Rov_Scam
18hr ago
I think it's more that there's no demand for dormitory style structures in Olympic towns after the games end, so the village is temporary and is demolished. The luge track actually has more value as there aren't many of them in the world so they can use it for training and competition. I know at Whistler you can also ride a bobsled as a tourist. With how sensitive these cities have become to cost Los Angeles is famously building very little and housing the athletes inUCLA dorms I. 2028. One of the two things they have to build is a running track for the Coliseum since they removed the old one some years ago, and they're intentionally building a temporary track that they'll move to a public park afterward.
Rov_Scam
20hr ago
(You say that only 43% of Floridians were born in the former CSA - very interested as to where you go that stat specifically.)
Just as a preliminary matter, I got that from the US Census Bureau's State of residence by Place of Birth data for 2019. The charts just list each state's total population and the number of people born in each state or territory and the number of foreign-born. This means that I had to tally up the numbers from each CSA state to get an estimate. I only did this with Florida, as it seemed particularly likely to have a lot of people from outside the South. I also checked the number of people born in-state for each CSA state since this was much less tedious, and I got some interesting statistics. Florida by far had the highest proportion of "foreigners" as only 36% of residents were born there. Virginia was next at 49%. Texas was higher than I would have thought at 59%. The rest are basically desirability rankings, as most fell in the 55%–60% range before Alabama, at 69%, Mississippi, at 71%, and Louisiana, at a whopping 78%. I would note that none of these states, with the possible exception of Virginia, have the confounder of having large suburbs of a major city that's located in another state, as I'd imagine a large number of lifelong Northern Kentucky residents were born in Cincinnati.
To get back to the crux of your argument, to ground ourselves, the original contention was that the statistical overrepresentation of Southern states had to do with a "hard times make strong men" type trauma that has to do with humiliating defeat in the Civil War and the generational memory of it. To the extent that the Confederacy remains prominent in the South, it is more as a cultural and contemporary political symbol that has little to do with the actual Confederate States of America. It isn't comparable to the Quebec or Scottish independence movements. The one group that has any prominence, the League of the South, is basically just a right-wing extremist group. It's similar to how Texas secession only seems to come up when a Democrat is in office, except with even less public profile. It's safe to say that most people waving Confederate flags wouldn't vote to leave the US if there were any realistic chance of it happening.
With that out of the way, it's certainly and odd argument to make that if that were the case, and there were lingering resentment among Southerners, that they would respond by disproportionately participating in the military of the country that conquered them, unless your argument were that they intended to use their positions to launch some kind of military coup, which I think we both can agree is ridiculous. If you want to make an argument that the overrepresentation is due to cultural factors I can get on board with that argument, I just don't think it has anything to do with the Confederacy, and I don't think modern Confederate symbology has anything to do with it either.
Getting back to the data, I think you can construct any number of just so stories to support the thesis of "hard times breed hard men" or whatever. As you said earlier, blacks are overrepresented as well, and they had it bad, and Native Americans are overrrepresented even more, and we know they had it bad, and Hawaii is the most overrepresented state, and, well, look at the island's history, etc. The problem with this argument is that that there are a lot of underrepresented groups that it doesn't seem to apply to. Since you provided better data, I was able to take a gander at it, and I made some interesting discoveries. First among them is that the 2015 report is much more readable in that it appears it was written as though someone actually might read it and had several insights. The first is that while blacks are overrepresented in the armed forces relative to their share of the national population, blacks from underrepresented states are underrepresented in terms of their share of the black population as a whole. For example, New York as the third-highest share of black 18–24 year-olds, with 6.6% of the national total. Yet it only produces 66% of the black recruits one would expect based on its population. The story is the same in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Florida produces 147% of the expected black recruits.
Similarly, I ran my own correlation analysis where I compared per-capita recruitment numbers with state median household incomes, and it was less than -0.2. The 2015 broke recruitment down based on median household income of the recruits' home census tracts, and found that recruitment levels were disproportionately low for those from the lowest quintile areas. Each of the next three quintiles was overrepresented, with the numbers increasing as you went up. The highest quintile was the most underrepresented. In other words, people from the second-highest quintile were most likely to enlist, and military enlistment is generally a middle-class phenomenon.
