I've just spent 20 minutes swearing about this to a friend. I'm now past "blind incoherent rage". 50% of managers in a survey said they'd be "uncomfortable recruiting and line managing a neurodiverse individual". Why the fuck should I have to hide my condition? FUCK THEM.

I may still be a bit angry.

Reference for managers being bad people: https://peoplemanagement.co.uk/news...

If this was women, or black people, there would be wide spread anger.

1 in 7. 1 in 7 people are neurodiverse.

@atheist widespread anger didn't stop them yet tho

@darksideofyay you are right. I agree some people likely still think that. Do you think that they'd do a study like that and that many people would respond that way about women? I'd like to think not, but this completely caught me by surprise, so it's entirely likely I'm wrong on that too.

It's plain stupid.

Same as disallowing blood donations based on sexual identity / orientation and many other things...

In my experience, most people don't need to be managed. They - shockingly unexpected - got the diagnose at some point in their life and then learned to deal with it. As long as they can coexist in a team, there's really nothing to do - except the usual setting of boundaries and expectations… but that is true for any person working in a company.

And to add to your frustration a bit of my frustration: Those fucktards complain all the time about shortage of workers.

Yeah. Duh.... When you explicitly filter out persons and / or set the wage bar too low, that's what happens.

Like when I eat a cake it disappears. Maaaaagiic.

(Yeah I can go full rage mode on this topic. For hours.)

@atheist they do tho, there's been studies about cv with "black sounding" names and women not getting hired even in blind auditions, because they could hear the high heels click, everyone is always chocked but nothing ever changes

@darksideofyay Shit. I'm sorry. I just don't know what to say.

@IntrusionCM yep. I think the worst thing is, I go out of my way to help people *because* of my ADHD. I can't filter anything out. If someone's struggling, or upset, I notice and have to do something.

My best manager just gave me problems and left me alone.

@atheist yeah everything is crap... they always try to justify it in some way (women whine, disabled people are less capable) 🙄 most of the time is just unconscious bias tho... people tend to favour those that are like them, and if the ones hiring are all the same... 🤷

that's why diversity programs matter, there's always a new perspective to gain

@darksideofyay ADHD is more likely in intelligent people. I second the unconscious bias thing. Women whine, what the fuck. Jesus.

@atheist people have no idea what ADHD is... people with ADHD often can hyperfocus, are incredibly creative and they thrive when they work with things they care about... but all people hear is "i have can't stay still syndrome"... it's always about how it bothers others, not about how it impacts you

@atheist i remember quite vividly the time I sat in a wheelchair for roughly 2-3 months...

It's an interesting perspective. Because a lot of people tend to pity you. Or even worse, try to pamper you.

If I hear the sentence: "Should I push you..." I still get angry. Like hulk mode angry. You went from being a competent walking human to quite literally someone who seemingly is too incompetent to breathe.

(I was 15 at that point... So yeah, I had to go to school and as I had to go to school by myself, it was everyday someone else... -.-)

Rage has passed. How do we make society better? What can we improve, what can I improve?

@atheist sadly not much.

Forcing inclusion is impossible (though some governments tried it and it went most of the time wrong).

I'm quite pro inclusion never the less, best starting at kindergarten - proper funding and human resources as a precondition.

The problem isn't the child (usually)… it's the adults. If they'd stop being dumb, oh boy. The world would be wonderful.

All in all: Live what you preach, I guess

I have ADHD with GAD or general anxiety disorder (ADHD almost ALWAYS includes something else). It really sucks that ADHD is the major menace to these managers bc hyperfocus is super real and I find myself engorged in tough dev problems. It’s a bit baffling but I experience it almost daily. sadly, I suck balls at planning my day out and predicting when I’ll get something done, which is probably a drawback of the disorder I’ll admit. And yes ADHD does show up in a lot of people who are well above average in terms of mental ability

@TeachMeCode I'm ADHD with Dyspraxia, I think EDS (a joint problem present in 40% of neurodiverse individuals), at least one neuroanalyst friend thinks autistic too.

and this is why medical privacy is incredibly important. I wrote about this:

https://battlepenguin.com/politics/...

@djsumdog

"and this is why medical privacy is incredibly important."

Completely agree. Makes you wonder why whole governments are ignoring this and trying to FORCE ineffective medical treatments.

