My brain calls dibs on Brad Pitt's body! I would have gone with Nicolas Cage, but John Travolta got there first.

But machine learning, artificial intelligence and data science! Enough said?

I am 150% sure that they can't have more than 100% of the profit share. Thank you to math teachers everywhere for at least trying, but some can not be reached!

This is a publicly traded company, so no one is looking for VC.

I recently found out that my card was leaking radio waves in the visible spectrum! This is really nefarious because the radio waves do not actually originate from the card itself. When a store, hacker, or other third party sends radio waves in the visible spectrum towards my credit card, the card returns the signal back to a wide range of locations with the user's name, the credit card number, and even the cvv code on the back!

The worst part is that there are even visible spectrum enhancers on the market, which turn the radio signal, which is usually only decipherable at 2-3 ft, into a signal that can be deciphered from 30-100 ft. I can't even believe that these things are legal, or that the card returns these radio waves in the visible spectrum!

The world is going to hell in a handbag!

Ubuntu Founder Pledges No Intentional Back Doors In Linux; Lots of Unintentional Back Doors.

just reached profitability for the first time in their history and their stock is doing great.

30% of 4% is 1.2%. 1.2% is not worth writing a story about.

In Washington, red light cameras and school zone speed cameras presume the owner of the vehicle is at fault. Under penalty of law someone can sign an affidavit saying that they were not driving the car at the time of the infraction to get out of it. Not wanting to lie, a cheap hack is to register your spouse's car in your name and vice versa. That way, the registered owner is usually never the driver and the $240 ticket goes away without ever breaking any law.

is that their monthly AWS fees must be ENORMOUS!

Considering that the major change in campaigning strategy over the last 15 years has centered around using statistical techniques to hack an election, this probably is not a bad thing at all. It means that defining a wedge issue and engineering the entire political discourse toward that wedge might have some uncertainty. Maybe the candidates can talk about things that they actually believe.

There are no thermal gradients in hell. If there were, engineers could build a heat engine used to power an air conditioner.

There's an interesting analogy in Stack Exchange, the offshoot of Stack Overflow. While many Stack Exchange sites exist for a wide ranging array of topics (physics, electrical engineering, statistics, parenting, etc.), I've found that the others basically don't work. The questions often don't get answered since the community is way smaller than Stack Overflow, and they are often answered in unhelpful ways with opinions rather than expert suggestions. I think non-engineering tickets would linger for too long, lack widespread adoption, and be 'resolved' with wishy washy opinions.

In short, I don't think it would work! Engineers are a special breed.

There's a saying in Autistic circles -- if you've met one Autistic person, you've met...one Autistic person. :)

And no, we aren't robots. However, while we may be able to learn social skills, they don't get completely ingrained the way they do for neurotypical people. It's always a conscious process for us. That's where the limitation comes in. The conscious processing of social situations is slower and takes more effort/energy than the subconscious processing neurotypicals generally do. Additionally, the problem with social interaction is that there is far more nuance than Autistics can pick up on and process in the short time required. To compound matters, these nuances are often contradictory to one another, and a lot of people have a tendency to say what they don't mean, even when their body language says something else. This results in a great deal of confusion and second-guessing going on, even while trying to process what the person has said and formulate a response. Even in what appears to be a simple conversation, there can be four different things going on in one's head in an effort to process and understand all the little "between the lines" things that are going on in the situation.

While this seems like a good idea from a neurotypical standpoint, it doesn't work as well in practice with a lot of Autistics. Being able to recognize how he communicates is a good piece of advice, though.

A good therapist should be providing immediate feedback, so the failing likely isn't there. Rather, "wild" interactions don't often have that immediate feedback, which is where it gets challenging. The parent can help on that front by providing immediate feedback outside of therapy sessions to help reinforce what the child learned. It's still not perfect, but it can help.

I only partially agree with the "ding" thing and subsequent advice. Certain repetitive habits (aka "stims") serve a vital purpose to an Autistic. As long as they're not harming themselves or others (or breaking things, etc), then it's not a behavior that needs to be stopped and can, in fact, be detrimental if forced away (if you can get the person to stop stimming altogether, most will end up developing something else). If the behavior is destructive or harmful, then certainly, it needs to be redirected.

However, cues can be helpful for other things. Volume modulation is often a weak area for Autistics, so cues to indicate that they're speaking too loudly or too softly are often helpful. Providing feedback for proper sentence structure is also useful.

Your tactical advice examples are also problematic. Looking someone in the eye is physically difficult for many Autistics. It's very unnatural to us and makes us very uncomfortable and can inhibit our ability to process the conversation. There's also a lot more nuance to the "look people in the eye" part of interactions than most people are aware of, because it's usually done subconsciously. As a result, the "look people in the eye" advice can backfire and make the person come off creepy. The better advice would be about when it's most advantageous to look someone in the eye (such as introductions or as a show of power) and how to look at them in ways that show you're paying attention, but still allow you to process the situation as best you can.

"Never lie to a friend" is also one that fails in reality, again due to nuances that most people take for granted. Remember, Autistics will take that to extremes that most people would consider absurd. Even "white lies" told to make a person feel better are considered lies and will be considered a bad thing to an Autistic taught to "never lie to a friend."

"How to Make Friends and Influence People" is a decent guide, but do keep in mind that it was written for neurotypicals by neurotypicals. As a result, the effects will be far more limited. It can help, but don't expect it to help an Autistic as much as it would a neurotypical.