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

Post by keybrd-intrrpt » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 9:36 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #147

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't you see how the fact that many cases are individual makes it harder? You mention doorknobs, and it's easy to declare (which is why the US government has declared) that lever style door handles are more accessible and should be preferred. It's hard, impossibly so, to construct a world where nobody with wrist mobility problems will ever encounter a round doorknob they'd like to open.

> it's hard, impossibly so, to construct a world where nobody with wrist mobility problems will ever encounter a round doorknob they'd like to open. its not that hard to get to 99.999% though. stop selling door knobs, or doors that accept round knobs. add incentives to swap or return round knobs. include checks for round knobs both for building inspections and insurance. you wont wont get the last couple people that…

Post by keybrd-intrrpt » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 9:44 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #142

TulliusCicero wrote: post #6

While I can understand the frustration and the author makes some good points, a lot of the anger feels oddly misplaced. Yes, engineer types want to solve problems with inventions rather than overhauling the entire nation's infrastructure. Maybe, just maybe, that's because inventing something is actually within their grasp, whereas wholesale replacing every civil engineer and architect in the country isn't? Or replaci…

> Sure, spending more on transit is a good idea, but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there. mind you, tech companies are also lobbyists with money, and are happy to pay politicians to not build infrastructure that would make the self driving or electric cars less useful

Post by eli_gottlieb » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 10:06 PM UTC

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #180

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people have to be the relatively poor compared to the rest Why? And not why in terms of a trivial statistical tautology, where a bell curve has to have a left tail. Why , in terms of, what downstream causal effect of deliberately maintaining large cohorts of poor people accomplishes something desirable?

The cynic in me says that the visible presence of people dying on the street is very much intended to send a message, "work hard or this will be your fate".

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 10:38 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #178

s1artibartfast wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the sibling said, It is mostly legal and political gridlock, not engineering. They would have to put that 9 billion into a political takeover of the US government, a major rewriting of environmental and property laws, and silencing/steamrolling opposing interest groups. This is a pretty tall order.

They managed it for AI. How much did it cost for AI?

Post by MSKJ » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 10:54 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #127

jnovek wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Social Model of disability The best way I’ve heard this articulated is: Under the medical model, disabled individuals are expected to change their behavior to accommodate (fit on with) society. We ask people whose lives are already more difficult than average to do additional work. Under the social model, we ask all able-bodied people to accommodate disabled individuals instead. Further, the social model says t…

> Under the social model, we ask all able-bodied people to accommodate disabled individuals instead. This sounds good in the abstract, but the devil is in the details. What specific accommodation is being asked for? What counts as a disability? For example, should I simply have to ignore angry outbursts directed at me and my coworkers from someone with oppositional defiance disorder[1]? Am I supposed to take someone'…