As far as Hawaii is concerned, another interesting finding is that its ascension to the top of the list appears to be relatively recent; in 2015 it ranked 5th in representation ratio with 1.15, still respectable but not ridiculous. Along similar lines, the report contains regional data going back to 1973, and while the South always accounted for the highest share of recruits, the gross percentage increased nearly 15 points between 1976 and 2015, though this may reflect increased migration to the Sun Belt (the West also increased, though not as dramatically, while the Northeast and Midwest declined). Also related to the Hawaii thing was to compare per-capita representation to proportion of the state's population consisting of active-duty military, on the theory that since military service is often generational states with more military bases have more military brats who enlist when they're old enough. I couldn't confirm this, as the correlation was only 0.45. There were also some really wild differentials. North Dakota is near the top of the list for most active service military per capita, yet its recruitment numbers were at or near the bottom for all the years I looked at. Meanwhile, Alabama has relatively few active duty military stationed there but produces a disproportionately high number of recruits. The upshot is that I wouldn't put too much stock in this theory. Just so you know, Hawaii does rank highest in terms of active duty military with an index number (per capita multiplied to eliminate leading zeros) of a whopping 3.9. The state with the biggest dearth of military is Iowa, with an index number of 0.0076. The average is 0.49, and the state closest to the average is Nevada. The median, though, is Rhode Island, with an index of 0.35.
Finally, this isn't really related to any of my arguments, but since you brought up elite military I thought I'd bring it up. The 2015 report also looked at states by percentage of quality recruits. And the results were more or less that the states with the highest quality recruits were the ones with significant underrepresentation. They define High Quality Ascessions as ones with a Tier 1 education who score in at least the 50th percentile of aptitude exams. The top six states for quality are Montana, Idaho (the only state in the top half), Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Utah. The bottom six are Mississippi, Alabama, Hawaii, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Georgia. If this were culturally driven I would expect the opposite to be true, as recruiters in states where it's harder to recruit would presumably have incentive to lower their standards to meet numbers, while recruiters in states with a lot of applicants would have the pick of the litter. I can think of two explanations for this discrepancy. The first is that it isn't so much that individuals are more likely to enlist in certain areas as it is that the practices of recruiters are different, and recruiters in the South simply have lower standards, leading to higher numbers. I don't think that this is particularly likely, but it's interesting to think that the differences may have more to do with the culture of recruiters than the culture of the local population.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
I don't know that Gaza is the example you want to bring up here. I'm not even going to get into why it isn't comparable because it's not exactly a rousing success, even when compared to Afghanistan. The US was able to defeat the Taliban militarily in a matter of weeks, and their resurgence was slow and geographically limited. The problem was political not in the sense that the US was too squeamish about inflicting or taking casualties, but that the administration had no idea what to do when it got there and got distracted with attempts to gin up a war in Iraq. Bush wasn't much of a military guy and relied on Cheney and Rumsfeld for his strategy, which unfortunately meant that they were both overly aggressive when it came to starting wars and overly cautious when it came to executing them. Rumsfeld, in particular, wanted to do things as nimbly as possible. This makes sense when you consider that he was never a high ranking military officer and that most of his early experience in dealing with high level military affairs came on on the political side during the Vietnam and post-Vietnam eras, when public opposition to simply throwing troops at the problem developed. Meanwhile, more recent military operations in the 80s and 90s showed that public support would remain high with quick operations with minimal personnel and few casualties.
What he failed to realize is that 9/11 basically gave him a blank check. Political support was nearly unanimous (and Barbara Lee said she would have voted for the resolution had it been limited to Afghanistan), nation-building wasn't yet a dirty word, and he could have sent a half million troops in to garrison the place and nobody would have cared. Then they compounded the error by excluding the Taliban from participation in any future government and by neglecting to rebuild the Afghan military, similar to what they would do in Iraq. While it seems stupid to give defeated terrorists a seat at the table, the political reality is that they ruled the country for years and had some level of popular support. If they were truly popular enough to control the Afghan government, you'd find that out quickly and be able to act accordingly. If there support was low but they were operating on strength and fear, you could rest assured that the legitimate government could keep them under control. If they had just enough support to be a factor in government then they would have an escape valve. By blackballing them entirely, they ensured that the level of support would never be known and that the only way their supporters could influence government would be through armed rebellion, setting up the perfect conditions for an insurgency that they couldn't control.