I was really lucky to find a company that didn't discriminate against neurodiverse people for entry-level jobs. I mean, I'm considering leaving the company for other reasons after five years there, but when I started as an IT Call Center tech, I did extremely well in part because tech support is the PERFECT job for someone with ADHD. Short burst of productivity followed by a context switch for the next call. Hyperfocus is fine because you'll solve problems better, and lack of focus is fine because once you're off the call you switch contexts to focus on a new problem. I think something like 60% of the call center techs had ADHD.

@atheist thanks! I wasn’t diagnosed with dyspraxia or anything physical but I remember getting placed in physical therapy programs when I was around 5 or 6. Memory is fuzzy but they had me do a bunch of sit-ups which sticks out in my memory the most bc I hated doing them lol. It was probably some undiagnosed condition that slipped through the cracks, im not sure but it’s probably linked to ADHD as there are many other disorders linked to ADHD

What is "neurodiverse"?

@iiii has to do with brain differences from the norm that lead to adhd, autism, anxiety, depression, etc.

@TeachMeCode aren't those medical conditions and not written in the resume? 🤔

@iiii yes, they're medical conditions. But because they have some implications for the job, people with them usually "disclose" to work. Strictly we only need to disclose to HR and they're able to approve adjustments (eg I have some level of flexi time because I have poor perception of time and so am prone to being late). But I don't think we should feel the need to hide. Some conditions include differences in social interactions, and so it should be easier for us to tell people. Not harder if we do.

@UnicornPoo I would advise getting the assessment. As much as anything, if they have the condition, it already defines part of who they are, with or without the label. Having the label allows access to support, eg extra time in exams. If they have it, they're also likely to be aware of their problems, and not understand why they have them. I definitely was. It took me 28 years to work out why. Working out I had ADHD was a lightbulb moment. Even with the diagnosis, treatment is a choice.

Personally, I found the medication helpful. My symptoms annoy me, nevermind anyone else. My brain doesn't stop and I can't control it. 90% of people get benefit from the main medication type. Not everyone finds it beneficial. Some people do complain that it "zombifies" them. That's probably because they're on the wrong medication, or too high a dose. Some parents prioritise symptoms that bother the parent, and not the child. This shouldn't be the case.

But knowing helps.

Just don't tell people, medical state is your private Information, you don't have to tell anyone at all .. drop it mid-lunch when you're already hired "oh yeah, I have adhd"

Id say same for being gay, people have no business asking you or knowing. Dont flaunt your individuality around like a vegan and strangers will be easier to work with tbh... Obviously this doesn't work for black people or special gender snowflakes who get upset when you don't call them what they dreamed up one night to feel special

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but honestly, when doing an interview I don't want to sidetrack my mind with anything else other than your skillset. If interviews could be done fully blind I'd do it.

@djsumdog but it's not just an issue of privacy. It's about stigma.

I agree 100% that if a person isn't comfortable disclosing their condition, they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't have to fear people thinking it makes them stupid. Worry that they'll get treaded differently, worse, as a result. It's a sign of maturity to be able to face topics and issues that make us uncomfortable.

@Hazarth I agree. I don't usually raise it in the interview. If it's relevant to conversation, I mention it. To be honest, I'd rather raise it in the interview exactly because of this. If they wouldn't want to hire me because of it, I would rather they didn't hire me at all.

@atheist that's true, if something dumb like that puts them off then there's no saying what other bullshit will they have problem with

@Hazarth you're right, it should be about skills, competence. But as others would point out (and have in this rant) even issues such as gender aren't ignored.

@UnicornPoo I understand. A few thoughts, I was also quite shy, fairly quiet, but my hyperactivity was internal. I know people that described it as a child as "too many thoughts inside their head". I didn't really understand the difference until I was older. Maybe ask, it's possible it's different for her, it varies quite a lot. It's very hard to communicate that you're different without knowing what normal is. I really struggled to relate to the clinical description of ADHD. Rick Green, a Canadian comedian and ADHD advocate, really helped, was much more relatable. He did a documentary where his co-host got diagnosed with ADHD. They talked about their experiences. I don't think it's free, but it's not very expensive. Emotional problems are complicated. There's a thing called RSD, rejection sensitivity dysphoria, or hypersensitivity to rejection. It's comparable to pain in terms of a motivating factor. And emotional regulation problems, I have had emotional responses to situations that I *know* are disproportionate, but I can't control it. I think medication helps me with that one too.

