Live data from Hacker News

The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

sightlessscribbles.com

91–100 of 217 posts

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#91
The imbalance is profound. I once tried to find a lawyer who could handle getting accommodations for a visually impaired person I knew. In practice, we probably just needed them to draft a sufficiently stern letter notifying the operator of their responsibilities under the ADA and it would have eventually gotten handled.

I spent a while trying to find law firms that specialized in this. If you do this kind of search 99% of the results are for law firms that specialize instead in defending companies against ADA suits and helping them evade their responsibilities.

I eventually was able to find exactly one law firm via contacting the bar. They weren't interested in talking to me - they said the person with the disability would need to contact them directly and pay out of their own pocket.

Years later that website still isn't accessible.

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#92
post #32

The author is simultaneously correct and incorrect. The author is correct that simple and cheap changes such as ramps and door knobs are the logical fixes. And yes, based on personal experience, companies hate disabled people at the first sign that they will be an inconvenience to the company. However, nature has no such things. If you enjoy nature and the outdoors, then user-specific equipment can provide capabiliti…

If you are a disabled person who wants to visit the back country then the $30,000 (or more!) robot wheelchair is your only option. We shouldn't make all mountain trails ADA accessible. My local park system has a few accessible trails (the majority are not) that can get them to enjoy nature, if that isn't enough spend the money on the robot.

However I'm only willing to take the above position because there are plenty of other options. There are a lot of fully able people who live life without going to those remote places and don't miss it. I'm not fine with saying the local grocery store is not accessible - they cannot live without that. Most of what exists in a city should be accessible to everyone despite disabilities - the cost to provide this is not that high.

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#93
post #13

I thought the idea behind exoskeletons and fancy wheelchairs was that they allow handicapped people to go more places, not to substitute for better infrastructure. I haven't seen any of the companies behind these devices claim that they make such improvements obsolete. And as the post mentions, such infrastructure is useful for anyone with luggage, a stroller, or a hand truck. And yes, the cost of such devices is hig…

Sure, but only if you want to do that. I have a wheelchair bound friend who uses a $20,000 tracked wheelchair when he goes camping (I've never been camping with him, so I'm not sure how he sets up his tent...). However most people in wheelchairs don't care that much about camping and are happy to do without - which they can do because the places they want to go don't need the expensive tools. For most places the cost to make something disabled friendly is minimal.

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#94
post #33

I’m inclined to think of Apple, who seem to bake accessibility deeply into their products. From my point of view, maybe their investment in accessibility has led to emergent breakthroughs in hardware design. This is just my impression however

This is absolutely true, although I'd broden it to "systems design" since software is part and parcel of the advancements. An example that comes to mind is AssistiveTouch for for Apple Watch (2021), which ultimately drove the requirement for a faster low-power Neural Engine, and which then evolved into Watch's mainstream Double Tap interaction (2023).

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#95
post #32

The author is simultaneously correct and incorrect. The author is correct that simple and cheap changes such as ramps and door knobs are the logical fixes. And yes, based on personal experience, companies hate disabled people at the first sign that they will be an inconvenience to the company. However, nature has no such things. If you enjoy nature and the outdoors, then user-specific equipment can provide capabiliti…

> cheap changes such as ramps My aunt has MS. It cost her nearly $10k to have a _used_ aluminum ramp installed for her house. She can't come to my house because the gap between the buildings that leads to my door is too narrow for a wheelchair and would require is to get two different building owners, who are not our landlord, to agree to have their building modified to make room for it. It would easily cost 50k+ to…

I used cheap as a relative term. But $10k for a ramp seems like someone got gouged. A couple hundred in lumber etc and a couple hundred for labor is doable in many cases. I see those wooden ramps at homes often.

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite enjoy playing with robots, but I'd rather coordinate the design and installation of 1000 ramps than be involved with one walking liability sedan chair. If you care about results and reliability, no shit a competent engineer will be picking the one that has no moving parts and a 10,000 year track record.

The fact that this is or isn't happening is basically unrelated to inventing new stuff. It's almost entirely a political issue, not one of engineering.