And they'd still have had a chance at success if they had simply sent enough troops to patrol the countryside and stop Taliban reformation before it started, largely by just having enough of a presence to form relationships with the locals. Instead, they sat on their bases while everyone's attention turned to Iraq and the Taliban slowly gained traction in large parts of the country. When they figured this out they tried to stamp it out, but at this point they were being reactive rather than proactive, and they were slowly increasing troop counts Vietnam-style. By the time Obama took office Iraq had become so unpopular that Afghanistan had become the Good War and he increased troop counts to 100,000, but by this time the situation was out of control.
I'm not saying any of this would have necessarily worked, just that it had a better chance of working than your proposal that they just needed to kill more people and take more casualties. People seem to forget that things were relatively quiet in Afghanistan for a few years after the initial invasion, and it looked like a stable government might form. All the while, though, the Taliban was reforming under the Coalition's noses, because they simply didn't have the necessary coverage. Whether this kind of coverage was even possible is an open question. This is like trying to patrol Texas if the biggest city is Houston minus a couple million people and the second-biggest city is El Paso, and everyone from Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio, plus the 2 million taken from Houston, are scattered across the rural parts of the state. And the groups I described comprise half the population. If they're truly determined to resist your rule, then there's nothing you can do to stop them. I don't even know what kinds of numbers would be involved for this. I remembered Rumsfeld nearly having a heart attack after one of the generals told congress it would take over 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq, but Iraq is significantly more urbanized than Afghanistan, so I'd expect it to take quite a few more than that.
There seems to be a theme among conservatives here—and I'm not accusing you of this personally, since I can't tell if you're actually advocating for the options you proposed—of calling out the alleged "squeamishness" of the American public in terms of inflicting casualties on foreigners, taking casualties ourselves, and engaging in behavior that would generally be classified as atrocities. The upshot of this is that they blame American military and foreign policy failures on such a squeamishness. But there's another kind of political squeamishness that they don't talk about, which is when the policies required to win would be ones they themselves oppose on principle. Were we too squeamish about allowing Islamic terrorists a seat at the table, even if doing so may have served as a litmus test of their popular support and offered a relief valve for their political aims? Were we too squeamish in our reluctance to spend money? If Bush had said at the outset that he expected a minimum of 500,000 troops would be stationed across Afghanistan for the next 20 years minimum and would be slowly drawn down over the following 30, that all troops serving in Afghanistan would be expected to learn the local language of the area where they were serving, and that we would send hundreds of billions of dollars in economic development funds annually with absolutely no expectation of there being any kind of payoff, because this afforded Afghanistan the best chance of stability, what do you think the raction would have been? Even in the wake of 9/11, this would have been too much. But would it have meant we were too squeamish to want to win?
the reinstatement of the King (not doing this was one of the great failures of the war)
I'll never understand why people think monarchical restorations are a good idea. I can't think of any examples of this ever working, and it gets worse the closer you get in history. The Stuart Restoration is probably the most successful, but it only lasted 28 years, and they had only been out of power for about a decade. The Bourbon Restoration lasted 15 years. And honestly those are the only two examples I can think of because the rest aren't true restorations of exiled kings returning. I don't see how a guy who was nearly 90 and hadn't set foot in the country in 30 years was going to be the man of the hour to save Afghanistan from the Taliban. Yes, he was well-liked among all ethnic groups. This is what happens when half the population can't remember your being in power and the other half is looking through nostalgia-tinted glasses. That kind of goodwill is burned quickly when you're actually in power and have to make real decisions, and you haven't done anything remotely resembling statecraft in decades. It also would have seriously pissed off Pakistan to the point that it would have jeopardized the US's ability to use the land corridor, which would have made matters significantly worse than having Karzai, who was also popular at the time of his election.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
The average age of enlisted personnel is 27. If you assume their parents had them at age 30 on average, that would mean that their grandparents were born around 1938, which is probably a little early. 1938 was 73 years after the Civil War ended. Their grandparents would have grown up around people who remembered the Civil War in the same sense that someone born in 1991 grew up around people who remember World War I; I was born earlier than that and I don't recall a single instance of anyone talking about memories of WWI. The oldest people in my life, who were well into their 80s by the time someone born in 1991 would have been old enough to remember anything about world events, were themselves not old enough to have any meaningful memories of WWI. The last Civil War veterans reunion in 1938 at Gettysburg attracted 2,000 people. The average age was 94. Coincidentally, my own grandmother and great aunt's grandfather was a Civil War veteran, and I only know this because of genealogical research I did when I was in my 30s. Keep in mind that they were born in 1913 and 1911, respectively, and he died in 1920 at age 80, so that gives you an arbitrary example of when a fairly typical Civil War veteran would have passed, and how old one would have to be to have any memory of them being alive.