On the medication side, it's your choice (and I'd argue hers) but a few bits of advice. The short acting medications last for a few hours, and are out of your system within a day. They're very safe and have been used since the 60's. The potential harm in trying them is fairly limited. But the reason that ADHD is first treated with medication is because it's an impairment of execution. I know what I should do. If it's not interesting, I can't do it. This is thought to be caused by chemical differences in the brain. Thought to be lower sensitivity/lower levels of dopamine in the brain (it's not simple and I'm already running out of space - there are other medications that should do the same thing but don't help, so we don't fully understand, but there are genes associated with dopamine that correlate with ADHD).

Dr Barkley gives a good talk on the matter https://youtu.be/NUQu-OPrzUc

I want to write a book on ADHD if I could focus for long enough...

Barkley's talk is 2 hours long, but very interesting.

Rick Green documentary is called "ADD and loving it"

Isn't that, like, their one and only job? Managing different kinds of people so they work together effectively?

So all that really says is 50% of managers are so fucking dumb that they'll openly admit to being unable to do what they're being paid for.

More than 50% of employees are uncomfortable with "neurodiverse" managers unbearable enough to make fish fucking drown themselves.

@deadlyRants dumb .... maybe. But dumbness only covers the root of the problem in my opinion - it's being lazy.

That's the gist.

What most people describe here as bad managers are just lazy fucktards who don't want to work at all. Instead they want to prove their authority, sit on their fat arses and get cash for it.

Note that this isn't true only for managers... It's true for the whole society.

To be honest, I'll always love it when people are open about their problems - be it ADHD, being not a morning person, being shy or just the average "I feel like I'm too dumb" type (metaphorical for people whose self esteem is so low they don't realize their own talents).

It prevents the very awkward and unpleasant conversation of "Uhm. We need to talk cause I think something is wrong here. Don't panic please, let's have a talk in private" thing, which is really unpleasant cause you have to be very careful to not cross the boundaries while at the same time it's necessary to avoid conflict...

One of the reasons I could rant about this for hours...

And lazy. It should be obvious that people often expect that things "get more complicated", which is a pretty lame excuse.

I found, like in many other things, the opposite to be true. When you know it, you have less trouble and most often the person itself is working more efficient.

After all, most persons were happy for the simple reason that someone listened to their concerns instead of playing deaf.

This applies btw to everything... Be it gender issues, personal preferences, color blindness, ADHD ....

Lazy is ignoring or saying it takes effort, cause it really doesn't.

@Hazarth sometimes it is relevant to disclose this stuff, because they might need accomodations (which is not bothersome for the company unless they're being asses about it)

@UnicornPoo ADHD can affect a lot of aspects of one's life, even emotionally speaking... i think it's worth checking it, and medication is not the only option, even though it helps a ton :)

@UnicornPoo Then there's also ADD (without the hyperactivity) which is harder to diagnose because it doesn't have such obvious signs for outsiders and people just assume that person is lazy because severe procrastination + problems with concentration easily make that impression.

@atheist I have to ask, does ADHD mean a person cannot focus over long periods, ever?

Because I got tested this year and that was basically the reason the specialist didn't diagnose me - I can focus all day on coding (pretty much the only thing I can do in terms of motivation and focus lol).

But sometimes I kinda doubt that because I still have all the symptoms associated with ADD in adults; diagnosis or not, I still have all the issues and the guy shrugging it off with "well you just get bored easily I guess" wasn't exactly helpful.

Your "I know what I should do. If it's not interesting, I can't do it." fits me 100%. I'll delay a 5 minute task of any kind or importance for weeks but at the same time can sit down and code until my hands fall off and then a little more. And needless to say, school was kinda shit when I sat there and after 20 minutes the brain shut off and drifted into fucking Narnia.

As the Spy says: "I have depression!"

No one gives a crap and I'm too accustomed to hide it pretty well.

Depressman

@deadlyRants basically, no. If anything, it's the opposite.

ADHD, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is not a good name. It's a deficit of attention regulation, not of attention in itself.

There are times when I literally struggle to stop. I know I should go make food, go to sleep, go do daily tasks, but I can't stop because what I'm doing is interesting. When there's time pressure (or "you should have arrived 5 minutes ago, you have to leave NOW!"), the pressure takes precedent.

It is not simple. It is counterintuitive. Treatment with stimulants is quite literally described as paradoxical.

If I find something interesting, I can focus. If I don't, I'm 3 months behind on paperwork for my job and there's a stack of dishes by the sink, so you judge.

