Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

sightlessscribbles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 219 posts

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

#171

Post by thunderfork »

orangecat wrote: post #61
chowells wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expressed (not implied) alternative in the post is for those people to stop pretending they care, and start actually caring. Stop trying to save the world. The world doesn't need an invention to save it. Just put that energy into caring about others.

The world doesn't need an invention to save it. Just put that energy into caring about others. This is an excellent summary of the sort of anti-tech thinking that I strongly disagree with. Caring about people with Alzheimer's is well and good, but what we actually want are vaccines and cures.

The dream of a vaccine or cure is all well and good, but when my grandfather has Alzheimer's today and there's no properly functioning social supports, processes, etc to get him into a home and it takes months and months of phone calls and panicked searches when he wanders off to improve the situation at all, I think maybe there really is a dearth of "caring about the problem and not just the solution"

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

#172

Post by s1artibartfast »

inigyou wrote: post #146
s1artibartfast wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all depends on the counterfactual. Could the money solve the problem, if the issues with transportation arent funding? It seems like an institutionally made black hole that will simply consume anything put into it. I dont think flooding it with more money will fix that problem. Investors have poured about 10 billion into waymo prior to 2026. That could only have paid for about 5 to 7 miles of urban light rail give…

What if investors poured 9 billion into making light rail cheaper, and then 1 billion into light rail? Where would we be then? Other countries don't spend 2 billion dollars a mile. Hire the best engineers from Europe and Asia.

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.

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

#173

Post by lkey »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #35
lkey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contributing to a net loss of funding and attention, all while making the public more ignorant and more passive , results in material harms to the population they claim to serve. This kind of self-aggrandizement at other's expense deserves to be recognized as it is and should be met with an equal measure of contempt.

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…

There's a consistent pattern of people 'solving' a minority population's 'problems' without ever looking at what problems they actually have.

I have 'solid evidence' from my time in industry where heedlessly pursuing 'innovation' got companies (including my own) sued back into compliance with the ADA. Along with deserved lost contracts and managerial beheadings.

Higher profile examples of TED talk 'innovation' killing 'the good' would be the proposed CA 'hyperloop' talk, white paper, and project scuttling high-speed rail investment for another decade plus.

What are your bona fides now that you've brought up your familiarity with both perfection and good?

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

#174

Post by rurp »

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…

> it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded

This is simply wrong in a lot of cases. Tech companies absolutely use their immense wealth and influence to alter public policy and spending. Regulation and budget decisions happen all the time to benefit a specific company or industry, at the expense of the overall public. Tech is hardly alone in this, but that industry has more money and mind share than most, and correspondingly more ability to change policies to their benefit.

The more money and hype a Disability Dongle company gets, the more interest and ability it will have to degrade less shiny but more effective alternatives.

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

#175

Post by giardini »

TFA:

"I don’t need a stair-climbing wheelchair that costs $30,000 and requires a maintenance crew. I need better doorknobs and or a ramp."

Author fails to realize that "better doorknobs and or a ramp" would incur a social cost of billions or more (even w/o adding the social cost tied to legislation, legal costs, and maintenance) as compared to his imaginary $30k "silicon dongle". That's w/o considering such questions as whether I (and all other taxpayers) should pay for a doorknob we don't need but he does. We might be more willing to buy him a SpaceX rocket and send him into orbit around the Sun.

He's a pissed-off handicapped fellow. I get that. And current society is (or once was) one that rewards people for solving their own problems instead of complaining. This may no longer be true: social media, gofundme, the metoo movement, etc. have moved the dial so that formerly "helpless" bitching can be quite rewarding, but I digress. Perhaps someday we'll be so wealthy that every individual's cares and needs are provided for. But we're not there yet.

So if I were him I might do something like go into business designing and marketing a better doorknob opener for the handicapped instead of complaining no one gives a shite. FWIW here's some SOTA at a $30 price-level:

https://www.caregiverproducts.com/handy-hook-door-opening-ai...

Got to admit that looks pretty "iffy" for opening doors, more like a personal defense weapon. In any case it might get you labelled as "Captain Hook" at the grade school (OTOH its always good to have respect, if not reverence). Anyhow, its a starting point and you can only do better!8-)

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

#176

Post by eli_gottlieb »

automatic6131 wrote: post #165
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…

I support the medical model then, disabled people who can't work should, ought, to be among the poorest in society, just above the people that can work but don't. Because some people have to be the relatively poor compared to the rest (in absolute terms though: you are richer than almost anyone alive in year 800 CE so not starving poor nor barely surviving poor) and so, who should be? Should the able working be poore…

> 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?

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

#177

Post by Yizahi »

Every day when I need to carry something in both hands (gasp, the sheer gall and audacity of such an idea!) I weep for the disabled people around. It's genuinely crazy even in the oh so social EU cities. Every single door has a goddamn door closer (which you can't even legally disconnect), automatic door needing a precise timed press of an obscure button, mandatory info hidden in some weird nooks and crannies in the bus/tram, the newfangled trend to disable traffic lights around the city for the misjudged urbanism error, graded sidewalks which looks modern but so very fun to traverse when iced (there is no bad weather in the design bureaus I guess, maybe they are all on Ibiza?) and the list goes on.

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

#178

Post by inigyou »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #172
inigyou wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if investors poured 9 billion into making light rail cheaper, and then 1 billion into light rail? Where would we be then? Other countries don't spend 2 billion dollars a mile. Hire the best engineers from Europe and Asia.

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?

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

#180

Post by blacksmith_tb »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #176
automatic6131 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support the medical model then, disabled people who can't work should, ought, to be among the poorest in society, just above the people that can work but don't. Because some people have to be the relatively poor compared to the rest (in absolute terms though: you are richer than almost anyone alive in year 800 CE so not starving poor nor barely surviving poor) and so, who should be? Should the able working be poore…

> 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 reply on HN