His unemotionality. The way he speaks formally. His precise mannerisms. The way he always seems to be putting on a facade, like he’s an alien pretending to be human.

I don’t think he was intended to come across as autistic, he just vaguely seems like it.

The ones that come to mind:

• Captain Raymond Holt in Brooklyn 99
• Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory
• Mr Spock from Star Trek
• Gus Fring (maybe), Gale and Lydia from Breaking Bad
• Abed from Community

https://proton.me/support/human-verification

Would you say they fail to make things better at all, or that the things they do is insufficient?

Why do you think the UN is a joke?

To me it depends on the context. In a new job, I take a humble stance and repeat to myself:

• I don’t know the full context
• I don’t know who is smart and and who isn’t
• I have my own biases

And I just work according to instructions assuming the higher up’s have a roughly good idea what they are doing.

After a few months, you can start understanding the broader context and spot some mistakes. Then you can start making suggestions.

It’s not a bullshit rationalization, she’s absolutely right. And given her level of analysis, if her parents have a legit reason to ask her to fix her behavior they just have to say the actual thing instead of relying on trite bullshit.

I’m confused. What is rude about “Want to save this file”? What would be the non rude way of asking it?(English is not my first language)

Personally I treat my windows pc as a gaming console. I play games on it and nothing else. Then it becomes a non issue: so what if they track my gaming activity?

I think his idea was to reduce visibility of harmful content (like exclude it from the algorithm, or maybe just penalize it heavily) without fully banning it.

I suppose downvotes are also a solution (up to a point - doesn’t work unless there is a strong enough consensus).

But even if these don’t work it doesn’t mean censorship is the only solution. Just because we don’t have a good idea doesn’t mean nobody will.

Radication and disinformation are serious problems and some censorship is better than nothing - but still seems like there has to be a better way.

Having a social media platform that doesn’t rely on censorship to resolve the cesspit problem.

Unfortunately, people are more than happy to back censorship if it’s against ideas they dislike.

That’s not what I said. I just said the cost was significant, because you said “at no cost”. I didn’t say I would never pay it.

Also, twice now you’ve relied on wild hyperbolic statements to make your point. If I may offer some advice - I think avoiding those is better online, as they makes your comments seem like emotional knee-jerk, which undermines your credibility.

The cost is dishonesty, which to me is significant.

A more generic and neutral way to make this distinction is low needs vs high needs (low need being roughly same as high functioning).

Many people get upset when claims are made about intelligence. This alternate naming sidestep the problem.