@atheist That's exactly how it is for me as well. I'm a bit torn because the doctor who tested me specializes in that kind of area and some of his reasoning did make sense. But at the same time this is still the only explanation I know that just fits everything. And especially this kind of "you could focus on the test all the time, so this ain't ADD" explanation wasn't convincing. I'd heard about this hyperfocus thing but didn't really understand what it actually means.

Oh well, I guess I'm gonna get another look at it some day. Cause shit still looks and quacks like a duck.

@deadlyRants I could do several more rants on doctors. The first GP I spoke to about ADHD acted like I wasn't stupid enough to have a learning disability. I was diagnosed with dyspraxia age 8.

Fuckers.

Finding the right doctor is hard.

@deadlyRants it's bizarre that the doctor made comments about your ability to focus in a test. The medical literature literally says symptoms may not be present in a clinical setting because the change in environment is likely to be sufficiently stimulating to offset problems.

@atheist that dr who said you’re not “dumb enough” is ironically a dumbass. Lots of brilliant people have adhd (and they have actual diagnoses, this isn’t just speculation crap) and it’s not a learning disability (which is a severe delay in learning certain topics). If he’s a psychiatrist he’s super incompetent

@TeachMeCode so, ADHD is strictly not a "learning disability" per say, it's a developmental disorder. A person's "internal voice" develops later. Normally, people develop an external voice, and give themselves direction, but don't follow their own instructions. They develop, they start to do the things they say they should, they become socially aware, they internalise this voice.

People with ADHD start to follow their own directions at a much later age, if at all.

It has a range of other problems, eg impaired filtering (executive dysfunction) may mean touch sensitivity, noise sensitivity. I have difficulty separating voices in a noisy environment for example, where others don't. Just by lowering the volume (ear plugs), this improves. But it does cause problems in education because you need to pay attention to improve, so it comes under the remit of "special educational needs".

And yes, the doctor I spoke to was fucking useless.

This thread: why don't companies hire neurodiverse people?

Also this thread: the companies would need to accomodate to them.

Well... that's why.

@Fast-Nop this thread: I'm one of the best software engineers I know

Also this thread: I cost more

I get your point, but talent is talent, no?

@atheist All else being equal, non-neurodiverse talent requires less accomodation, hence gets work done better on company level. Even if we had a dev shortage, every company would just hope that some other company would be forced to suck up the neurodiverse talents.

It would maybe not matter much if all you do is sitting alone in some room and hacking in code - but, alas, we are not in the 1980s anymore, so these times are gone and will not return. The lone hacker is not in demand anymore.

Also keep in mind that the purpose of companies is not to make employees or even customers happy - both are only necessary nuisance factors. The one and only purpose of companies is making profit for their owners. Except money laundering shells where the purpose is laundering money, of course.

@Fast-Nop I get your point, but a world that is able to accommodate anyone is better for everyone.

Automatic door openers. Dipped curbs at street crossings. Dictation software (siri?). Text to speech (satnav?). Eye tracking. There are more, but I'm tired. These all started life as "accessibility features". They're now widely used for other purposes, by everyone. Yes they were more oriented to physical disabilities, not neurodiverse conditions.

So, does the world have anything to learn from us?

Yes.

Very little about the way our brains work is "different". We're not unique unicorns. It's just amplified for us. We are more bothered by the constant bombardment of messages from slack & email that studies have *shown* to be harmful to a normal person's productivity. We are more likely to question complicated processes, and we can probably suggest alternatives.

There's other stuff but I'm tired. I'd say I might think better tomorrow, but tomorrow will be a long day too.

@atheist A world accomodating to anyone would not necessarily be a better place for everyone because the cost of accomodating is pushed on the ones who'd have to accomodate.

Point in case, I will accomodate to foreign cultures if need be, but I will not cater to each and every individual because that's just too much work. I expect certain standards to be followed, and while they may differ from culture to culture, I still can work out general stuff and then efficiently apply it to a wide number of individuals.

The other question is - if you think everyone should accomodate, why don't you just do exactly that? Or is it rather that you expect everyone ELSE to accomodate? Yeah, that's why it doesn't work. Now, if the reason is that you're unable to do so, then you know what companies are missing with you.

Now, I personally find all that human social shit pretty strange myself, but I've cooked up a mixture of game theory (mainly tit-for-tat), psychology (e.g. transactional analysis), some Macchiavellism, and cultural flavouring.

