Accessibility of free software is more important than ever.

As is regulation of medical devices.

Free healthcare as well

Well, yes. Capitalism is why the product could even be developed in the first place, and also why it ended the way it did.

I’d argue that a plain-English reading is actually the other way around. A “person with a car” is a normal descriptor, a “car person” is somebody for whom cars are a major life fixture. So accordingly I feel that “blind person” makes it more… conclusive? all encompassing? than “person with blindness”.

To tag onto this, how do you feel about using "blind" in the figurative sense? Like "People born with various kinds of privilege are often blind to the ways they subtly benefit from that privilege on a daily basis"

> What do you think about the recent "People with blindness" obsession, as evidenced in the title?

Is there really an "obsession"? Also, while I don't deny there's some discussion here, I think you really have to squint to read the title in such a way.

In any case, I ... really don't care. As another commenter says, there are other, bigger, more important hills to die on than getting worked up about people trying to be more inclusive with their language.

Does it take anything away from me or minimize my disability when I'm referred to as a "blind person" vs a "person with blindness"? Not at all. So why does it matter?

And to be honest, I've never once met a blind person (or autistic person) who actually cares about this type of wording. I think this is one of those battles being fought by the extremes on either side, and it's frustrating and exhausting for everyone else, because it's a distraction from the real issues. And you can see this right in this comment!

> I am not blind nor deaf etc., but I am frankly fed up with it.

You're "frankly fed up" with something that barely affects you at all. Why?

Since you ask... I am find as long as blind is actually used. I dont particular care about the order of words. However, what I absolutely despise and truely hate is this "visually challenged" nonesense from the leftist language police.

It shortcuts the American tendency to turn all disability-related nouns into slurs. (I found out a few weeks ago that "deaf-mute" is a slur in the States.) That's the major advantage, as far as I can tell.

Years ago I saw on TV a report where people bought several sunglasses sold in the street in Brazil and compared to the expensive brands and they all cut UV quite effectively.

Not that I would trust national TV test methodologies and risk my vision but it was a curious result.

Those that fail to block uv can leave your eyes exposed to more UV than if you were not wearing any sun glasses.

I find that surprising since most plastics you would make glasses from should block uv.

I was prescribed vit a palmitate, lutein, and DHA. The vit prescribed was a high dose, like 10k iu per day. I cut back on that dose, I'm going blind but I also need to consider my general health. I have ushers syndrome, not md, but it's a retinal disease (retinitis pigmentosa).

To be clear, this is prescribed as a "we can't do anything else for you" thing, since there is no cure for RP. This may or may not actually help.