Nonetheless, that's actually pretty neat.
Realistic movie idea:
Dystopian society in not-so-distant future where the oppressive government has passed such strict gun control and anti-gay laws that the noble resistance has resorted to bright, neon-colored 3D-printed weapons to fight the tyrannical regime, simultaneously demonstrating their right to bear arms and to choose their sexual orientation.
Oh wait... did I just offend everyone at once?
...is to have a couple of leafs (leaves?) catch fire.
That'll make them edgy.
Although, this was meant to be funny, the more I think about it, it might actually work.
My guess is that this 30% increase aren't more of the stereotypical autistics who are unable to care for themselves, it's identifying people who would benefit from behavioral therapy. Thus, as we better understand and better understand how to help those with it, your statistic will become less and less true. With respect to individuals who lead a very difficult life due family members or friends who have severe autism, autism itself isn't tragic, certain cases of autism are tragic. My condolences if you know someone who has a tragic case of autism. It is not my intent to exacerbate your pain.
The autistic spectrum is wide and the irony of these diagnoses from physicians is that many of the most skilled and respected physicians are high-functioning autistics. If I ever have someone doing a thoracotomy on me to repair my hemorrhaging aorta, I don't want my cardiothoracic surgeon to have a kind, bubbly, empathetic personality. I want a detail-oriented freak who understands his craft so intricately that he can save my life with nothing but unimaginable focus. The sharpness of his mind and the dullness of his personality can actually be, in fact, a benefit in many cases.
Well, that was a lot of unnecessary rage, but I think I see what you're exploding over. I omitted the word "some" when I wrote "women don't care to learn it even if it is available to be learned..." and you're right, that was legitimately unfair of me. There are many women, perhaps even most, who do not want to just be a wife and a mother. Thank you for bringing the omission to my attention.
My point was that although all women are perfectly capable at studying math in great detail, many/some prefer not to - which is probably why this bias exists.
I had a similar experience.
I was educated at home by my mother who is a civil engineering major while my father, who is also a civil engineer, worked to provide for myself and four siblings who were also home educated.
What I find interesting about this article is that I find the same bias within me, despite being given the most obvious evidence to the contrary - my mother is clearly an intelligent, well-educated woman who is also quite adept at teaching. I think the reason I have this bias is because, despite being the worst damn student in the history of home-education, I honestly have found myself better at mathematics than women I met in college. Even my wife, who has a Bachelor's of Sciences in Nursing struggles with basic (and by basic, I mean things like dimensional analysis - so maybe, semi-basic?) math concepts sometimes. I personally find myself quicker on the draw when it comes to math. My wife is still freakishly smart and the best damn nurse you'll ever find, but math isn't her strong suit.
I'll be the first to accept that research shows that women are just as able to learn math as men are - anecdotally my mother showed me that was true, but I will also point out that the bias probably exists because women simply don't care to learn it even if it is available to be learned. Let's be honest, many women are still stay at home mother's and see no need to learn advanced mathematics. My wife probably didn't care as much to learn math growing up because she just wanted to be a wife and a mother. I think that's OK.
I understand the value in combating the bias from the point of employers who might pass over an otherwise well-qualified woman, but I see another result from debates like this and that is women feeling like it's wrong for them to just want to be a mother. I would argue that no, it's not wrong. There's nothing wrong with a woman not caring to spend time learning something she probably won't use in a job. Education is important, absolutely, but I find that many women still want to live out their maternal instincts and should be allowed to do so without being judged.
OP seems to think Valve's aspirations are deplorable for consumers.
The more companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Valve) who vie for control of the modern omni-market, the better it is for us. Someone tell me how more choices is a bad thing.
Valve, you can send me my check in the mail, please.
The example you give regarding DotA (game mod from WC3) implies that Steve Feak (aka IceFrog), the original creator of the DotA got nothing for his creation. That's just untrue. Unless Feak was an idiot (which, I suppose he might be - I've never met him), he knew he wouldn't receive compensation from Blizzard for spending hours creating DotA for WC3. What he did receive was a name for himself in creating one of the most best damn game mods ever. That name allowed him to go on to create League of Legends with Riot Games.
Will a guy like Feak have a problem getting a job at a game design company that sells RTS after creating a game that inspired an entire genre (MOBA)? Doubtful. I'm going to take a gander and say that his investment into DotA not only brought some (I don't know how much, I'm guessing a lot) greenbacks with LOL, but that it also secured him positions at companies in the future.
People will jump at this for the same reason, because it gives them an opportunity to create (which is fun) and experience creating good content (necessary for a job). Blizzard makes money with their creation and the creators get what they want. Win for both parties.
I truly hope that people aren't so naive that they spend a year making a terrific mod in SC2 and then look at Blizzard with trembling lip and say, "You pay me no money for my mod?" You need a job before you get paid.
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.