[DanBC]

The UK has concepts of "Reasonable adjustments". Some things are intrinsic parts of a job. A taxi driver must be able to drive. An accountant does not need to be able to drive. Thus, you can justifiably not employ someone for a taxi driver if their disability prevents them from driving, but you could not justifiably not employ an accountant if their disability meant they could not drive.

> As a manager, you should understand how to handle the unique opportunities and challenges that come with hiring an Aspie.

Wait, what? This is weird. Now tell us what it's like employing Jews.

I generally agree with the intent of the article but it comes over a bit "Oh the proud and noble Aspie".

> They will never accept "no" for an answer without being told the reason for it.

That's probably true, but some people with Asperger's will have given up on asking why, knowing that sometimes people use stupid incomprehensible bizarre sub-optimal reasons. When someone tells me no I tend to just accept it, because I know that asking why leads to a rabbit-hole of bitter argument and disappointment.

I sound overly critical of the article. I don't mean to. Oh well.

[solistice]

Honestly, halfway through the article the question popped up on whether I was reading an Article on understanding "Aspies" or whether I was reading an Article on "Aspie"keeping. "Dog's become agressive when stared into the eyes by humans as for Dog's, this signals a fight" vs. "Many people with Asperger's are challenged by large crowds, looking people in the eye and reading common social cues". I don't mean to bash the article, but if anybody shares that feeling about the language used in it...

[jimmaswell]

I thought that was just cats, not really dogs. My dogs look me in the eyes all the time.

[solistice]

My cat also looks me in the eyes very often. I should write an article on it, called "I bought a cat that looks me in the eye - now what?"