Sony is doing good with their cameras and at this point they can compete in every major digital camera category. They're clearly not "best in class" though. But you claim more than just best-in-class, you claim they are easily best-in-class. Which is a joke. Fans should remain happy that their favorite brand has offerings that are comparable to Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta. Claiming they're "easily" better than those turns a positive review into a bit of a joke, though.
Disclaimer: I've been taking pictures all week with a nice Sony camera. It is as good as other offerings in the same category, and like all the others, it blows away whatever brand camera from 5 years ago that people are usually comparing their new camera to.;) But it isn't any better than a new other-brand. It has better low-light performance than the brands with better detail, of course. And worse low-light performance than the ones with worse detail. There was a time when some of the major brands were way ahead, but now there are fine differences that are related to tradeoffs, with no clear "best-of"'s.
The Pentax K3-II has an awesome innovation which is that instead of a static low-pass filter (to prevent moire) that you have to either include or not include at time of manufacture, they vibrate the dust screen for the low-pass. So you can turn it on and off. Saves needing a different camera for landscape and portrait. (moire effects most often happen when photographing fabrics)
I did hear that Sony invested in a new and bigger sensor, which is great, but just a natural progression of what the whole industry has been doing for decades. Nothing innovative at all there. I know their professional stuff has lots of innovations, but none of that is DSLR.
What innovation has Sony contributed to DSLRs lately?
The PlayStation isn't electronics business, it is in fact entertainment.
Electronics is low margin because of commodity parts and consumer demand for interoperability. Think, microwaves and computers. You don't need a special brand of microwave to heat Packaged Dinner Product.
Console gaming is not a commodity market at all. You can't buy a game and then play it on whatever console was on sale that week. There are no generics, and there is no interoperability. If a particular console has low margin, it means the company is trying to make money off the games. It won't be low margin when considered in total. Generally speaking, the lowest margin consoles are associated with the highest margin game divisions!
As to TFS, what a load. Spinning stuff off doesn't change anything about the products, it changes the corporate accounting. The different departments already had their own bosses. The presumption that people are somehow "distracted" by the parent company employing people (often in totally different locations) to work on other products seems especially daft. If they spin off a division, none of the employees went anywhere, nobody is more or less distracted. Ownership doesn't even change; the parent company simply uses a different set of procedures to manage their subsidiary. If they were truly being distracted by owning both divisions, they'll be equally distracted owning the stock of the subsidiary, and they'll be just as able to mingle their efforts if they desire spaghetti.
And if they shut down a division and sell off the product line, those employees all get laid off, except the few that get hired by whoever bought the bits and pieces. That doesn't reduce the distraction for the other departments at all.
Honestly, if changing the corporate structure was as disruptive as pundits are hoping and fantasizing, they wouldn't be doing it.;)
You stated your own answer, just take out the "unless" and believe that Linus understands things like, how linux kernel devs get paid. "The new job pays you to contribute to the kernel." Mystery solved, there was no mystery!
Device driver writing is some "trivial resume-padding you can pick up in a weekend", tbh.
Rewriting a kernel subsystem, on the other hand...
Sortof, except that even if the majority fit that description, the majority are also written before you even know they exist. A person in the position of needing to pad their resume doesn't own pre-release promotional copies of all the latest hardware. By the time the device is in the store and they know to check for a driver, the patch is already a month old on a mailing list. Even if you're reading the mailing lists, the process is not normally, "gosh people there is no driver for this device, will somebody please write one, here I'll mail you the hardware." The first you'll hear about the new hardware needing a driver is when the patch gets paraded on the list.
All the missing device drivers are for very expensive hardware that very few gainfully employed developers have access to, and the things that are hard because of missing or intentionally incorrect proprietary information.
It would be a lot more effective a resume pad to just re-implement a few kernel wheels, not even submit them, and present them as an appendix of working code samples. It saves all the wasted years hunting, hunting, hunting for that elusive easy-but-unimplemented driver. Heck, even just reading the friendly manual during those years would be more productive.
esd wasn't nothing, it just didn't obey the generic network-able "everything is a file" type of *nix attitude. There were lots of sound servers, but they all took a windows-type attitude of wanting to take over the sound card for exclusive use, and also had low quality and incomplete APIs. PulseAudio was included by distros about 3 years too early, for reasons having to do with implementation bugs, and the wide variety of hardware bugs in sound cards. (because sound cards are cheap hardware, they get less engineering and need more software workarounds)
Before it was really ready, turning off PulseAudio was the second thing I did to a new install. (right after turning off NetworkManager) But once the bugs shook out, the reality is that it is much better than what came before, and properly interfaces with the rest of the ecosystem.
