I’m blind, and participate in a lot of research projects to create accessible technology, which are mostly done by universities. What I have noticed as a foreigner participating with US based universities is that, a lot of this research while very high-quality and very well done does not actually result in anything that the intended audience gets to use or experience. And a lot of this is due to the amount of red tape, as well as a lack of risk taking. This means that without trying to go commercial a lot of these projects end up shelved and many potential users simply never see the benefits.

I think the article does not explain this well, but (having worked in an applied science field for many years) much of the work is picked up from these failed projects by other members of the field. Sometimes this is quick, sometimes years later. Anyway, while it might not immediately evident, shelved projects often do move the state of the art forward and unlock someone else's success (hence part of the argument for it being a public funded system). Of course, a lot do not, but that is the nature of research.

You can continue to do terrible things as a company, just as long as you don’t do it with Israel

> unix_fan

> You can continue to do terrible things as a company, just as long as you don’t do it with Israel

That's a weird thing to say. I certainly don't agree and would like to hear the rationale of anyone who supports that view.

The same happens in Latin America as well. If you want to get through the layers of bureaucracy without being stuck for years in a process, you have to pay up. And it has to be a well-connected government official. That’s mostly the reason I don’t bother with anything entrepreneurship related here.

This is extremely common in Third World countries, where I come from. In my view, both nonprofits and large religious organizations attract the same kind of people. People who want to create their own little thiefdom, by taking advantage of peoples faith and Good will.

That’s just one part of the issue. The other part of the issue is accessibility bugs, you would have to get the model to learn to use a screen reader, and then change things as needed

I can’t see why that would be a Mac specific issue. I use both platforms, and it would be on the Developer to support screen readers on either platform. Microsoft Office didn’t support voiceover until 2016 for example, and you can’t really report that to apple accessibility.

Where I found a lot of bugs is when it comes to supporting web standards like mathML, and this is where I will usually switch to windows since the screen reader tends to be more flexible, and you have a lot more software focused on assistive tech.

I think what you just mentioned here, at the time there was a lot more software for windows for assistive tech which was a much better experience, where mac os x's screenreader became difficult and buggy.

previously macos just worked way better given that the apps were developed with apple's framework and polish, and accessibility was part of that

On windows for ARM there are quite a few bugs during emulation that I don’t get on an x64 based system, even while using effectively the same settings for the program. Software using custom installers will be the biggest issue, and this is significantly more common on windows than on macOS

As a person of color who is also disabled, I find bringing race into the discussion to be reductionist. It reduces the individual to the skin color, which is just as bad as what you accuse others of doing. People shouldn’t be judged based on whether there are enough black women at Google.

They would want a lot of control over the company

I doubt anybody else would take the same risk, not with the board still in power.