Anyway, I can't find good numbers on this, but a report from Brown University on the state of origin of people serving in post-9/11 wars at least points in the right direction. Assuming their work is representative, while the fact that the South provides a disproportionate number of soldiers is true, your thesis doesn't hold when you look at things at a more granular level. Most of this is driven by three states—Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina—that have vastly disproportionate numbers. But Florida gets an asterisk since its population didn't start taking off until well after the Civil War and relatively few of its present-day residents are culturally Southern, with only 43% born in the former Confederacy. Alabama is in the top-ten per capita, but Mississippi isn't; it's close to the national average, as are Arkansas and Louisiana, which has the highest native-born population of any Southern state at 78% born in-state.
Even if the effect does exist to the extent, it doesn't seem to have much of an effect when applied to the military as a whole. The top four states in terms of total enlistees mirror the top four states in population: California, Texas, Florida, and New York, in that order. Nine of the top ten are the same; Pennsylvania takes the biggest drop, from 5 to 9. Michigan, tenth in total population, is replaced by Virginia which is twelfth in total population. South Carolina, Alaska, and Hawaii punch above their weight when it come to producing enlistees, but their populations are small enough that it doesn't move them much on the list. South Carolina moves from 23 to 17. Alaska moves from 49 to 44. Hawaii moves from 41 to 39. The correlation between population and number of enlisted is 0.98. You can criticize the numbers because they are only a snapshot of a certain subset of enlisted men taken at a certain time and not representative of say, everyone who has served in the past 20 years, but I would expect variation due to sample size to smooth out with better data, not go in the opposite direction.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
The Civil War was 160 years ago. The South's period as a cultural and economic backwater was largely over by the time most of the current enlistees were born. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that "generational trauma" or whatever is a thing? I guess that would also explain why blacks have disproportionately high enlistment rates.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
Cardinal directions refer to the surface of the earth, not some abstract fixed plane.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
Not necessarily true. I live not 50 meters from one but within walking distance, and I recently made a specific point of going there because I wanted to clean my car before I lent it to someone and didn't have any other errands to run.
Rov_Scam
4d ago
I agree that there are bad attorneys out there, I'm just skeptical that self-help remedies offer any improvement. I did consumer-side law for a few years and the amount of "preparation" a client does in a legal sense (and not just having the right documents together) is usually inversely proportional to how easy it was for me to handle their case. At best these people would read about worst case scenarios and freak themselves out; these were the easy cases because these people tended to be very trusting and did an emotional 180 at the end of the consult. The worst were the people who were convinced they knew how I should handle the case and second-guessed my every decision. No, I am not going to try that One Weird Trick that's not going to work and might get me sanctioned. Yes, after much cajoling, I may be willing to put together a bunch of exotic entities that you heard about, but only after trying to talk you out of them, and only because if I lose you as a client you'll go to someone else who will charge you more and won't do the job right.
I did a lot of bankruptcy and estate administration and the problem with those isn't so much that clients have a ton of questions but that there's a flurry of activity right at the beginning followed by a lot of waiting, and they get worried if they haven't heard from you in a while and all you can tell them is that it's a waiting game. I'm not going to get into the workflow and how the consults are usually constructed, but in these kinds of cases the client is meeting with the attorney enough in the early stages that there's plenty of opportunity to ask questions. Like I said, LLMs weren't a thing quite yet, but there was a lot of Google, plus people like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey, and I specifically instructed my clients to avoid the internet and pop financial gurus and if they wanted general information I recommended good publications that were easily available in libraries. But I can't imagine that telling them to direct their questions to an LLM would inspire much confidence.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
The Eisenhower Dollar flopped because it was too large and cumbersome to be convenient to use. So they replaced it with the Susan B. Anthony Dollar, which flopped because it was too similar to a quarter. They then replaced it with the Sacajawea Dollar, which was similar in size, but which the Mint thought would be distinguishable because of its gold color. Unfortunately, while it was visually distinct it wasn't so much when people are reaching in their pockets for change, so it flopped. Then they started the president series, which they thought would work because of the public interest in the 50 state quarter series. But it didn't have the desired effect, probably because it's easier to get people to collect an existing coin than to rely on collector demand to force the coins into circulation. Since Trump was able to effectively end the penny by simply telling the mint to stop producing them, maybe he could do something similar whereby he tells the Bureau of Printing and Engraving to stop producing dollar bills and print more 2 dollar bills, and has the mint ramp up dollar coin production. But people had been calling for the end of the penny for years, while the dollar bill remains popular, so I don't know that it would fly.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
perfume and cologne is generally supposed to be personal-space-percieved only.
