yterdy

IME, reminding them of themselves is far more important than any curiosity, aptitude, or drive you may bring to the table (other than in that it reflects their self-image). That similarity often creates a pseudo-familial affinity which serves as the unconscious backbone of the relationship. This is the reason why cross-ethnic and cross-gender (and cross-class, cross-sexuality, etc.) mentorship seems to happen less often than when the mentor and prospective mentee are of the same gender and ethnic identity.

You got lucky and/or are a straight white dude in a field largely occupied by straight white dudes. What happens for the rest of us is usually one of two outcomes:

a) The mentor makes an effort to support the mentee, but holds them to unreasonably high standards per unconscious bias, generally causing the relationship to disintigrate over time.

or

b) The mentor is threatened by the prospective mentee's aptitude appearing in an individual that they can't bring themselves to relate to; they will withhold support, if not actively impede their growth.

>That included writing, scene planning, editing and more. Even the Nine Old Men had “forgotten” much of what went into Disney’s older films, said animator John Pomeroy.

IME, this is an incredibly widespread problem in the Age of the Retiring Baby Boomer. Many of them jealously guarded their professional knowledge, for fear of replacement, or simply never documented it. When it comes time to pass it along to juniors, they either can't or won't; then, with little official notice, they're out the door, and you're left building from first principles or trying to make sense of process spaghetti. I'm not sure if this is better or worse than the Boomers who stay on into their 70s and 80s - still refusing to train their juniors, but also preventing the advancement that would allow younger workers to even attempt to learn the position. ...No, I suppose retirement is better. At least there's some runway, instead of the incumbent simply dying one day and leaving everyone scrambling.

EDIT: >and there was a sense among the garage artists that Disney’s management didn’t care to implement most of the lessons from Banjo.

“All of our learning is only going to do us any good,” Pomeroy remembered thinking, “if the higher-ups will accept what we’re trying to make happen.”

And there's the other side of the deal. When you make people go off and learn things on their own, they often learn... that they can go off and do things on their own. Disney sort of won in the end, but Bluth was a thorn in their side for quite a while.

You're not doing your argument any favors with this kind of hyperbole. Many animals mourn and communicate that mourning. Many animals have been shown to pass along information to others about helpful or hurtful humans, good places to hunt or forage, even elements of culture like behavior or personal calls. African wild dogs will die of a syndrome akin to heartbreak if separated from and unable to communicate with their group.

It's not too much to say that humans and other animals think and communicate differently. Most do not have the physiological capacity for certain types of advanced and abstract thought that are central to our own experience of reality. But that's a far cry from having no semblance of conscious cognition. Too many animals exhibit behavior indicating an awareness of the self as a separation from the other and the environment for your characterization to be unequivocally correct.

Also, in response to your second point: most people with domesticated pets could give examples of deception or signalling intent.

>The homepage showed a bunch of videos that were driven by a mass algorithm (and was pretty much the same experience whether a person was logged in or not).

This was good. Your experience was grounded. Same thing with every video showing the same recommendations for at least a few weeks at a time. The idea that UIs need to be constantly shuffling content so that you can't tell which way is up as you navigate and will therefore submit more fully to The Algo is poisonous.

https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1778898760971821271

1) Israel is an important intelligence ally, military foothold in the region, and both source and buyer of military research and applications. Anything that disrupts this arrangement risks hundreds of billions of dollars and the perceived national security interests of multiple countries.

2) Reparations to Palestinians would not only be extremely expensive, it would also raise questions of potential reparations to other victims of Western imperialism and apartheid, including to Native Americans, Native Austronesians, and much of the African continent and diaspora.

3) Securing the existence of Israel as an ethnostate drives political support from Western Zionists and Evangelical Christians. Even a change to a more stable, secular, multi-ethnic Israel would see not only the revocation of support but also active retaliation that, at best, would get your a chapter in a Profiles in Courage reboot.

Suffice it to say, the statement above doesn't disqualify the speaker, any more than someone saying, "The deaths in Gaza are a tragedy, but all I care about is that the hostages come home."

Thank you for the link and explanation.

Which is probably worse.

As the other reply mentioned, there is an empathy (double empathy) problem, but the answer is not for one party to have to assume responsibility for the other's comfort entirely by having to guess all of their unspoken emotional desires for the conversation. "The query explicitly didn't include [...]" is kind of a ridiculous thing to expect someone to respect or even predict.

Also, I don't mean to pick apart your comment, but:

>Neurotypical communication 101 is that a casual conversation question about your favourite things is probably a cue for you to be enthusiastic and effusive about things you care about rather than a prompt for you provide names only

I don't know that this is true. If anything, doing this seems to get on their nerves.

I'm not joking. Beyond training one to think about their location in multiple orientations, it also opens your eyes to assumptions one makes about places based on their location. West Wing famously flipped the script (literally), but there's also the lateral bias to think about. Go into Google Maps and flip it 90 degrees; does your understanding of distance, shapes, and spatial relationships of "familiar" geography change?

It's not like neurotypical people don't also experience this frustration with having to divine what people actually desire in any given quantum of communication. I would even offer that people speaking with those on the spectrum might be primed to be less generous and forgiving with that anticipatory instinct; they jump to, "This person is weird," instead of considering the ways in which their own communication style is wanting. The reason they can get away with it, and autistic people can't, is simply a matter of how many people like them are around to validate their subjective experience. See your given CS department/TTRPG club for the flipside of this dynamic.

EDIT: Might also explain the phenomenon of smug, "What you ACTUALLY wanted was-" responsed on SO. We've trained people with precise thought to assume that anyone coming to them with questions doesn't actually know what they're trying to accomplish. We've created monsters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/29/olympics-i...

COP displaced 30,000 people (though, I suppose it's not as bad as Seoul, where over 700k people lost their homes due to Olympics redevelopment).

Older people who live in cities and planned, theme park-like communities - which facilitate car-less, low-distance daily social activity outside the home - tend to do better.

Apple, Meta, Microsoft like how things are right now. These pushes are much-hyped, but they're made less out of real passion for the promise and more desperation to avoid being left behind.

We have so much stuff we don't need, and we barely scratch the surface of utility of the stuff we have before throwing it out.