The real point of his point was, people with weak programming skills can improve anything, especially any software they interact with that is in a difficult problem space and therefore has low-appearing fruit. That turns out to be "too hard." And instead of learning to be less credulous of wild complaints, he learned that his mistake was not to charge ahead into the problems that were too hard for him, merely because he saw others who had the background to take on the problems have some amount of difficulty, or at least he heard people say bad things about them.
It is all very typical. He abandoned kernel dev while at the height of the Dunning-Kruger curve, before having even started to take something on, and realized it was just too hard for him. Had he actually tried to push forwards and write code,(just a detail, or the real part?) he'd have quickly found the bottom of that curve.
Ideas are worthless, even good ideas. I've got notebooks full of ideas, and nobody cares. If I had notebooks full of implementations, I'd be famous.
Electricity is analog, so digital electronics are built from analog parts. That the IC reading the pot is CMOS doesn't tell you anything about if it is digital or analog; it tells you that it is voltage controlled instead of current controlled, and will use almost no power for the control circuit overhead. More importantly, it means the pot will last a long time because there will a very very tiny amount of current, especially compared to TTL (transistor) control.
But using a BJ transistors it is current controlled, instead of voltage controlled, so when you turn the pot and increase the voltage, more power is used by the control circuit. And more current is drawn through the pot, reducing its lifespan.
The thing is, using CMOS or TTL control circuitry is exactly the same as regards to analog vs digital; the whole point of either is to dim the light by turning it on and off very rapidly with a PWM circuit. The PWM component is entirely digital; that is the whole point, the light is always at either 100% or 0%, so you have peak efficiency. And the basic purpose of the device is to connect that digital power supply to an analog interface, usually the human fingers. So it will always be a hybrid device, and the individual electronic components will be fully analog. But note that the analog nature of electronic components is not enough alone to call it a hybrid circuit. You could use an expensive digital input like an optical encoder in place of the potentiometer, and now it would be purely digital, even though it is made of analog components and interfaces with an analog finger.
Most modern dimmers are both; an analog potentiometer, but instead of directly controlling the load, it controls a digital CMOS device that translates the voltage level of the pot to the on/off cycles of a PWM circuit. This is a good balance because the pots will last a long time because there is almost no current used by the CMOS input, and digital pot-replacements are usually expensive and have just as many (or more) moving parts. They're starting to use Hall effect sensors in more flashlights now, but is the same as with the pot; an analog sensor controlling a digital power supply.
Now, take that old Nook and duct tape it to the wall inside the bathroom, where the light switch used to be, and you've really got the luxury of convenience.
I can imagine being injured or otherwise differently able and wanting an easy-open refrigerator. But a capacitive button and a powered door might be better for most people than voice control. You can locate the button outside the motion of the door, too.
It solves a real problem that is largely unsolved in current products. The only problem is, there is long-existing technology that already solves those problems, but isn't included in products.
If they'd just give everything a networked embedded processor with a published interface and open source reference implementations it would be a much bigger improvement, a much smarter improvement, than ad-hoc proprietary features that vary per manufacturer. There would be a proliferation of third party interfaces and add-ons. And people who wanted voice control could have it using existing text-to-speech and speech-to-text, or whatever new proprietary remote voice analysis is getting hyped this week.
Voice control for lights reminds me of capacitive lamps; lighting in a metal case that you turn on/off by touching the metal. Really cool the first time you see it, especially for kids. Not actually any different functionally, other than malfunctions in an electrical storm or cycling the light at every brownout/ or power supply flicker.
But I will give voice control some credit; it is at least useful and reliable as Clap-On, Clap-Off.
As an accessibility device for the blind, though, voice control will be a major improvement. Combined with good interface design it would be possible then to have appliances with a voice-discoverable features and menus. For the most part we're not there yet. But I only fault product design for that. The blind don't need the voice control to be really great, only the masses need that. For people just trying to control important devices, they can simply learn to enunciate as the computer requires.
We've known the useful feature for decades already, and in the "home of the future" predictions and droolings from the 90s it was already apparent.