The two are not unrelated, and perhaps the inventiveness and energy of the latter could be applied to affecting the outcomes of the former.

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#97
The author's definition of a "Disability Dongle" perfectly describes the early versions of motorized wheelchairs. Why is it such an obvious conclusion that we need remake the world to be compatible with the previous generation of disability dongle instead of building the next? At the very least, couldn't we do both?

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#98
...Is "disability dongle" the new "autonomous transit pods"?

For context, San Francisco being a city with billionaire tech oligarchs, lots of traffic, and OK but not great transit means there's a LOT of rich people who want to fix traffic by way of almost literally reinventing the wheel.

We already know how to move lots of people to a particular destination very quickly: some variation[0] of a bus or train on dedicated right-of-way. The problem is that America is specifically engineered to make operating transit unprofitable outside of high density urban areas, acquiring land for that right-of-way in high density is astronomically expensive, and increasing density limits to break this chicken-and-egg problem is a political nightmare in most places.

This is exactly the kind of problem Silicon Valley hates having to solve because it is, in a sense, the enemy. A good chunk of Big Tech got drunk on Ayn Rand, and transit in particular presents a problem that Objectivist philosophy is unwilling to engage with. To solve it requires both negotiating with the urban planning equivalent of a Soviet central planner and long-term subsidy through coercive taxation.

The pitch for all these projects is ultimately a complicated heavy engineering project to make a train seem less like a train and more like a tech product. Think like the Hyperloop, a concept for a vaccum-sealed tube in which "pods" could be shot through at high speeds. This doesn't need to exist, heavy rail can absolutely go 200mph, we can already bury it underground, and there is no need to have individualized vehicles aside from a mistaken belief that Americans are allergic to sharing space with other Americans.

The one version of this that actually got built is the Vegas Loop, which despite the name and the hype has nothing to do with Hyperloop and was just Teslas driving down a one-way tunnel. All the hype around it delayed actual transportation. As I hinted at above, federal politicians[1] in America would really rather you not take a train. Americans themselves will happily ride them[2], but getting local funding for it is a battle. And all the talk of hyperloops and pods made local politicians hold off on fighting that fight for a good decade, so there's a lot of transit we're missing, because the stupid sci-fantasy ideas never panned out.

[0] I am being very broad here - France has it's obsession with rubber-tired trains, Mexico City has an extensive BRT network that provides metro-like service frequencies.

[1] Joe Biden excluded

[2] We abuse the shit out of commercial aviation to do things high-speed trains can do better, so it's not like we're afraid to share space. The only thing is that Americans don't know how to stay quiet on a train or plane - but that doesn't make the train unprofitable or impractical.

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#99
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has been institutionally dysfunctional for quite some time, so that puts us in an interesting position where it's easier to imagine inventing our way out of social problems with $30,000 servo-filled boxes than it is to imagine ever getting a cheaper and easier solution moved through Congress. Congress rarely seems to pass disruptive changes to law these days. Statehouses are less sclerotic, but not by much. Ma…

[flagged]

Yet even if we accept your premise, he is still worlds better than the alternatives.

Re: The "Disability Dongle": Why Silicon Valley Hates Me and You

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. No, we can't let people attempt new inventions, some of which may actually help, because the mere fact that people will see them may result in less attention for more basic, important stuff. Is there solid evidence that TED talks about stair-climbing wheelchairs undermine actual regulations and investments in ramps, or is this more of a "my source is that I ma…

You replied "Letting perfect be the enemy of good" several times in the comments here. I think the sentence works against the arguments you're making: Perfect is the promise of a climb-everywhere-wheelchair. It's hypothetical, dreamed up, and causing people to forego the immediate and good solution (ramps).

You are also making the assumption that the hypothetical climb-everywhere-wheelchair is better than a ramp.

The ramp is easier to make safe, and so we need to ask about safety if it works most of the time. This also gets into maintenance, the robot with moving parts is expected to have more parts to break.

The ramp's batteries will never go dead (or if they do it doesn't matter since they are only for lights anyway?).

Post reply on HN