Policymaking for National Unity, in the Context of Special Rights

Case Study :

Recently, Malaysian trains have created special cars which may be occupied only by passengers who identify as women. In situations where the women-only cars are less congested, passengers identifying as men have asked why some women continue to occupy inclusive cars.

Abstract Concern :

Again, all policies based on the concept of special rights are structurally divisive to a common identity. This is just math. The issue to be addressed by policymakers is, GIVEN such policies, what other policies can be enacted to maximise the concept of a common identity?

Disclaimer: I am not questioning the divisive policies, or saying we should not have them. 😛

Modern Degrees of Spreadsheet Competence

• 0. WYSIWYG features : pivot tables, charts, filters
• 1. bult-in in-cell formulae, without array syntax, e.g. {x,y;x1,y1}
• 2. built-in in-cell formulae, with array syntax 
• 3. modern ( Google Sheets only ) SQL programming in-cell formulae, with query()
• 4. modern ( post 2010 ) functional programming in-cell formulae, with lambdas
• 5. scripting ( ex-cell ... lol ... programming )

Nitpicking on Fallacies in Autism Culture

There are many, in plain sight. I expect to update this post as I gradually collect dialogue or remember to pen down personal observations.

---

People who self-identify as 'autistic' seem to have a misunderstanding of whether certain traits would be considered relevant to a diagnosis of 'autism'. There are actually three parties involved in these misunderstandings.

1. professional diagnosticians
2. lay-persons who use the term 'autistic' differently from the first party
3. people who might be subject to the term 'autistic', from either or both of the first and second parties

Sometimes a person belongs to both parties 2. and 3., and this is where complications arise. But these complications seem to feed strongly into autism culture ( the culture of people who self-identify as being autistic ).

Further banter :

• Premise 1 : failure to acknowledge social rank is an insufficient criteria for diagnosing autism
• Premise 2 : there is a correlation between diagnosed autists and incapability to perceive social rank
• Premise 3 : you have a thoughtful rejection of social rank

... ergo ...

Corollary 1 : it is wrong to assert, that the diagnostic criteria for autism misinterprets 3. as your incapability to perceive social rank

Corollary 2 : it is more simply the case, that 3. is irrelevant to any diagnosis that you do, or do not, have autism

Further banter :

yes, my entire point was about the identity politics and cultural tropes of autism. Anyone is free to  identify as an 'autist' but as the scope of that group expands wider and wider, it loses its relationship to the original definition. Similar to how in gender identity, folks of any sex can freely identity with being 'man', to the point that 'man' no longer corresponds to 'male', and that's ok. With regards to autism, the gender identity which spins-off from the clinical classification, however, uses the same word for both, so this is bound to be controversial as each group will bicker about who gets to use the word, and in what context.