I personally had found it very difficult, and it absolutely destroyed my mental health (it was essentially the trigger for me to get therapy).
Granted my mental health wasn't great to begin with.
You should have good photos. Like get a professional photographer if you can afford it, otherwise YouTube tutorials and a friend/camera timer. The picture is the first thing people see and their choice of whether to read the message at all or scroll onto the next person will depend on the photo.
I had minimal matches for 2-3 years taking my own photos, like between 1-3 I think. I asked my buddy's GF to take some pictures of me playing with their dogs, and asked her to choose which ones went up from a woman's perspective. Not my first choices but it was a complete 180 for me. Had matches within the week, and I'm currently dating my last match from 4 years ago.
thank you - it's very hard continually coming up with perky, happy sounding chat up lines and sending them off into the ether with little response. how do i even know how well i'm doing?
A full 100% sounds weird. It means complete overlap with the ASD assessment which itself isn't bulletproof. Weird like there were some mistakes in the data. E.g. all ASD pictures taken on the same day and getting a date timestamp, "ASD" written in the metadata or filename, or different light in different lab.
I didn't see any immediate problems in the published paper, but if these were my results I'd be to worried to publish it.
It sounds like the model is overfitting the training data. They say it scored 100% on the testing set of data which almost always indicates that the model has learned how to ace the training set but flops in the real world.
I think we shouldn’t put much weight behind this news article. This is just more overblown hype for the sake of clicks.
If it helps, I see at least one downvote on pretty much any post with more than 10 upvotes, regardless of the content. So don’t take it personally. And I hope your day gets better. Some days are just shitty, and that’s ok. Just do what needs to be done on those days, try to be nice to people, and look forward to the better days that will definitely come.
I'm going through the NHS and about 2 years into a 3 year waiting list. There's something called 'Right to Choose' where you can get a diagnosis/assessment (I guess there's a formal difference but effectively the same as far as I'm concerned) from some practices which are paid for through NHS funding. That tends to be quicker. There's quite a bit of information from people asking the same question on the autism sub Reddit. If you go private and not Right to Choose, I'd expect to pay between 1-2k.
As We See It was good. The autistic characters each had their own issues, strengths, difficulties communicating with neurotypical people and finding their ways to fit in (or not) in the world, and were actually played by people on the spectrum. Everyone I know who's seen it really enjoyed it. It's a shame that they didn't get picked up for a second season, because the writing, story arcs, acting, and character development were all great.
I don't understand the confusion here. Yes, it's interesting and entertaining to watch people on TV deal with issues that don't affect me and that I don't have to accommodate, and it's not interesting, entertaining, or fun to watch my brother deal with those issues in real life, or that we have to walk on eggshells at family holidays so my brother in law doesn't have a meltdown. Duh. It's also entertainment to watch a show where an important character dies, but extremely difficult and uncomfortable when your actual friend loses a spouse or child.
Society loves things that are difficult on TV, and in real life society prefers things that are easy.
Yeah, but one thing useful to tell a good person from a bad one is that they are conscious of this at least when you point out their behavior of this kind to them. Sometimes people consider themselves good because they like watching and reading about people doing good things, and are in denial about the contrast with their own real actions. Or have the gall to behave as if the latter matters less.
Flash news people like fiction not as a representation of reality but as a stylized, idealized versión of it, that's why you see beautiful people, not fat, ugly or old. So it's autistic quirky and not every day autistic.
I'm aware it's an impopular opinion but that doesn't make it less true. And you can gauge it by how popular it is.
that’s why you see beautiful people, not fat, ugly or old
I frankly don't usually agree with Hollywood ideas of "beautiful". Which is also the reason I'm watching mainstream movies (and I'm not a cinema enthusiast, so mainstream is all I watch) less and less - those ideas are becoming even more narrow and specific over time. I'm feeling as if some subculture's or even some little group's idea of "cool" is being shoved down my throat, in appearances and writing and cinematographic language even.
In my personal opinion people I know are in average more beautiful than Hollywood faces active now.
