>A treatment for autism looked tantalizingly close just five years ago, as the first drug studies launched for the disorder Fragile X. Advocates hoped that treatments for the rest of the autism spectrum would soon follow.
>Today, that optimism is gone, as drug after promising drug has failed.
>Novartis announced last week that two drug trials showed an experimental medication did not improve the conditions of adults and teens with Fragile X, a genetic disorder that can lead to intellectual disability, anxiety, speech delay, seizures, and social challenges. Other trials run by Roche and startup Seaside Therapeutics also failed to show benefits.
If the genetic disorder affects brain development, it might be the better choice to test on younger children. I can see how it would be a hard choice to make but as with child cancer patients, no hope and dying is worse than the hoping and failing.
You're confusing run-of-the-mill autists with savants. I've worked in the software industry with mildly autistic people before. They didn't have any kind of special attention to detail or insight into the task at hand. On the contrary, their poor communication abilities meant that it was incredibly hard to communicate to them: "You have made a mistake. This algorithm is computing the wrong result. It should be like this. Fix it."
>"You have made a mistake. This algorithm is computing the wrong result. It should be like this. Fix it."
I don't follow. Is that what they say, or the way you need to talk to them to understand?
Wither way I don't see a problem. You need to be frank in a working environment
Well the statements are short, I'll give ya that, but those 4 statements can easily be reduced to a longer statement that takes less time to say and communicates more.
>You have made a mistake. This algorithm is computing the wrong result. It should be like this. Fix it.
>Your algorithm is computing the wrong result because of this.
My Augmented state is longer than each individual statement but shorter than the total length. I also didn't Say that same thing in the first two statements and left off the command at the end. It is implied that people at work, work.
oh, I confused the robot-speech for seldom over-empahsis and bluntness in the face of a problem.
yeah, it sucks dealing with people who are like that 24/7. And I try my best not to make the conversations rocky, but I often have misudnerstandings, though.
I don't think autism is the sort of thing you really can or should attempt to treat or cure, at least not in the functional cases. When the kid's sitting there at 8 years old counting rocks and completely unable to speak, there's a problem, but that's rare.
That's generally what I ended up saying/emailing after a long conversation in which the other person refused to either acknowledge the problem or acknowledge that the problem was their fault.
>>19154 is closer to how the conversations start, actually more along the lines of "It looks like such-and-such is returning incorrect results because of so-and-so. Could you take a look at it, since you're handling that part of the code?". Unfortunately, I've learned that if things ever get to the state where a third party needs to be dragged in, you need to be able to show that you've communicated as much information about the problem as possible, including expected/actual behavior, proof of regression time (if regression), blah blah blah, but also that you've explicitly told the person who is responsible for making the fix that they are responsible for the fix: whether they deny or accept or ignore that is then clear. It's a style of communicating that I don't like, but which ends up being really useful if paper trails ever get brought up.
That's less to do with any kind of autism and more with just a vicious cycle of corporate culture that incentivizes people to actively not fix bugs.
>vicious cycle of corporate culture that incentivizes people to actively not fix bugs.
you haven't been climbing the corporate career ladder very long, have you
"Hi boss, just to let you know. Earlier this month I made mistake in the code, look, here. See? See how silly of a mistake it was? But it's alright now. I fixed my mistake. Now it works the way it was supposed to work 4 weeks ago. It took me 3 weeks to notice and 1 week to fix - talking about company time well spent! This is how I fixed it, look. Here... Now, about that bonus..."
Maybe at a company with a chain of command populated by people who know what they're doing - that would get you fired within six months at the place I'm talking about. I've known good workers laid off, with the official reason that they were spending too much time looking at code that had already been written and delivered, rather than adding new features.
>Treatment for autism
Wouldn't that mean changing the whole brain? Since, if I'm not mistaken, the autistic brain is quite different to a neurotypical's brain. So an autism treatment sounds impossible right?