glassware
One of the traits of ASD is unintentionally offending people. That doesn't mean people have to accept every rude thing an autistic person does without complaint, and they're ablist if they don't. It means you should be understanding and clearly explain boundaries. That's exactly what the original post did.
Yeah, it's annoying that some rules are usually unwritten because everyone else already knows them. It would be more annoying if everything anyone ever wrote had "Please don't respond with advice or criticism" at the end.
This rule has been written down now, clearly and very politely. Maybe you or I didn't know it before but we do now. If you refuse to listen and continue correcting strangers on social media that isn't autism, it's just being intentionally rude.
See also, signing a contract which includes opting out of EU Working Time regulations, then emailing HR to opt back in the day your probation is up. They can't deny your request or punish you for it.
And never run commands copied from a web page, even if you do know them.
JavaScript's copy/paste API means a website owner or an attacker can change the contents of your clipboard after you press copy, and you'll end up pasting malicious commands into your shell. I think Firefox blocks this now, don't know about Chrome.
What's the significance of falling forward in a moving vehicle?
An argument to convince people whose physics knowledge stops before Galileo?
People make fun of the "new towns" planned and built by post-war socialist governments in the UK, but I spent some delivering leaflets in Stevenage recently and it's honestly heaven for pedestrians.
There are roads for cars, but they all connect to the back of homes. The front of each house leads into a wide pedestrian / cycle path, and the paths connect via tunnels underneath the roads. I would walk hours each day delivering leaflets and never see a car.
Best simple magic trick I've ever seen, blows people's minds:
Cut out a piece of black paper the shape of the opening of a beer can, lick it and stick it to the lid. From a distance it should look like it's open. Prick a hole in the side with a pin and drain out a quarter of the beer, enough that you can squeeze the can and bend it. Lay it on its side on a table, with the pinhole pointing up so it doesn't leak. Now it looks like an open, empty, crushed can. Do all that secretly obviously.
Now ask someone if they want a drink, and point out the "empty" can. Pick it up and cover the pinhole with your finger, then subtly wave the can around as you magically summon more beer. The remaining beer will fizz up and the pressure will cause the can to inflate and uncrush itself. Secretly remove the black paper and hide it. Show them the magically restored lid, crack it open an pour the beer into a glass (so they don't notice it was partly empty).
What makes it so incredible is you never hid the can from them or did anything tricksy. From their POV, an empty can just refilled itself in front of their eyes.
Edit: Here's David Blaine doing it for some obvious actors. You will be able to make it more convincing than this. Can't believe David Blaine was so popular back then lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUTG-MIqU-Q
In a mastodon thread this week we estimated that banning private jet usage globally would save about 100 million tonnes of CO2, while normal Americans would save 4.5 billion tonnes by reducing their consumption to global average levels.
Disproportionate harms are annoying but a tiny minority acting disproportionately still matters way less than how normal people act. Banning private jets is pointless if nothing else changes.
So if billionaires put out a statement that they will never stop private flights, and governments announce that they won't legislate on it, what's your plan? Destroy the planet out of spite?
Yet here you are, posting on a website that doesn't allow absolute free speech.
I was really interested coming into this thread, because although I am conscious about privacy I sometimes wonder why I bother.
Unfortunately none of the counterarguments in the comments are convincing at all.
Analogies with letting someone see you naked are stupid. We're not talking about naked photos, were talking about stuff like your age range and what newspaper you read. I don't care who knows that.
"Future authoritarian governments could use it against you" isn't worth worrying about. The government will have access to official records and can question you in person. Your ethnicity, religion, politics and sexuality are all easily found out whether you post them online or not. The fact that some advertising start up knows them will make no difference.
"If someone knows enough about you they can tailor Facebook ads to control your mind" is just sci fi conspiracy theory paranoia. Besides which they could run the same ads without targeting and I'd be just as mind controlled even if my data was a secret.
Edit: I really don't mind getting downvotes, but if anyone has time to make an actual counterargument that would be great
Yes, everyone has data they care about keeping secret. But they also have data they don't care about keeping secret.
The "personal data" which big tech companies have about us is overwhelmingly data which you don't care about, and would happily tell anyone who asked. That's why most people aren't worried about it.