I said fiction, not Hollywood. And yes you can have your own preferences, I'm not saying that you can't, just that what we call mainstream is the representation of objective beauty.
those ideas are becoming even more narrow and specific over time
Depending on who you ask, somebody would tell you it's the contrary.
Nope, facial and body symmetry can determine if someone is considered universally beautiful.
And it's not limited to humans, animals and plants can be considered universally beautiful.
The sea and the starry sky, a sunset, the moon etc, if it moves emotion within you then it's beautiful, and there are things that move the world entirely.
Nope, facial and body symmetry can determine if someone is considered universally beautiful.
Facial and body symmetry is ugly or at least scary. You've just never seen people with that.
Other than that - beauty is by definition your own opinion on whether something looks good or bad. If there's a single person in the world who disagrees - then it's not universal. If there is none, but there may be the next moment - then it's not universal.
and there are things that move the world entirely
Nothing moves the world entirely. Majority vote doesn't apply here and even the 3 (or up to 7, whatever) sigma rule doesn't.
Take a sufficiently well-centered photo, leave only the left or the right half, and replace the other one with its mirrored version. Then honestly say whether what you see is beautiful or ugly.
If you know that, just walk around here trolling, then bon appetit and ignore my advice.
Depictions of autism in media very rarely focus on anything other than what's perceived as the upsides.
Like all other forms of entertainment and marketing, it's not realistic, it's designed to present something appealing to a mass audience.
I think it’s also in the current day spirit of unquestioning inclusion. Producers can’t make a more nuanced or even unlikeable neurodivergent character because there would definitely be backlash for harping on a marginalized group. Even if the character is written with the best of intentions in mind
Well in past autism was only shown in extreme forms. Like non talking just have the actor twuxh and occasionally yell. So not showing the up side, but a mix oh the poor parents and inspiring disabilities
Yeah. People have a tendency of labelling anyone that is depicted in TV shows as socially awkward as autistic. That's why so many people on twitter who simp for Dahmer on twitter refer to his supposed autism despite the fact that he was subjected to multiple psychological evaluations and never was accessed as autism.
Wednesday was socially awkward, sure... But the Munsters? From what I remember, they were depicted the same as any other sitcom family of the time; except they were physically monsters. To be fair, though, I barely remember the show from when it was on Nick at Nite when I was a kid; I might be conflagrating memories.
You are showing your age here. Granted, kinda the person who made this fault because they just said Eddie and expected everyone to know which Eddie. They mean Eddie from stranger things.
How does counter culture have any relation to actual neurological conditions. I think that’s the questions people are asking. This whole post is insulting and stupid to actual neurodivergent people.
If you haven’t even seen the show, why are you defending the characterization? If you had seen the show, you would know Eddie Munson is not socially awkward, especially compared to most of the other main characters who actually are portrayed that way.
I'll take your money if you're throwing it away. A truck like this would thrive only on opportunism, no one is traveling to get this food. Having it be cash only would absolutely kill it.
On the more neurotypical side of things, in adults, crying is usually associated with being mentally or physically wounded in a bad way, not just frustrated. So a neurotypical partner will likely receive this as a red flag danger signal that requires immediate intervention. But from their perspective it is just gum which is not a big deal to them. This leaves them in the middle of a paradox of incompatible conclusions (emergency and just gum) that is likely to frustrate them as well (maybe a frustrated as you are they just show it differently).
If you can, share with them that you know that it is just gum and try to express to them that you know your reaction is abnormal but it is not something you can stop, and to please be patient while you fight this battle. Put it on a card in advance if you need to do you can give it to them without needing to talk. Knowing that you know you are giving what they see as an inappropriate social signal and are trying to fix it should help them by telling them you acknowledge that this isn't a red flag emergency and that you are already trying to solve the problem but it will take time, so they know that they aren't expected to have an immediate fix, and you acknowledge that then not being to fix it doesn't mean that they are a bad partner.
Autism
Newest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).