Ahem.
Readit Newsd1sxeyes commented on Apple has locked my Apple ID, and I have no recourse. A plea for help hey.paris/posts/appleid/... · Posted by u/parisidau
d1sxeyes commented on Autism should not be treated as a single condition economist.com/science-and... · Posted by u/bookofjoe
I don't think having zero support needs is realistic. If you have for example sensory issues like being sensitive to bright light or having trouble eating certain food then this doesn't go away. And just living in a world made for neurotypical people will always be a bit distressing and cause social problems.
Yes, there is a bit of a contradiction in advocacy because on one hand we want to spread awareness about the natural diversity of how humans brains work and remove prejudices and celebrate that diversity but also we don't want to minimize that it is a disability and people do need help.
> I don't think having zero support needs is realistic.
I was imprecise here. What I meant here was no longer having support needs that are above the diagnostic threshold.
d1sxeyes commented on Bag of words, have mercy on us experimental-history.com/... · Posted by u/ntnbr
People can claim whatever they like. That doesn't mean it's a good or reasonable hypothesis (especially for one that is essentially unfalsifible like predictive coding).
The problem is that we don’t have a good understanding of what “thinking” really is, and those parts of it we think we do understand involve simple things done at scale (electrical pulses on specific pathways, etc).
It is not unreasonable to suspect differences between humans and LLMs are differences in degree, rather than category.
d1sxeyes commented on The Ofcom Files, Part 4: Ofcom Rides Again prestonbyrne.com/2025/12/... · Posted by u/parliament32
I mean I don't particularly agree but I can understand the sentiment.
That's not what I'm saying just harms his clients though. There's obvious (almost entirely domestic, probably counter productive as to UK politics) lobbying value in that. It's the part where he sends confessions back to the UK regulators privately that just harms his clients.
The high-profile, public, Arkell vs. Pressdram type response increases public awareness.
Without that, he’s just a guy with a blog, and can’t effect any real change. Whether it harms or benefits his clients or not is likely a question of politics. If these responses drum up enough attention that his GRANITE act gets passed, that’s arguably a better outcome for each client jointly and severally than just ignoring the letters.
d1sxeyes commented on Autism should not be treated as a single condition economist.com/science-and... · Posted by u/bookofjoe
Autism is something you are born with. It is simply who you are.
Support needs can change over time. You can need less help because you learn better coping strategies and have a stable environment or you can need more as you get older. It is not fixed.
Support needs are denoted in level because that is what system like schools and the like need. They don't really map to reality. Like for example a autistic person can have really bad sensory issues, being really sensitive to sounds, restricted diet and the like but decent social skill. Another autistic person might not have any sensory issues but really struggle with social stuff. Who needs more help? They need different kinds of help.
Thanks for replying! This above fits in much better with my previous mental model of autism: it’s intrinsic, it describes a “difference” in someone’s way of experiencing the world.
I’m still struggling to understand how this meshes with what you said above about only being autistic if you have support needs.
I don’t understand what implications that would have for someone who (for example) develops enough coping strategies that they no longer have any support needs. As far as I understand it, there’s no way to “cure” autism, so those folks would still be autistic but without support needs, which doesn’t seem to fit?
d1sxeyes commented on Autism should not be treated as a single condition economist.com/science-and... · Posted by u/bookofjoe
The more correct way is to think about it as a prisms. It is multi dimensional.
Also it is for autistic people. It grinds my gears when people say "everyone is on the spectrum", no, just no. Again it is only for autistic people and you need to have support needs to be diagnosed with autism. You don't get a diagnosis for being quirky and a little weird.
And no, just because someone is verbal and seems to be very articulate does not mean the person has low support needs or vice versa.
I find this take quite challenging, although I know it is one shared by a lot of autistic people.
I understand that if a person has no support needs, they cannot be diagnosed with autism. But that person may still be neurodivergent, and therefore to me it seems to follow that you have folks who are autistic with high support needs, and folks who are autistic with low support needs. Then, you have neurodivergent folks with no support needs. But this seems to me like a difference in degree, rather than category, and which would mean that the “spectrum” analogy works quite well.
With a clear understanding that I am not trying to minimise the struggles autistic people face, a sincere desire to learn, and an open mind, would you mind trying to help me understand?
Yes that is true (the IP is collected), what I meant is that we don't explicitly collect data on purpose.
If you’re in the EU or have users in the EU, that distinction matters, and you should be more precise. You likely have a solid legitimate use case for collecting IPs under the GDPR, but only if you’re fully transparent.
End-to-end encryption doesn't mean anything where it is semi-validly used. It's used on phones, where you as a user (or company) don't control what code executes. For example, WhatsApp was end-to-end encrypted. Well, it doesn't actually provide security because with either physical access to the phone or if you have if you can use the app store to "upgrade" the app, you can upload code to the phone. You can upload an apk that replaces the WhatsApp app. It even still uploads the messages to a central server so you can get those messages from Meta, then get the key from the phone some time later or earlier and use the key to decrypt it when the message is already erased from the phone.
(aside from the fact that people don't seem to know/remember WhatsApp backs up to google drive)
Code that then gets access to the end-to-end encryption keys ... so you're not safe from state actors, you're not safe from police, you're not safe from the authors of the code and you're not safe from anyone who has physical access to your phone.
Yes, the government can also just implant tiny cameras in your eyeballs and just record everything you see anyway, so you’re not safe.
> They're claiming "end to end" encryption, which usually implies the service is unable to spy on individual users that are communicating to one-another over an individualized channel.
It doesn't "imply", it outright states that. Their server isn't the end, it's the middle. They're not "breaking the spirit" or something, what they are doing is called lying.
What is the other “end”?
It doesn’t breach E2EE; it gives your employer control over the device. Once messages are decrypted on the phone so you can read them, anything your employer deploys via MDM (screen capture, keylogging, backup/forensics tools, admin unlock, etc.) can potentially copy them.
On a company-owned, fully managed device, you should treat MDM as roughly equivalent to handing your boss an unlocked device: anything you can see on-screen could be captured or exfiltrated by tooling they deploy.
Ah. In the EU, folks are mostly protected against that kind of overreach, even if the phone is a work device: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/up...