The features people want are: * Check if the coffee maker/stove/doodad is turned off, from the car/hotel room/airport. Not because people burn down their houses whenever they go on vacation, but because it is natural to worry about if these tasks were completed, and associated anxiety degrades people's quality of life. The prehistoric version is, "I wonder if that bear is trying to nest in my cave? How many days should I hide in this hunting spot before running home to check?" * Turn on the oven/coffee maker/doodad from the bar/restaurant/airport so it is ready when you get home, without having to know with confidence at the time of departure when you will arrive home. * Turn off lights/doodads automatically according to movement from room to room, with ability to over-ride.
One funny part about the submission... if you're re-wiring your house to make it the Smarthouse of the Future, don't tape over switches. Rewire them. If you're not replacing the switches with momentary pushbuttons for over-rides, don't expect lighting features to work smoothly. When you're applying the tape, you should be calibrating your expectations to the "duct tape" setting, not the Jetson's setting. (background info for youngsters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... ) Like when computers went from real on/off switches to buttons that look like switches, and now you could power on/off from the keyboard, or remotely. If you don't have the new switch, you can still use the new remote motherboard features... just run two wires outside the case, and touch them together in place of the button. Probably a bad idea unless you've a genuine use for remote on/off, but at least you could use the new MB with the old case.
If your goal is to impress your friends, buy a boat and take them fishing. Build an awesome recreation room/cave and invite them over. "Smart house" features should not be impressive, they should be either be giving you boring information (house not burning down, oven is off, door is locked) or else hiding features that you currently pay attention to, like turning lights on and off. Guests aren't going to be impressed by a lack of turning things on and off, because guests are generally not the ones doing that anyways. Trying to impress them with not having to turn the light on/off for them is going to be you standing there doing nothing, with a smug look, while your friends give you a golf clap and tell you to ask your house if there is beer in the fridge.
How To Implement the Smart House of the Future: Step 1: Install only features you have a known (to you!) use for. Step 2: Only brag to friends who have intimated having purchased such devices. Step 3: If you're cutting corners, it isn't going to be smart. It is going to smaht. Install the whole thing, or expect it to suck. Calibrate expectations accordingly.
Bitch all you want, but don't be surprised when you're treated like a backwoods bigot who worries what other people wear. Not everybody's mom is as great a fashionista as yours.
Tourette's is usually easy to spot, just notice the look of complete horror on the sufferer's face when they hear whatever just came out of their mouth. Assholes never have that look unless they're making fun of somebody else.
I totally agree about the anti-social point. My friend isn't ever intentionally rude, he's a caring person with a normal level of sensitivity to people's emotions. The problem is, he can't effectively gauge people's emotions or responses. So he'll say things that would be totally rude, and are certainly disrespectful, but it is totally innocent. He doesn't have an intuitive understanding, for example, of the difference between rape jokes and general sex jokes. He can remember that there is a difference to others, so he doesn't tell rape jokes; but he might be the only person in the room who laughs when somebody tells one and everybody else is covering their eyes and trying to start new conversations. He doesn't comprehend the difference between rape and shoplifting. To him rape looks less-bad, unless the victim was a virgin. Rape is like cutting in line by force; dishonest, coercive, but without an emotional element other than related to inconvenience. There is a marked lack of empathy, but that doesn't imply mal-intent, or an inability to control behaviors that others have reported as being harmful.
The people I know with Asperger's have low general IQ, but high specific intelligence. For example one person that is "high functioning" but has an IQ in the low 80s and is in the 99th percentile in chess, and can excel in academics other than attendance issues.
That still leaves the math predicting it would be a Libertarian anti-vax pocket. You don't have to be in a majority anywhere in order to create a pocket of infection wherever you are more numerous.
I don't have to have a "relationship" with a tech to know that hating a person, and using that hate in place of technical considerations, and even bringing it up when talking about software, is pathetic and childish and an extreme anti-pattern.
A "relationship?!" Seriously? That is the only reason you can think of why a nerd would be bothered by your clique-forming and conflation of clique-shaming with technical analysis? You might want to turn in your nerd card.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony is doing good with their cameras and at this point they can compete in every major digital camera category. They're clearly not "best in class" though. But you claim more than just best-in-class, you claim they are easily best-in-class. Which is a joke. Fans should remain happy that their favorite brand has offerings that are comparable to Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta. Claiming they're "easily" better than those turns a positive review into a bit of a joke, though.