For example, I do ask that "how are you", "how was your weekend" stuff when my transactional analysis shows that I owe something.

Overall, it makes a nearly perfect social emulation, with a tint of "a little strange but reliable."

That was a lot of work, but as I mentioned in the other thread, I am able to SWITCH that stuff on the fly exactly because it's not native.

The result is that I'm the one tasked with actual accomodation situations like dealing with suppliers and customers from totally different cultures, and I'm the one getting the best results within my tech department.

The irony is that I feel more at home in these situations because nobody expects me to feel at home. That is the closest I have to feeling at home - if that makes sense.

@Fast-Nop you're conflating cost with adjustment.

Not all (not many) adjustments have cost. And at least in the UK, the government will probably pay for them.

EG we have about 10 emails a day, mostly irrelevant. We get 1 email a week about some training we have to do. Email isn't designed as a to do list, it's a communication tool. We already have a HR tool, with a section for training record that isn't used. Moving to that would benefit everyone. It would benefit me more.

Will answer rest tomorrow.

@IntrusionCM I’m not saying it makes sense with current testing or whatever… but there is a probabilistic reason for not accepting blood donations from men who have sex with other men. The same reason not to accept blood from people that have exchanged money or drugs for sex. The same reason not to accept blood from anyone that handle monkeys for a living. The same reason not to accept blood from someone that visited a malaria region recently. The same reason not to accept blood from anyone that has had sex with someone of unknown sexual history.

The large colon’s purpose is to absorb water from digested food and it also absorbs the fluid from semen well. Men who have sex with other men are the largest risk group for contracting HIV. In North America it is probabilistically lower risk of contracting HIV to share needles with addicts on the street than it is to have random hookups as a gay man.

There is no ban on lesbian blood.

@irene Not true.

Though the definition of risk groups depends on country...

To put it out bluntly, and that's a disturbing thing btw, you made behavior-related assessment.

Heteros have anal sex, too. Heteros can fuck like bunnies without condoms, too.

It has nothing to do at all with the sexuality.

In my opinion it's a sad thing that human life's are sacrificed under the banner of "probabilistic" analysis of behaviour, especially given that in the last centuries there was always a severe shortage in blood donations.

The thing btw with testing is an example of how the statistics are wrong.

After many tragic events, when blood donations are skyrocketing, the HIV numbers skyrocket, too.

Many people didn't know they've been infected.

That's the reason why the system is in my opinion a pretty shallow discrimination - if the donations were open for anyone, and the testing would be more rigid to further increase the safety, a lot of people wouldn't be saved from the blood donation alone, but the donator in case of HIV too.

HIV is manageable nowadays, if it is detected early to a point where it's untraceable.

We could have a win win here, except that "probabilistic" reasons - discrimination at it's best - the opportunity is taken away.

@IntrusionCM https://cdc.gov/hiv/policies/...

In the USA something like 61% of new HIV infections are from gay or bisexual men. Injection drug users account for 9% of new HIV infections.

It doesn’t matter if the disease is manageable or whatever. It is expensive to medicate, messes with your well-being, and represents a transmission risk in the general population. Play Russian roulette with the gun with fewer bullets in it.

@irene let me fix the statistic so you might understand why the statistic itself is a problem.

You only take part in the statistic if it is _known_ that you have HIV.

That's exactly the reason I'm arguing pro blood transfusion...

Many people don't know they have it.

And then you have exactly the trouble you said: You have a transmission risk in the public because they don't know it.

The estimated number of unreported cases would is way higher. Which is stated multiple times in the CDC link.

The CDC link also mentions that it's important for prevention to detect who has an HIV infection.

Statistics and estimates are a very dangerous thing, especially for those heavily stigmatized topics.

@IntrusionCM There is a concept “ceteris paribus” that will help you a ton if you ever need to build economic data insights to guide policy decisions.

@IntrusionCM In Canada… Blood expires quickly, testing takes time and is expensive. After initial screening blood is sent through processing and supply chain immediately. One of the vials of test blood taken alongside the donation gets put into a pool of multiple donors blood by expiry date. The mixed blood is tested for multiple diseases. If any blood diseases are found all the donations in the pool are discarded wherever they are in the processing stage.

They use the next vial from individual volunteers to determine who has the blood borne disease. They notify the individual, public health, etc.

