Okay, first, autism is in the DSM. It's just as much a mental illness as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or any other thing in the DSM.

And to be clear, as with literally any other mental illness in the DSM, you can be affected by it to different degrees. The autism banner isn't just the people who struggle with social cues. It covers everything from that to people who are non-verbal and can't leave their house by themselves.

All that said, it feels to me like you're drawing the lines in the sand where they make you feel good, not where they make objective sense.

It feels like you're saying that we shouldn't hold autistic people accountable for being a particular type of asshole because they "just can't understand." That's dehumanizing my guy. I know a lot of autistic people. The vast majority of them have learned good social etiquette. Is it harder for them? Sure. Are they always perfect? No. But they recognize that to be a good member of society they'll have to work harder in some areas to overcome certain things.

It's not about hating a blind person because they can't see. It's about hating a blind person for repeatedly and unapologetically kicking you in the shins. The solution to reduced capacity isn't to ignore and excuse it. It's to be understanding and patient as they do the work to overcome it.

There are plenty of people with narcissism or schizophrenia who are excellent, fully functioning members of society who are just as good of people as you or I. Who love their friends and neighbors and don't lean on their condition as an excuse for their behavior. Is it a god-aweful amount of work and introspection to do so? Absolutely. Is it easy? Absolutely not. But they have agency the same as you or me. The same as someone with autism. But some people choose to overcome. Some choose to embrace the treatments and therapies needed to allow them to be a good neighbor and friend and citizen. And they have the agency to do so.

So the mentally ill have no agency? A person with autism is no better than an animal, unable to rise above their condition in any way?

It seems to me that proclivity is an explanation, not an excuse. The same way that upbringing or bad influences are an explanation, not an excuse.

Why is some who's "demanding respect they don't deserve" an asshole as opposed to just someone who's suffering from mental problems that make them act that way?

How would you differentiate "someone with mental problems" from "someone who behaves in a way that is opposed to what I believe is 'right'"?

It doesn't have to not hit pedestrians. It just has to hit less pedestrians than the average human driver.

That is what we're debating, yes.

If it could be conclusively proven that a system like this has saved a child's life, would that benefit outweigh the misuse?

If not, how many children's lives would it need to save for it to outweigh the misuse?

True, but I don't know why you'd reload after 8 if that were the case.

Sure, maybe, but I'd also say you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Yes, we should absolutely have better mental healthcare safety nets. Yes, false positives are probably a pretty common prank.

But this isn't a zero sum game. This can work on tandem with a therapist/counsellor to try and identify someone before they shoot up a school and get them help. This might let the staff know a kid is struggling with suicidal ideation before they find the kid OD'd on moms sleeping pills.

In an ideal world would this be unnecessary? Absolutely. But we don't live in that ideal world.

That argument could be expanded to any tool though.

People run people over with cars or drive drunk. Ban cars?

People use computers to distribute CP. Ban computers?

People use baseball bats to bludgeon people to death. Ban baseball?

The question of if a tool should be banned is driven by if its utility is outweighed by the negative externalities of use by bad actors.

The answer is wildly more nuanced than "if it can hurt someone it must be banned."

You say "the last time this happened" as if this wasn't a generalized trend across all schooling for the past decade or so.

Out of the tens of thousands of schools implementing systems like this, I'm not surprised that one had some letch who was spying on kids via webcam.

And I'm all for having increased forms of oversight and protection to prevent that kind of abuse.

But this argument is just as much of a "won't someone think of the children" as the opposite. Just cause one school out of thousands did a bad thing, doesn't mean the tech is worthless or bad.

The word I would contest is "inoperable."

The system is more than just a retrospective yes or no after 10 years. You have to work with the DoEd to submit paperwork from your employer to make sure they qualify. You have to work with the DoEd to make sure the type of payments or deferments you're doing are qualified. Etc.

There have been government employees actively working with people on this for the whole of the 17 years. This is a program that has, in fact, "been around for a long time" in a meaningful way.

Yes, the Trump Administration did a good awful job in trying to intentionally eff it up. But people were in fact able to get through it.

Right now, I know several people who are just a few payments away from being able to qualify, but can't due to payment freezes with the Mohela cutover and all the legal stuff going on with it. Which, to be clear, I'm not blaming on the Biden administration. But it isn't like the program has made much meaningful headway in the past 4 years either.

