Yeah, this guy doesn't speak for persons with Autism. He's trying to make an 'autistic culture' thing, acting like his disorder is just a choice, a valid social model. Unfortunately autism is not a social model, it is a disorder that ruins lives.
Yeah I read the article, and his rejection of 'people with autism' is akin to 'deaf culture' nonsense. Autism is a tragic, often crippling disorder and this guy wants it to be a culture. That's fine, he can feel however he wants and construct his identity however he feels best about himself. Calling a person 'it' is considerably worse, though, and that's what I was objecting to above.
It's not used 'too broadly.' Autism is a disorder on a spectrum. Some people have mild autism, some people have moderate and some people have severe autism. These are technical terms.
Also calling people 'autistic' and later calling people with autism 'it' as in 'try to injure itself' is a really shitty way to talk about human beings. Check yourself.
@angersock yeah, exactly like the next batch of shitbag YC kids hiring a COO. Because apparently that's who he's trying to get employed by. It's weird that you seem to think that this crowd are shallow children and yet somehow don't think that they will retaliate against public criticism.
Exactly. These things are ugly and this is a cautionary tale for anyone looking to work for a new startup but it's also really important to keep from looking like a bitter employee who will turn on you and make you look evil if things don't work out.
@ davidw: oh yeah I don't mean that this guy actually is whining, or that he didn't get screwed by jerks. I'm just saying that you can get screwed even harder by handling things like this in the wrong way, no matter what the rights and wrongs of the situation actually are. Reputations are important.
Because the individual needs something, and the startup does not. what do they care if he is pissed? He's some unemployed dude they'll never have to deal with again. Meanwhile potentially having them as a resource who will say 'oh yeah Ex Employee was a really great guy, we regret losing him, definitely hire him if you can' is pretty much the only positive he's gonna get from this experience. Complain about them and you don't even get good word of mouth from the, just a ton of wasted time and an angry story to tell.
YCombinator people talk to one another. they go to meetups. San Francisco is an incestuous little town. It's hard to break into and having bad blood with people on the inside can make it harder.
Of course it is, don't be naive. The people he's talking about are in a position to badmouth him right back, end even if they don't he can get a reputation for being a whiner who will turn on people who hire him the moment things don't work out. If you think that publicly criticizing your ex-employers isn't harmful to your future prospects then you're crazy. No one wants to hire someone who might turn around and complain about them to all and sundry if things go poorly.
Speeding is extremely dangerous. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise. A third of crashes (including fatal crashes) involve speeding, and the faster you are driving the more likely you are to die or fatally injure another.
Also, changing the speed limits on roads have been studied and it doesn't make a humongous difference. The government usually sets the speed limit at slightly lower than the average speed people actually drive.
Pretty misleading title. Yes, commercial and private planes have been shot down in the past. Yes, American commercial planes still fly through airspace where there is fighting on the ground. No, most of these places do not have access to weapons that can strike something flying at 30,000 feet or more. Israel's flights were cancelled because a missile hit a house just a mile away from the airport, where planes taking off and landing are particularly vulnerable. That doesn't mean that we should stop flying everywhere someone has a stinger missile launcher and is crazy enough to point it at Delta flights. Unless the people waging war have something on par with the BUK rocket that shot down Malaysian Air Flight 17 you've got little to worry about when you're 30,000 feet in the air. And only actual states have those. No one needs to be afraid to fly over Afghanistan.
Talking to a lawyer is not a step towards a lawsuit, is a step towards knowing your options. You don't have to sue, and in fact unless there is a lot of money involved that's probably the last thing you want to do. But saying "I don't want to sue, therefore I will not talk to a lawyer" is stupid and dangerous. Talk to a lawyer, and tell the lawyer "What are my options? I don't want to sue these people but..." and they will help you chart a course.
You can't assume it's not intentional, and we don't have enough info to know if this claim is small or not. Really the only thing to do is to talk to a lawyer. You should already have a lawyer since you've got a contract: talk to them. If you don't have a lawyer, then get one immediately. No one who runs a business should be without legal advice.
Talk to your lawyer. Don't waste time faffing around with this. You don't have to sue them but you do need to get advice from a legal professional who specializes in this kind of thing.
This isn't clearly written (English not the first language?) but the gist of it is actually interesting: the implication is that controversial or provocative posts get pruned from facebook (or at least buried under a view more comments button) and the less controversial ones rise to the top. Unfortunately it's a pretty poorly done experiment but it might be worth looking into.
They aren't, though. Zombies are vastly inferior in all ways (including destructive potential) to their videogame-playing foes. You shoot them down in their thousands.
This is the attitude of a bullying victim. Bullies leave you alone if you fit in, they don't leave you alone if you don't. It's not about being awesome or resilient, it's about conformity.
A lot (edit: all) of these are dumb correlation = causation crap. The most egregious one is the "don't win awards" point, on which all the following ones are predicated. The suggestion that you can have better performance by not winning the award in the first place is indescribably poorly thought out. It's the same as the Sports Illustrated curse. Think it through: if you win an award, you presumably are at the top of your field, at the high point of your career and your powers. There are those demigods who go from strength to strength, and being the best is the norm for them, but the vast majority of people only reach those heights for a few months or years before their performance normalizes. The awards don't cause your performance to suffer, they simply mark your high-water mark, the moment when the stars aligned and you had a great team, strong vision, and everything went right for you. This doesn't happen all that often so of course everyone's going to drop off after winning an award.
Meanwhile of course you're going to write a book after winning an award, and be invited to sit on panels. And the article doesn't even give evidence that this is a bad thing: it just said that it is linked to winning awards. My God! What an astonishing result! Notably successful people are desirable and feel qualified to speak on their success! Somebody call the New York Times, I think we've got a front page for them!