If you only want answers from the type of people who can conjure this information, and do so in the same way, sure. What a weird thing to assume about the people answering the question, huh?

Not denying that. Do you think that is the argument here?

It’s not so much your argument, as being the implication of what you are saying.

There was some hint of condescension in your language as to this being a lack of ability in one side to (paraphrasing) “get the obvious context”, and at the same time attribute this to (I’m assuming) social intelligence, or rather, a lack thereof.

What I’m saying, is that you cannot have it both ways here. If the questionnaire aims to get accurate responses, from everyone, you need accurate questions.

Many people you might think this applies to, are perfectly fine understanding the literal meaning, and also any number of “let’s assume the question is asking something else instead”-variations. Not that this even matters, as just by accepting the possible existence of variability in how different groups might “be able to understand the obvious context clues”, the way you unify responses in the sense of “answering the same question”, is by making questions less ambiguous.

Which brings me back to my comment as to how communication works. Concept - symbols - concept. This is always dependant on overlapping agreement in translations at either end, which also depends on context, explicit and implicit. My only argument, the one that you considered might have been tongue in cheek, is that if you want coherent responses to a question, you are better served by a wording that minimises the need for a shared implicit context.

The specifics of my example, I’m guessing, is what you confuse with the more general point. I’m sure that even tho we disagree as to where to draw the line, the general point is still valid.

Funny thing with logical contradictions is that it works both ways. Your argument implies that neurotypicals cannot understand certain questions. In particular, “how likely are you to recommend our products to friends & family”, literally, at face value.

Weird argument to make, don’t you think?

That’s always I possibility. If you’re genuinely arguing it, then it makes the whole discussion fairly dismissive and too reductive to be of any value. But, I’ll entertain it for a bit.

Your argument here is the good’ol “but you get what they’re trying to say here?”, or as you put it “figure out the context and fill in the details”, right? Why stop there tho? Surely you should follow it up with an argument as to why you object to removing such guesswork, with better formulated questions?

Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS), is the one I used . It’s important to know that this isn’t any “test”. It’s just a screening tool that helps when used in dialogue with a health professional. This post in question showing why that is important.

I don’t think this is so much autism as just caring about details.

Communication is like that, someone has some idea or concept, they use words / symbols, then the other person translates that back to some concept.

Being aware of the whole chain, to me, is a requirement for making good questions.

A classic is: “how likely are you to recommend our products to friends & family”. Which I’m sure is trying to gague the level of pride and anthusiams for the products. But then, why not ask that question instead? The element of “I don’t go recommending anything to friends and family… that’d weird”, probably makes the responses less useful.

I find that it really depends. Some contracted work mostly take specialised equipment, where the necessary skill is something you can pick up. The cost of the equipment is often (at entry level, but more than good enough for the task at hand) less than the show + a couple of hours.

You spent the whole weekend maybe. But you learned something new. Got some nice tools. And more often than not, did a better job because you didn’t rush anything.

* Poorly regulated capitalism

US is much more involved in the former, and same w Israel in the latter. They aren’t exactly taking turns.

In 20 years of using Linux, I’ve only had a broken Linux four times. Four of those times, it was because of Windows being shit.

If the floppy disk was no longer the save symbol for software, and I had to chose one, I’d chose the floppy disk symbol.

But you worded your question wisely to avoid that loophole, so I’m not sure what to use instead for an otherwise unique and ubiquitous symbol, already known as “the save file icon” for two generations that have not seen it.

While we’re at it, let’s also replace the phone icons with a rectangle, as to not confuse anyone.

That part threw me off. Last time i used it, I did incremental backups of a 500 gig disk once a week or so, and it took 20 seconds max.

There is no requirement for it, and can be disabled

“Exposure therapy” might be a helpful term for finding literature on this. It’s effective for certain fobias under certain conditions. I’ve only heard about it for anxiety related treatment. Not sure how horror movies would fit in. Best of luck! (ps: not a therapist, but know therapists who make use of it)

Considering that FFI is very much a thing, I’m finding it difficulty to understand the point it’s trying to make.

I assume they would have a budget if not only a limit on available working hours.

Implement a critical vulnerability, have it be pointed out, insist it isn’t their responsibility, refuse to fix it.

Now I feel bad. I was being facetious.

Hm. I was thinking of the problem in terms of “what is”, and not so much “what it looks like”. SG-1 is a good example, where the argument is that there is no actual magic. Its “sufficiently advanced = looks like magic” not “… = magic”.

I interpreted the question to consider actual existence of magic. So, I suppose it hinges on how “magic” is actually defined. Where I thought it would be some kind of forces / energy that is manipulated by will or tools. Hm… I suppose this is a lot more nuanced.