I definitely get where you're coming from. But this is a way forward when big changes are otherwise impossible. Civilian review boards are a concrete suggestion that can be modeled on similar programs elsewhere in law enforcement. They are a relatively minor change and require little infrastructure beyond a conference room, and can have an outsized impact.

I see, thanks.

I'm not really an expert on this, but a major piece is the idea that fears (and our thoughts about them) aren't based in reality. Often times for ND people, they are indeed based in reality. Changing how we think about these things doesn't help, and can often harm.

It's obviously very personal, YMMV, but there are good alternatives in many cases.

I was referring to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as the CBT that could be harmful to some neurodivergent people.

CBT can be harmful in many cases, including to many neurodivergent people. Just often worth being cautious and looking into alternatives.

This is a reason it's important to get your name on petitions. Safety in numbers.

Totally. But try getting management to understand.

Grim Dawn has a new expansion coming next year too.

Godus had real promise, I played the early release. Absolutely never delivered on what it promised, implicitly or explicitly, though.

This is a fancy way of victim blaming. People don't deserve to be bullied in any context.

I get that some people are willing to sacrifice others to achieve change. I'm not of that belief. If me personally sacrificing myself could lead to change it would be a much harder question to answer. But I'm definitely not willing to risk others on a protest vote.

I mean, backing their heyday, word processors were considered a pretty solid upgrade over an electronic typewriter, with a price tag to reflect that.

Not op but I suppose 'us' is people with less privilege than those who could reliably survive in a Trump dictatorship. People for whom a Trump presidency is an existential threat.

This seems more similar to word processors prior to PCs taking over that functionality.

Tone is tough online. You're probably trying to be helpful, but some people will read a strongly worded direct suggestion as unfounded criticism. Acknowledging the other opinion as valid before offering the suggestion is one way to soften the tone without massively changing the core of your point.

"As long as there's a record deal we'll always be friends"

They've begun to enshittify their reviews. Used to be almost no meme reviews, now they're everywhere because people can get awards for them. And they of course the ability give awards require you spend money on Steam.

I used to trust "overwhelmingly positive" on games I was considering. Now I don't. I still read some steam reviews but also reviews across the web, too.

Steam is getting close to me not treating it as the only place to buy games.

This piece was written by a highly-regarded scifi author a year and a half ago. I say that not to complain about the age but rather to marvel at the authors ability to describe so well something that is only becoming clear to many a year and half later.

Someone probably knows the answer. Ask around. This should include either customers or customer advocates. If nobody knows the answer, then do the simplest thing that accomplishes what you need in order to proceed. Sometimes that means doing nothing. If there are multiple ways to accomplish what you need, do the one that leaves you in a more flexible state for future changes. You can bring up your choices or decisions to team members if you need, possibly during a standup or just ad-hoc.

If you aren't empowered to take one of those steps, then you are in a dysfunctional environment, in that case, collect your salary and keep your head down, and if you are so inclined, try to find a new company or team to join.

I'm so mixed on that book. Lot of great info in it, some good thoughts on child development. But soooo much moral panic under the guise of science. The data used is fundamentally unable to establish a causal link.

Yes putting real life focus on children and relationships is a great thing for child development. So I guess a book furthering a moral panic to do so, while purporting to be above moral panic isn't fundamentally evil.

I'm worried it helps create a boogeyman, though, and the children it seeks to help are being harmed by the backdrop of the existential crises of our time like global warming, the authoritarian wave, etc, and social media / phones is just the most convenient vector through which this all flows.