Initial screening questions stops them from throwing out multiple donations. It reduces cost to test, reduces risks for phlebotomists, interrupts the supply chain costs early, and keeps blood supply up. 🤷‍♂️

@irene it's Canada who is in progress - as far as I know - the "men to men" clause and will do an interview with _all_ donors regarding their sexual behaviour.

Which is what I'd see as a much better alternative.

@IntrusionCM It is called a "discriminatory ban on gay blood" here and there are human rights lawsuits against the CBS. There is no financial incentive to donate. People are fighting a policy made to reduce risk for blood recipients. The policy is "discriminatory" in that it discriminates against donors with probabilistic increased risk. I personally was denied donation but didn't conclude that "CBS discriminates against people with tattoos".

There were a bunch of people that got HIV from transfusions in Canada in the 1980's. Mainly because the Red Cross was not ready to make policy that could discriminate against MSM donors during the AIDS pandemic. CBS replaced Red Cross for blood donation so that public health agencies could address health risks relating to the country's blood supply.

But "CBS hates queers" is easy for dumb people to understand and rally behind.

@irene Ah. We're at that point of the discussion.

Just to elaborate, we started with discrimination based on sexual identity / behaviours, now we are at tattoos.

The HI virus was first defined around 1985 if I remember correctly, long time since welfare work. And it took a long time to destigmatize it and going from GRID / gay related immune deficiency to AIDS to acknowledge that this virus does not only affect _all_ humans, but is also interspecies. Even further to research it to a point where detection and treatments became reliable.

Regarding tattoos - yes, same rules should apply. Again, I'm not against screening / interviewing or anything else.

It's just that the same rules should apply for everyone.

Which is interestingly - looked up CBS / Canada blood service - exactly what CBS has in mind. While they still mention the fear of possible loss of donors, I think it's the right step.

It's dangerous in my opinion to say "queers hate the CBS". As it not only affects the CBS, but is a global problem.

And hate - it's discrimination.

I understand the fear of possible donors, but I think it would be a major step in solving the lack of donations long time.

Many _treatable_ diseases and research are on stand still due to shortage of blood cells and plasma. Which is a huge problem in itself. From sickle anemia to hemophilia to need for emergencies.

Even further, and this is still a valid point shown countless times, not only the HI virus but other diseases and viruses (hepatitis B/C, malaria, syphilis, ...) would be detected.

Which, additionally to destigmatizing some taboos, would aid in prevention of transmittable diseases and aid research.

@IntrusionCM Sex questions on the initial screening is what we have LGBT2IQ+ lobby in Canada protesting. It is the only public facing part of CBS.

My opinion is that it isn’t a human right to donate blood. I think that people in high risk groups should accept lifestyle risks and try to fix them instead of trying to tell people how to do their jobs. The solution is not to get permissive about donors.

So for myself, getting tattoos, going to malaria regions, and coming into contact with strangers blood came with CBS rejection. I accept that they are trying to safeguard the blood supply and can deny a donation for any reason that they might determine will ensure Canadian access to a safe blood supply.

I could be like “wah wah wah I only drove through that malaria region I demand you take my blood” but I don’t. CBS are doing their job and say no to my blood for now.

@ostream I dunno, it's not resorted to anyone throwing stones and vaguely interesting, so I've just been leaving them to it.

Something about vampires? All I got.

@atheist @ostream

My first comment:

"Same as disallowing blood donations based on sexual identity / orientation and many other things..."

that's how we ended up with HIV.

@IntrusionCM so, definitely something to do with vampires 🧛‍♂️

@Fast-Nop shit week, spent the morning getting poked by more doctors.

I think the problem with your argument is that it's essentially saying only employ men under 40 that pass a medical examination.

But we don't do that.

I suppose at least for me, I would argue that a lot of the accommodations amount to "better ways of doing things". Case in point, my employer has changed its policy with regards to medical appointments from "needing to ask permission" to "tell them you're going". The first one is dangerous. If someone has a medical problem that's not currently acute, or are following up on a previously acute medical problem, if the employer says no, that's likely to be a failure of duty of care. If the person becomes ill as a result, that's negligence. This is true regardless of how healthy you are, unless your policy is to fire people at the first sign of medical conditions, but then people probably won't want to work for you. Bones get broken, etc.

Yes there should be limits, if your beliefs say you can't work ever, an employer doesn't have to give you money for doing nothing. Although even then there's evidence supporting universal basic income, even if public opinion isn't there yet. I think supporting the outliers benefits the central 68% because it's likely to involve policies that are beneficial to the 68%.