Disclaimer: I've been taking pictures all week with a nice Sony camera. It is as good as other offerings in the same category, and like all the others, it blows away whatever brand camera from 5 years ago that people are usually comparing their new camera to. ;) But it isn't any better than a new other-brand. It has better low-light performance than the brands with better detail, of course. And worse low-light performance than the ones with worse detail. There was a time when some of the major brands were way ahead, but now there are fine differences that are related to tradeoffs, with no clear "best-of"'s.
The Pentax K3-II has an awesome innovation which is that instead of a static low-pass filter (to prevent moire) that you have to either include or not include at time of manufacture, they vibrate the dust screen for the low-pass. So you can turn it on and off. Saves needing a different camera for landscape and portrait. (moire effects most often happen when photographing fabrics)
I did hear that Sony invested in a new and bigger sensor, which is great, but just a natural progression of what the whole industry has been doing for decades. Nothing innovative at all there. I know their professional stuff has lots of innovations, but none of that is DSLR.
What innovation has Sony contributed to DSLRs lately?
The PlayStation isn't electronics business, it is in fact entertainment.
Electronics is low margin because of commodity parts and consumer demand for interoperability. Think, microwaves and computers. You don't need a special brand of microwave to heat Packaged Dinner Product.
Console gaming is not a commodity market at all. You can't buy a game and then play it on whatever console was on sale that week. There are no generics, and there is no interoperability. If a particular console has low margin, it means the company is trying to make money off the games. It won't be low margin when considered in total. Generally speaking, the lowest margin consoles are associated with the highest margin game divisions!
As to TFS, what a load. Spinning stuff off doesn't change anything about the products, it changes the corporate accounting. The different departments already had their own bosses. The presumption that people are somehow "distracted" by the parent company employing people (often in totally different locations) to work on other products seems especially daft. If they spin off a division, none of the employees went anywhere, nobody is more or less distracted. Ownership doesn't even change; the parent company simply uses a different set of procedures to manage their subsidiary. If they were truly being distracted by owning both divisions, they'll be equally distracted owning the stock of the subsidiary, and they'll be just as able to mingle their efforts if they desire spaghetti.
And if they shut down a division and sell off the product line, those employees all get laid off, except the few that get hired by whoever bought the bits and pieces. That doesn't reduce the distraction for the other departments at all.
Honestly, if changing the corporate structure was as disruptive as pundits are hoping and fantasizing, they wouldn't be doing it. ;)
No, you're out of context, not Linus.
You stated your own answer, just take out the "unless" and believe that Linus understands things like, how linux kernel devs get paid. "The new job pays you to contribute to the kernel." Mystery solved, there was no mystery!
Device driver writing is some "trivial resume-padding you can pick up in a weekend", tbh.
Rewriting a kernel subsystem, on the other hand...
Sortof, except that even if the majority fit that description, the majority are also written before you even know they exist. A person in the position of needing to pad their resume doesn't own pre-release promotional copies of all the latest hardware. By the time the device is in the store and they know to check for a driver, the patch is already a month old on a mailing list. Even if you're reading the mailing lists, the process is not normally, "gosh people there is no driver for this device, will somebody please write one, here I'll mail you the hardware." The first you'll hear about the new hardware needing a driver is when the patch gets paraded on the list.
All the missing device drivers are for very expensive hardware that very few gainfully employed developers have access to, and the things that are hard because of missing or intentionally incorrect proprietary information.
It would be a lot more effective a resume pad to just re-implement a few kernel wheels, not even submit them, and present them as an appendix of working code samples. It saves all the wasted years hunting, hunting, hunting for that elusive easy-but-unimplemented driver. Heck, even just reading the friendly manual during those years would be more productive.
esd wasn't nothing, it just didn't obey the generic network-able "everything is a file" type of *nix attitude. There were lots of sound servers, but they all took a windows-type attitude of wanting to take over the sound card for exclusive use, and also had low quality and incomplete APIs. PulseAudio was included by distros about 3 years too early, for reasons having to do with implementation bugs, and the wide variety of hardware bugs in sound cards. (because sound cards are cheap hardware, they get less engineering and need more software workarounds)
Before it was really ready, turning off PulseAudio was the second thing I did to a new install. (right after turning off NetworkManager) But once the bugs shook out, the reality is that it is much better than what came before, and properly interfaces with the rest of the ecosystem.
The real point of his point was, people with weak programming skills can improve anything, especially any software they interact with that is in a difficult problem space and therefore has low-appearing fruit. That turns out to be "too hard." And instead of learning to be less credulous of wild complaints, he learned that his mistake was not to charge ahead into the problems that were too hard for him, merely because he saw others who had the background to take on the problems have some amount of difficulty, or at least he heard people say bad things about them.
