I proposed finding professional help, and a safe person to help ops partner. Not throwing them in the deep end.

You proposed a “clean cut”, which is the deep end as far as OP’s partner is concerned.

Throwing a scared non-swimmer into the deep end is cruel, dangerous, impatient and unnecessary - even if there is a lifeguard (mental health professional) nearby. Lifeguards should definitely be employed, but they are fallible: they may be busy rescuing others, or asleep, or off the clock.

Building skills in the shallow end first, where self-rescue is manageable, is far safer than relying solely on a lifeguard.

You were doing the best you could at that time.

Not only at that time - at any time. There is no better approach than to be compassionate and patient, instead of heartless and impatient - as long as one does not lose sight of the goal or let oneself be trapped.

I did not lose sight of the goal or let myself be trapped.

Likewise, I advised OP, above, how to set boundaries and establish a clear but compassionate path out of the relationship.

You can’t change the past, but we can learn and grow, when we notice mistakes.

What I did was not a mistake. Neither is what I proposed to OP.

ops partner won’t be able to rewire their brain without a clean cut

That is almost certainly a false statement. You have no evidence for it. Neural plasticity is far greater than you seem to think, even on the spectrum.

You are proposing op stay and help ops partner, regardless of how they’re feeling or coping.

Hardly! I’m saying OP should think of the future - not only the present - and should recognise that a little extra effort and inconvenience in the short term will yield much greater peace of mind in the long term.

Because you did it.

I’m not proposing it because I did it.

I’m proposing it because it is the humane, mature, responsible course.

Just the latest reason to boycott Spotify.

I’m sorry you went through that. It probably explains why you’ve proposed an extreme, amygdalic “solution” rather than a safer, more moderate one.

However, I’ve been through it too - and if I’d done what you proposed, I’d almost certainly have had an ex’s suicide attempt on my conscience. Instead, because I chose a more moderate path, that ex learned to be less over-dramatic. They were able to gradually move on, and eventually settle happily with someone else.

To address your implicit assertions: I did not propose that OP should “live in a distressing state” or consider themselves unable to leave. Quite the contrary.

I did try to highlight the big difference between:

1. leaving abruptly and cutting cords entirely (as you propose); and
2. leaving respectfully and with friendship intact.

In OP’s case, this could be the difference between life or death. If I were in OP’s shoes I would not want to risk having a person’s death on my conscience from following your proposal (option 1 above). Instead, I’d rather demonstrate maturity, self-control, moderation, and above all patience.

Analogy: would you push a scared non-swimmer in at the deep end - or do you admit it’s better to let them build skill and confidence in the shallow end before they tackle the deep end?

op actually needs to entirely cut cords. Then ex can see she can survive without op

That seems an unnecessarily impatient and risky suggestion, if the ex is as unwell/fragile as OP indicated; it risks ex committing self-harm or worse.

I guess @Salvo might have been referring to the possibility of subverting “trusted” platform modules into treacherous ones.

wild-looking highlighting

Interesting. I’m not seeing anything wild-looking in my comment.

All the text in my previous comment is black, at least on my screen.

Do you mean the song lyrics, which have a grey background? If so, that’s because I used Markdown’s preformatted text block feature, so the newlines would be in the right places.

You just slip out the back, Jack.
Make a new plan, Stan.
You don't need to be coy, Roy,
Just get yourself free.
Hop on the bus, Gus,
You don't need to discuss much.
Just drop off the key, Lee,
And get yourself free.

In all seriousness, I’d suggest promising specific regular occasions when you’d be happy to meet your ex as a friend, so that they aren’t left entirely without friendship and without events to look forward to. First Saturday afternoon of each month for the next 12 months, or some such.

I’d also recommend contacting a local autism support group who might be able to check in with your ex periodically to help them recover and move on. Ideally, they’d hang out with your ex right after each time your ex sees you, to help take your ex’s mind off you.

Iceland made the wrong choice here, IMO. They’ve kept themselves near the middle of the maturity continuum, instead of advancing to the top. At least they’re still in EFTA and EEA, so are better off than UK, which voted (under Russian influence) to fully downgrade.

Interdependence > independence > dependence

Fighter jets have had to be used multiple times this year, in multiple countries (Romania, Latvia, …) to intercept Russian flying bombs in NATO airspace.

NATO countries, including Canada, routinely intercept Russian military aircraft probing NATO defences.

Without interceptors, more Russian bombs would have exploded on NATO territory, and NATO defences likely wouldn’t have been merely probed…

Putin is far more aggressive than you seem to think. Look at the mortality from his pet war. A person with a conscience would call a halt immediately; instead, Putin escalates. Chauvinistic death-cult dictators like him deride humanitarian arguments. They’re only stoppable with weapons. I wish that weren’t so, but history has shown again and again that it is.

Do you really think Canada would have fewer domestic crises if Trump or Putin invaded? Or if Russia openly attacked NATO?

In a world with narcissistic psychopaths like those in charge of enormous armies, you either invest in defence or you get conquered.

For Canada to possess some F-35s would not do much.

Canada would also need to maintain them if conflict arises. Non-trivial, if the US is both the source of software updates and spare parts, and also the aggressor against which Canada needs to defend.

Re: Russia as the aggressor, F-35 is also a risk because POTUS and VP might side partly or wholly with Russia, e.g. refusing/limiting US arms to countries fighting Russia.

Gripen has none of those problems.

The clankers in the OP are from mainland China, so are ultimately under CCP control.

The CCP has indicated for decades it plans to invade Taiwan (CCP refers to this as “reunification”).

People should be concerned. Robots like these may be deployed against Taiwan in the next few years.

Indeed. Schrems III cannot come too soon, and maybe this time it will stick.

Hopes these white coats show up at the White House real soon.

Removed by mod

Is the word “Donut” kryptonite to Flock?

Why wouldn’t you be concerned about VM or container escapes?

TIL giraffes need detecting before they get too close.