.
5. Your position is misinformed at best, reads worse, and is a weird hill to die on either way.

How?

Because the only things the other side of the aisle wants to deliver are stillborn.

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.