It is all very typical. He abandoned kernel dev while at the height of the Dunning-Kruger curve, before having even started to take something on, and realized it was just too hard for him. Had he actually tried to push forwards and write code,(just a detail, or the real part?) he'd have quickly found the bottom of that curve.
Ideas are worthless, even good ideas. I've got notebooks full of ideas, and nobody cares. If I had notebooks full of implementations, I'd be famous.
If you're not an anti-vaxer, and you don't vaccinate your children, then I'm going to have to stick to my original analysis; Intending murderer
Only when you're counting on them, Sonny. Press on a slider pot, and you're going pure analog.
Electricity is analog, so digital electronics are built from analog parts. That the IC reading the pot is CMOS doesn't tell you anything about if it is digital or analog; it tells you that it is voltage controlled instead of current controlled, and will use almost no power for the control circuit overhead. More importantly, it means the pot will last a long time because there will a very very tiny amount of current, especially compared to TTL (transistor) control.
But using a BJ transistors it is current controlled, instead of voltage controlled, so when you turn the pot and increase the voltage, more power is used by the control circuit. And more current is drawn through the pot, reducing its lifespan.
The thing is, using CMOS or TTL control circuitry is exactly the same as regards to analog vs digital; the whole point of either is to dim the light by turning it on and off very rapidly with a PWM circuit. The PWM component is entirely digital; that is the whole point, the light is always at either 100% or 0%, so you have peak efficiency. And the basic purpose of the device is to connect that digital power supply to an analog interface, usually the human fingers. So it will always be a hybrid device, and the individual electronic components will be fully analog. But note that the analog nature of electronic components is not enough alone to call it a hybrid circuit. You could use an expensive digital input like an optical encoder in place of the potentiometer, and now it would be purely digital, even though it is made of analog components and interfaces with an analog finger.
Most modern dimmers are both; an analog potentiometer, but instead of directly controlling the load, it controls a digital CMOS device that translates the voltage level of the pot to the on/off cycles of a PWM circuit. This is a good balance because the pots will last a long time because there is almost no current used by the CMOS input, and digital pot-replacements are usually expensive and have just as many (or more) moving parts. They're starting to use Hall effect sensors in more flashlights now, but is the same as with the pot; an analog sensor controlling a digital power supply.
Now, take that old Nook and duct tape it to the wall inside the bathroom, where the light switch used to be, and you've really got the luxury of convenience.
I can imagine being injured or otherwise differently able and wanting an easy-open refrigerator. But a capacitive button and a powered door might be better for most people than voice control. You can locate the button outside the motion of the door, too.
It solves a real problem that is largely unsolved in current products. The only problem is, there is long-existing technology that already solves those problems, but isn't included in products.
If they'd just give everything a networked embedded processor with a published interface and open source reference implementations it would be a much bigger improvement, a much smarter improvement, than ad-hoc proprietary features that vary per manufacturer. There would be a proliferation of third party interfaces and add-ons. And people who wanted voice control could have it using existing text-to-speech and speech-to-text, or whatever new proprietary remote voice analysis is getting hyped this week.
Voice control for lights reminds me of capacitive lamps; lighting in a metal case that you turn on/off by touching the metal. Really cool the first time you see it, especially for kids. Not actually any different functionally, other than malfunctions in an electrical storm or cycling the light at every brownout/ or power supply flicker.
But I will give voice control some credit; it is at least useful and reliable as Clap-On, Clap-Off.
As an accessibility device for the blind, though, voice control will be a major improvement. Combined with good interface design it would be possible then to have appliances with a voice-discoverable features and menus. For the most part we're not there yet. But I only fault product design for that. The blind don't need the voice control to be really great, only the masses need that. For people just trying to control important devices, they can simply learn to enunciate as the computer requires.
We've known the useful feature for decades already, and in the "home of the future" predictions and droolings from the 90s it was already apparent.
The features people want are:
* Check if the coffee maker/stove/doodad is turned off, from the car/hotel room/airport. Not because people burn down their houses whenever they go on vacation, but because it is natural to worry about if these tasks were completed, and associated anxiety degrades people's quality of life. The prehistoric version is, "I wonder if that bear is trying to nest in my cave? How many days should I hide in this hunting spot before running home to check?"