Which is fine, provided the personal space is limited to someone who is kissing you. It does not extend to the entire elevator.
When a woman passes me with an enticing perfume I think something very much along those lines. Perhaps with a bit more eroticism.
In other words, you can put it with cars and athletic ability in the category of things men think impress women because they impress other men. I have never once heard a woman compliment a man for his cologne or tell me they liked the smell of a guy's cologne. I have heard a lot of women complaining about guys who wear too much cologne.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
Yeah, I don't think non-professionals realize that for most issues there's a lot of leeway with particular questions and the answers are unlikely to be resolved on appeal since most judges encourage the parties to settle and the parties are going to settle unless either things go completely off the rails or they really want a favorable appellate ruling and are willing to risk a multimillion dollar verdict (or long prison sentence) to get the answer. I'd also add opposing counsel to the list of relevant people that LLMs will never be able to understand. The bulk of my job consists of analyzing facts so I can figure out how much the case is worth from a settlement standpoint. Unless you've settled a few cases you aren't going to have any idea how much yours is worth. And I'd assume that most pro se litigants would insist that their case is worth either full value or nothing, depending on what side they're on. You may think you have a good argument, but chances are that a professional wouldn't take it to trial unless they absolutely had to.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
I agree that there are plenty of bad attorneys out there, but the situation you describe is malpractice.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
People have called me old-fashioned for this, but I still think that legal digests are the best way to conduct research since you can browse cases broadly by category and read thumbnail descriptions rather than have to dive into the case itself. Unfortunately I don't have a law library at work, so I have to make do with Lexis. Luckily I don't have to do research very often.
With LLMs, I think there's a general problem whereby people who aren't in a field and don't know what people in the field actually do all day confidently assert that some piece of technology will make them obsolete. Lexis or Westlaw could develop a perfect research tool that gave me all the relevant material on the first try every time, and it might save me a few hours per year. And even at that, a lot of legal argument involves a kind of inferential knowledge that you aren't going to find explicitly stated in caselaw. Just for fun, I constructed a simple scenario loosely based on an argument that took place last week:
George filed a lawsuit in Ohio in 1998 alleging that he developed asbestosis as a result of work he performed at a steel mill in the 1970s. Several defendants were named in the suit, and he settled with some of them. The suit was dismissed in 2007. In 2021, he filed another lawsuit in Pennsylvania alleging that he contracted asbestosis from the same work as the 1998 suit. He sued some defendants from the 1998 suit from whom he did not receive settlements. The remaining defendants were not named in the 1998 suit. Is the 2021 suit barred by the statute of limitations?
In the real case there were additional factors at play that complicated the situation, but this distills a basic question. I won't reproduce the overlong answer here, but ChatGTP confidently stated that the action was almost certainly barred by the SoL and went on to list all of the factors and applied the facts to them, just as one would do in a law school exam. The only problem is that the answer is wrong, and it's not wrong in the sense that it's an obvious hallucination but in the sense that there's a lot more going on that a Chatbot, at least at this stage, isn't going to consider.
The PA courts ruled in 1993 that asbestosis suits required actual impairment. The Ohio courts were silent on the issue until after tort reform in 2004 barred suits with no impairment. To be clear, no court explicitly allowed suits without impairment, but they hadn't been barred, and plenty of defendants settled these suits. The upshot is that if he had no impairment in 1998 then he had no valid case in PA, and the SoL would begin running not from date of diagnosis but from date of actual impairment.