@atheist Age discrimination is real in the industry, and if your only skill is coding, then you're basically not employable anymore once you hit 40. You need to get out of that while you can.

Guess why I am not really coding that much anymore, and instead am more about technical management of both customers and suppliers, or system level discussions. But I can easily review and rip apart code that is committed to me to make sure the juniors don't fuck up.

Also, there's no good reason why an employer would choose someone who needs to leave arbitrarily. It's simply a bad choice - unless there's some catch why the employer can't get normal people and thus has to fall back to the secondary options.

@Fast-Nop but this is my point. EVERYONE needs to leave arbitrarily at some point. Even if you're perfectly healthy, you could slip and break a bone. You need to go to the hospital. Later you need to go for a follow up, make sure it's healing correctly.

Now, yes I currently need more appointments, but I literally told them this at interview.

And I kinda disagree with regards to the coding after 40 thing. I'm the one that gets brought in when we need to go from vague thing to product. Admittedly, I'm also not just a coder, but people management isn't that valuable. Force multipliers are. I teach, I help, I scale. There is a finite need for managers (it's a pyramid after all).

@atheist Everyone may need to leave randomly, yes. Some years ago, I wanted my GP doc to just get me some meds for a bad foot, but she sent me to the EMR instead. Even when they started with intravenous antibiotics, I still didn't realise that I was fighting for my life. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

But not everyone needs that absence on a regular basis, that's the difference.

Coding after 40, the thing is you just won't get hired. You're too old. That's how it works. The industry throws away its most experienced talents because the hiring process is totally broken. Coding is ideally for people under 30.

That's why I'm heading for some "expert" program in my corporation that will take me away even further from coding and will benefit my CV.

The industry would rather pay me to manage like three juniors where I could do their job alone and for less money. Crazy, but real.

@Fast-Nop yes, not everyone needs it on a regular basis. I don't either. I do currently, because I was acutely ill a year ago. I advocated that the policy be changed. I think this benefits everyone. It benefits me more.

I dunno, I think a lot of places are moving away from that mentality. 2 of 3 companies I've worked at had "principle engineer" as a job title, which was equivalent in seniority and salary to top managers. Granted, one was FANG, but one was a small, well established company.

The current company has the notion. I think they don't have anyone in the position rn, but also I think currently it's about multi discipline rather than title.

@atheist I think that when companies get around to the revolutionary idea of hiring devs over 30, I'll already be over 50 and still be out of the game.

From a career PV, it doesn't make much sense for me to care about core tech stuff like programming languages anymore.

@Fast-Nop I agree that you shouldn't care about languages anymore. I barely do. I can pick up another in a day, can be proficient in a week. It's a finite growth skillset. I'm going for as many skillsets as possible I suppose.

@atheist My latest skillset addition: reviewing shit with customers and how to handle that properly. Means, how to lead them so that it doesn't derail.

My co-worker who replaced me during my vacation took a whopping 44 actions during a two days call, an all-time record. I was like, WTF were you doing?! Meanwhile, I ended up with only five actions on a similar scope this week.

Guess what caused a lot more effort on our side in the aftermath. :)

@Fast-Nop I agree we have different skill sets. I could do something similar to your role, but others would be better at it. That's less so for what I do.

@ostream 😅 We have very different approaches to diplomacy

Me: "Talking about mental health is hard, you're uncertain, I agree and so here's some advice and support"
You: "OMG your doctor's fucking useless get a new one you're probably right otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation"

I mean, a lot of the time I also take your approach to diplomacy...

Almost as if we've got ADHD or something...

But yes, if that was a Psych, get a different one. Happy to provide advice and references for any information I've cited.

I've "started" writing a book, is currently 50,000 words of scattered thoughts and research that I need to sit down and turn into something that would be useful for someone with ADHD. But I have ADHD, and so would be bad at doing that. And I suspect ghost writers are expensive...

@ostream ahhh no worries I wasn't complaining, I have ADHD too

@ostream that pretty much sums it up lol. It’s certainly hard to focus and unfocus

@ostream Freelancing is even worse because you have to manage tons of stupid shit like controlling, finance, legals, at least initially, and that translates easily into regular 60h weeks.

Company owners, yeah that's possible, i.e. if you employ others - but this is an option only for a small minority, not at scale. It's just math with regard to the population pyramid.