* Turn on the oven/coffee maker/doodad from the bar/restaurant/airport so it is ready when you get home, without having to know with confidence at the time of departure when you will arrive home.
* Turn off lights/doodads automatically according to movement from room to room, with ability to over-ride.
One funny part about the submission... if you're re-wiring your house to make it the Smarthouse of the Future, don't tape over switches. Rewire them. If you're not replacing the switches with momentary pushbuttons for over-rides, don't expect lighting features to work smoothly. When you're applying the tape, you should be calibrating your expectations to the "duct tape" setting, not the Jetson's setting. (background info for youngsters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... ) Like when computers went from real on/off switches to buttons that look like switches, and now you could power on/off from the keyboard, or remotely. If you don't have the new switch, you can still use the new remote motherboard features... just run two wires outside the case, and touch them together in place of the button. Probably a bad idea unless you've a genuine use for remote on/off, but at least you could use the new MB with the old case.
If your goal is to impress your friends, buy a boat and take them fishing. Build an awesome recreation room/cave and invite them over. "Smart house" features should not be impressive, they should be either be giving you boring information (house not burning down, oven is off, door is locked) or else hiding features that you currently pay attention to, like turning lights on and off. Guests aren't going to be impressed by a lack of turning things on and off, because guests are generally not the ones doing that anyways. Trying to impress them with not having to turn the light on/off for them is going to be you standing there doing nothing, with a smug look, while your friends give you a golf clap and tell you to ask your house if there is beer in the fridge.
How To Implement the Smart House of the Future:
Step 1: Install only features you have a known (to you!) use for.
Step 2: Only brag to friends who have intimated having purchased such devices.
Step 3: If you're cutting corners, it isn't going to be smart. It is going to smaht. Install the whole thing, or expect it to suck. Calibrate expectations accordingly.
Bitch all you want, but don't be surprised when you're treated like a backwoods bigot who worries what other people wear. Not everybody's mom is as great a fashionista as yours.
Tourette's is usually easy to spot, just notice the look of complete horror on the sufferer's face when they hear whatever just came out of their mouth. Assholes never have that look unless they're making fun of somebody else.
I totally agree about the anti-social point. My friend isn't ever intentionally rude, he's a caring person with a normal level of sensitivity to people's emotions. The problem is, he can't effectively gauge people's emotions or responses. So he'll say things that would be totally rude, and are certainly disrespectful, but it is totally innocent. He doesn't have an intuitive understanding, for example, of the difference between rape jokes and general sex jokes. He can remember that there is a difference to others, so he doesn't tell rape jokes; but he might be the only person in the room who laughs when somebody tells one and everybody else is covering their eyes and trying to start new conversations. He doesn't comprehend the difference between rape and shoplifting. To him rape looks less-bad, unless the victim was a virgin. Rape is like cutting in line by force; dishonest, coercive, but without an emotional element other than related to inconvenience. There is a marked lack of empathy, but that doesn't imply mal-intent, or an inability to control behaviors that others have reported as being harmful.
Humorous hyperbole makes poster look silly, news at 11.
You can tell it is humor because you're obviously only an attempted murderer, there is no evidence you've successfully infected anybody yet.
You're an anti-vaxer, what makes you so sure you're the arbiter of what is worth listening to?
Where I'm from we call wearing a rainbow tutu "freedom," and it isn't something anybody needs to stop.
I'm not autistic, but I'm not going to look you in the eye and I couldn't care less what you think about it.
Neckbeards aren't neurotypical, but that is a whole different spectrum.
Great, another Arseburger spectrum. Are you an orange or a goat?
The people I know with Asperger's have low general IQ, but high specific intelligence. For example one person that is "high functioning" but has an IQ in the low 80s and is in the 99th percentile in chess, and can excel in academics other than attendance issues.
Protip: you sound like a climate change denier.
That still leaves the math predicting it would be a Libertarian anti-vax pocket. You don't have to be in a majority anywhere in order to create a pocket of infection wherever you are more numerous.
I know, my three kids are in school, none have been vaccinated.
MURDERER!
I don't have to have a "relationship" with a tech to know that hating a person, and using that hate in place of technical considerations, and even bringing it up when talking about software, is pathetic and childish and an extreme anti-pattern.
A "relationship?!" Seriously? That is the only reason you can think of why a nerd would be bothered by your clique-forming and conflation of clique-shaming with technical analysis? You might want to turn in your nerd card.