And it seems like this is the easier battle to win than general student loan forgiveness. Expand PSLF. Reduce the term to 5 years and reduce the administrative burdens and overhead. Allow a wider range of zero-cost-payment deferments to count as "qualified payments" towards the total payment number needed.

These would be expansions on policy that have been unchallenged for the past 17 years. That passed through both houses of Congress. This is an easy win that would help ease the burden of millions of Americans. Especially teachers who are cripplingly underpaid and often require a masters degree.

This article feels pretty disingenuous to me.

It glosses over the fact that this is surveillance on computers that the school owns. This isn't them spying on kids personal laptops or phones. This is them exercising reasonable and appropriate oversight of school equipment.

This is the same as complaining that my job puts a filter on my work computer that lets them know if I'm googling porn at work. You can cry big brother all you want, but I think most people are fine with the idea that the corporation I work for has a reasonable case for putting monitoring software on the computer they gave me.

The article also makes the point that, while the companies claim they've stopped many school shootings before they've happened, you can't prove they would have happened without intervention.

And sure. That's technically true. But the article then goes on to treat that assertion as if it's proof that the product is worthless and has never prevented a school shooting, and that's just bad logic.

It's like saying that your alarm clock has woken you up 100 days in a row, and then being like, "well, there's no proof that you wouldn't have woken up on time anyway, even if the alarm wasn't there." Yeah, sure. You can't prove a negative. Maybe I would usually wake up without it. I've got a pretty good sleep schedule after all. But the idea that all 100 are false positives seems a little asinine, no? We don't think it was effective even once?

To be fair, it's a little disingenuous to start counting from the time the first person became eligible, as all the rules had to be in place for over a decade prior to that.

You're framing it as a program that's been around for 7 years, when the reality is that it's been 17.

Don't disagree with most of your points, but the program itself has been around for quite a while.

Could also be a correlation due to people who actually get diagnosed with dyslexia/dysgraphia being more likely to live in places that are more affluent or with better mental healthcare.

That would tend to correlate with generally more accepting populations.

How do you differentiate what you're calling psychological torture here from just bog standard negative anticipation?

Is it psychological torture if I tell a child that we're going to the doctor because they need to get their flu shot? They have to sit and live with that dread for the whole ride over.

If this is in some way a difference of kind, what differentiates them? What is the key characteristic that separates the two?

Is the only difference one of degree? That hurting someone in this way just a little bit is fine, but there's some amount of damage that makes it unacceptable?

Or is it that the ends justify the means? That it is psychological torture to tell a child about the flu shot, but that the need to get the shot outweighs the negative of the torture? If so, and if someone truly believes that capital punishment is correct in a given case, why would the same argument not be valid?

Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?

Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.

I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it's the least bad of the terrible options.

As an aside, I'm arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn't an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.

Fair. I presume that they meant publicly available in the sense that it was accessible to the public, not in the sense that it was necessarily free.

The article says they are using PimEyes, which I assume means that they're paying for a subscription.

They did mention a name. Publicly available database called PimEyes apparently.

It's in the article. Public database called PimEyes.

It doesn't go into much more detail than that. Says it's an open to the public face searching database.

That all sounds like it sucks, but I don't think it's as hopeless as I'm sure it feels.

Obviously this is just a snapshot into your life, and I'm sure there are more details under the hood, like what exact "adult responsibilities" and stuff you've got going on. That said, even in this text I think you've outlined a good bit of good stuff you've got going on.

First, I don't know why you think conflict deescalation isn't an absolutely in demand skill. Every job under the sun has conflict, and being able to manage that is huge. Even within Engineering, you could put that to huge use as a Sales Engineer or some other customer facing technical role.

Second, you got your bachelor's in an engineering discipline. You can poo-poo your grades all you want, but at the end of the day you succeeded. No mean feat my man. That's worth celebrating.

Finally, if you're simply looking for a way out, there are institutions that are always looking for technical people. Obviously this is gonna vary a lot by country, so ymmv, but the government/military is always in need of people in technical roles, and rarely are able to fill them. It probably doesn't pay nearly what a "normal" engineering job would, but it'd be more than an internship, and it would give you some of that structured camaraderie that you previously felt the lack of when trying to leave.

All that to say, don't give up hope my guy. I know I'm just some schmuck on Lemmy of all places, but I think you're capable of breaking out and getting to a better place.

You got this!