Or at least that's what I think is going to happen, because we haven't gotten a ruling yet. But my point is that the model seems to be straightforward: It recognizes it as a SoL question, pulls the relevant SoL rules, and applies the rules to the facts I gave it. What it didn't do was consider that there may be other law out there not directly related to the SoL that's relevant to whether a claim even exists, and, by extension, whether there are any relevant facts that weren't mentioned that would go into the analysis. Even if the LLM know about the whole impairment issue, it wouldn't be able to give an answer without knowing whether the 1998 complaint alleged any impairment. And the analysis doesn't even stop there, because then we get to the issue of whether an averment in a complaint counts as a judicial admission.
To illustrate the point further, I asked the LLM whether a defendant who didn't settle the 1998 suit would be able to make an argument that the claim was barred by res judicata. It didn't do quite as bad here; rather than being incorrect, the answer was merely misleading. It said yes, provided that the dismissal was on the merits, etc. and listed the res judicata stuff. The problem for the average person is that they're going to see the yes and not worry too much about anything else, because in the actual case the dismissal was administrative. A sufficiently eagle-eyed LLM would be hip to the reality that administrative dismissals aren't exactly rare.
The bigger problem is that a sufficiently eagle-eyed LLM doesn't exist. Maybe it can exist, but it would still be useless. In the real case that this is based on, the Plaintiff was deposed for three days. There were three days worth of questions, the answers of which were all potentially relevant, and even that didn't cover all of the information needed to accurately evaluate this argument.
It's pretty obvious from the context here that this guy wasn't just trying to get background information or looking up the definition of "included offense"; if that were the case it's unlikely his attorney would even contest handing over the documents. He was probably laying out what he did in detail and trying to see if the LLM's advice corresponded to what his attorney was telling him, or doing something else that required him to disclose incriminating information.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
I'm not sure what the point of this would be. If you're represented by a lawyer, why are you asking an LLM questions about your case. That's the point of having a lawyer! If the lawyer can't explain things sufficiently, then you simply don't have a good lawyer. In any event, this wouldn't work because you would still be disclosing the information to a third party. The email question is complicated, but it ultimately isn't comparable. For starters, we have to be very careful with our email communications in general because there is a lot of confidential information (including information that would be shared with the opposing party anyway) that could get leaked—social security numbers, financial information, medical information, proprietary business information, etc. Any law firm is going to use a secure email server run by their IT company. Any email sent from the attorney's account is going to be encrypted, and they should ensure that any email the client sends will be encrypted as well.
If for some reasons these precautions aren't taken, there's not gotcha that I'm aware of that says because something hidden in Google's TOS that says they can read your emails would make communications from an unsophisticated party to an attorney unprotected because they were shared with a third party. When it comes to attorney communications, most judges would probably say that the sender had a reasonable expectation of privacy in email communications and didn't expect that the server host would have access, especially a large host like Google that deals with millions of emails an hour. The situation with LLMs is different because you're deliberately giving the third party company the information with the expectation that they will provide an output, not just using them as a messenger or having them store it for you.
When I was doing consumer-side stuff, LLMs weren't really a thing yet, but Google definitely was. I told clients that if they had questions for me to write them down and call me after enough time had passed that they didn't anticipate having any more (usually a couple weeks). I expressly warned them not to start Googling for answers. The reason for this isn't because I was protecting billable hours (I was charging flat fees and it was theoretically costing me money to take their calls), but because I didn't want them scaring the shit out of themselves. There's a lot of bad or inapplicable legal information online, and it's easy for someone to get worked up based on information that's irrelevant. If they really wanted more information I'd tell them to check a NOLO guide out of the library because at least I could vouch for the accuracy of the information, but told them to keep in mind that I paid hundreds of dollars a year for practice manuals that go into much more technical detail than anything they're going to find and am also familiar with local practice. In other words, if they get concerned that I didn't take some factor into consideration then rest assured that if they're reading about it on the internet than I did. There were, of course, a few people who felt the need to argue with me and any time I'd set them straight they'd go back to Google to prove me wrong, but they were just assholes.
Being disabled per the ADA is a low bar because it doesn't get you much, just the right to a reasonable accommodation. There's a huge jump from that to being disabled as far as per the Social Security Administration, which if you're over 50 means you physically can't do any job you've done in the past 20 years (or have the skills to do) and if you're under 50 means you can't work, period. They're also different in that under the ADA the cost is trivial and born by the employer, whereas under Social Security the cost is substantial and is born by the Federal government. Few people under 50 qualify as disabled, even among those who think they're disabled.
More options
Context Copy link