all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 49 points 2 months ago

Starts off strong, devolves into to massive loser territory surprisingly quick.

  • source
  • [–] 67 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It was inspiring and motivational until they basically admitted they can't do their job without generating AI slop.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I was on his side until then.

    Well, as much as I can be on anyone's side who willingly uses LinkedIn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Ignoring the AI part, I don't think it was motivational at all. He reeks of "You'll all see" energy. It's cringe as a teenager. And this is a grown ass man.

    People who do these things don't need to announce it to the world. They just do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Weird flex but the intentions are cute. I actually operate the same way: be underdog, always do the right thing, even at your own expense. But the audacious asshole of it all...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago*

    I think it's because it reads like every other self-aggrandizing LI post. Even if I agree with it, my brain just goes "This is an ad. You're reading an ad." It comes off as cheesy and phony, because I know it's just there to farm engagement. I have to ask myself whether they even believe what they're writing. I will say this comes off as more convincing than, say, those managers who post stuff like how the right way to treat your employees is to not micro-manage them and don't force them to come to work when they're sick. (Wow! So insightful! +1)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    I remember a similar guy who made some products that changed the world, Ted Kaczynski.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    I've got $50 against ya.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Can we not say Asperger's anymore? As someone who was diagnosed with it back when it was called that, preferably let's NOT call it that anymore.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    Why? Sure it's just autism now, but is there something wrong asperger that we should really avoid it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    "However, self-identification using the Asperger label became much rarer (going from 51 percent in 2018 to 19 percent in 2022, according to one set of polls) following the publication of the 2018 Edith Sheffer book Asperger's Children. The book revealed that the label's namesake was complicit in the [Nazis' murder of disabled children]"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics "Nazi eugenics").

    from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    The medical label is ASS the cultural one is neurodivergent.

    Asperger colluded with the nazis, in his defense he rationalised that either all his patients would be killed unless he did something. But what he did speaks for itself.

    He started differentiating between genius autism “asperger” and dumb autism. He displayed how his personal favourite patients where cabable of high level economic work of benefit to the reich. saving them, sacrificing all the others.

    Under his collaboration he send of dozens of children deemed “untreatable” or “lacking community spirit” to be murdered trough lethal injections. He wad deemed a fully trustworthy cog in the nazi regime.

    He also didn’t believe autism could exist in girls but later did show doubts. Still all clinical testing is still focused on the male form of autism and many women go undiagnosed because of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago
    [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    we should stop taking so much abuse

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    guess i could hire the guy if he was just going to baby-sit some shit system by himself.

    ... if there is a 5% chance he needed to interact with a single other human there is no way on this planet i'm hiring that.

  • source