serendipityoucity

One day left…

There is one day left folks! Go nuts and vote.

You have to login, your info is confidential, see top right navigation bar. Once you do, then you can vote.

1) Save the Census: http://de-en.gc.ca/2010/07/06/reinstate-our-census-long-form-aka-questionnaire-2b/

2) For Open Data: http://de-en.gc.ca/2010/06/10/open-access-to-canadas-public-sector-information-and-data/

You will see both of these nested within Canada’s Digital Content!

Also read here to find out about Census Actions & Media - . If you come across any new material or actions, do not hesitate to share! I am updating that blog daily. (that is why I have neglected you here a little lately!)

My friend’s Dale, Mark and I are going to see this space weapons documentary at the Mayfair next week!

Please vote - Open Access to Canada’s Public Sector Information and Data. This is part of the Industry Canada Digital Economy Consultation.

Please take some time to vote and distribute within your networks and institutions! It just takes a few seconds. This is also posted at datalibre.ca

We are at a tipping point on this issue in Canada and your few seconds of your time could open up our data resources. You will also see a complimentary Research Data and improved access to publicly-funded data submissions that could also use some votes while you are at it!

Below is the text. If you have ideas that can be added for a formal submission, I would be really glad to hear from you!

Create a data.gc.ca for Canada’s public sector information (PSI) and data in parallel with the excellent NRCan GeoConnections model (e.g. GeoGratis, GeoBase, Discovery Portal).

These PSI & data should be shared at no cost with citizens, be in accessible and open formats, searchable with standard metadata, wrapped in public domain or unrestricted user licenses, delivered within an an open architecture infrastructure based on open standards, specifications and be interoperable. It should be governed with open government principles whereby data & PSI are shared first and arguments to restrict are made only for legitimate privacy and security reasons which should also be disclosed. It should have a permanent home and include both the right combination of multi-departmental (e.g. CIC, INAC, HRSDC, NRC, NRCan, etc.) inputs, trans-disciplinary human resources (e.g. Librarians, archivists, scientists) along with IT specialists & engineers. It should be built in consultation with Canadians to ensure it is designed with user needs and useability in mind. (This is how the GeoConnections program built the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure).

The Government of Canada produces administrative data for the purpose of program delivery (e.g. Canada Student Loan, location where new Canadians land, the number and location of homeless shelters, etc.), and it produces data for the purpose of governing for example: the data collected by Statistics Canada (e.g. Census & Surveys, National Accounts); Environment Canada (e.g. air & water quality, location of brown sites); Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (e.g. satellite and radar imagery); Industry Canada (e.g. corporate registry); Canada Revenue Agency (e.g. Charities dbase); National Research Council (e.g. Scientific data); SSHRC (e.g., social science research data) and more. These data have already been paid for by Canadians via taxation, and the cost of selling these data back to citizens on a cost recovery basis is marginal or more expensive (e.g. Cost of government to government procurement, management of licences, royalties, government accounting and etc.) relative to the benefits & reduced overhead of delivering these data at no cost . Furthermore, Canadians often pay multiple times for the same data, since each level of government also purchases the same data, federal departments purchase these data from each other and there are examples where a municipality purchased the same data multiple times from Statistics Canada. This is not only a waste of taxpayer money it goes against the principle of create once and use many times and avoid the duplication of effort.

Data & PSI are non rivalrous goods where sharing and open access to these does not impede other from doing so. Open access stimulate research and IT sectors who will have the resources they need for the creation of new data R&D products (e.g. Applications) and services (e.g., web mapping), evidence based decision making (e.g. Population health), and informing public policy on a number of key Canadian issues (e.g. Homelessness, housing, education). In addition, evidence from Canadian City Open Data Initiatives (e.g., Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, and Ottawa) have demonstrated that the cost and time to find and access data & PSI within government have been greatly reduced since finding these are easier and negotiating access becomes a non issue, which in turn brings savings to citizens and greater efficiencies within these institutions. Finally, participatory and deliberative democracies include active engagement and inputs from citizens, civil society organizations, the private sector, and NGOs along with their government. Making these data available increases the collective knowledge base of Canadians and stimulates public engagement, improves efficiencies, and stimulates innovation.

These are already our (citizen’s) data & PSI, why not share share them with us and to enable citizens and the government to work together to stimulate Canada’s economy, create innovative industries and formulate evidence based public policy

is not the territory!

This is a great example of the power of maps and maps as the social shaping of space!

Check out this piece on Who really owns the Gulf of Mexico at Mother Jones.

via BoingBoing.

Australopithecus sediba

The US 2010 Census is in progress.  I was surprised to discover how much influence elected officials have over the Census in the US and how little power the director has.  According to this NYTimes article Count Us in Favor, the director (not a chief statistician) is appointed by each president and does not have the power to speak freely. 

Alternatively in Canada, the separation of politics and the statistical agency is sacrosanct.  Without it how would you trust the results!  The results affect provincial and territorial transfer payments, +/-80 Acts make reference to it, a number of program funding programs depend on them, and the decennial census population count determines the size and shape of Federal Electoral Boundaries. Canada’s representative democracy requires that the Census be free of partisan politics.  The Chief Statistician is appointed for an unlimited term, Ivan Fellegi for instance was in Office for 25 years.  This provides the Chief time to gain experience and oversee full census cycles, which takes about 7-8 years from consultation, testing, operations, conducting, data entry, analysis and dissemination.  The new Chief Statistician is recommended by the former Chief and the Minister of Industry Canada appoints him/her by an order in council based on the former Chief’s recommendation.  Census questions are also submitted to the governors in council, approved by an order in council and then published in the Canada Gazette.  Census results have never been contested, as far as I know questions have always been approved, and the Chief Statistician has the right to speak the results freely and orchestrates the announcement of results which all Canadians receive at the same time. 

In the US, the Director of the Census is appointed by partisan politics, his/her office lasts as long as the government who appoints them, and they are not encouraged to report results the government does not want to hear.  How do US Citizens trust the results?  The director may also not get to see a full census cycle, even with the latest change, the post is for 5 only years. While the Census is one of the government’s greatest instruments of social control and power, a form of panopticism & biopolitics, I believe it has the higher purpose of providing the data we need for the functioning of our political system.

I just read this great article in Miller-McCune, Why Have Women Magicians Vanished?.

My interest was peaked, not just because I am a womyn but also because recently finished reading a great book about Jasper Maskelyne, the British WWII magician that outwitted the nazi desert fox. My interest in the Maskelyine story was aroused when I was advised that my perception of the accuracy and reliability of air photos and satellite images should be tempered. Bref, one can trick the cameras! Which is precisely what Maskelyne did to deceive, trick and mislead German recognisance missions. His illusions, installations and camouflage techniques moved the city of Alexandria, concealed the Suez Canal, made armies look way bigger than they actually were, disguised ships, tanks and submaries and he set up completely fake army bases inclusive of dummies looking like soldiers.

While reading Maskelyne’s story, I kept flashing back to articles and books I read about cryptographers, scientists, inventors, and the geek groups I know and love. Maskelyne’s war magician team seemed to exhibit the same sort of traits: perfectionism, extreme attention to detail, control, power, a history of hacking/tinkering with technology, ability and love of working under extreme conditions, incredible amounts of stored knowledge, indefatigable, tunnel vision, camaraderie, and inspiration derived by seemingly insurmountable problems and lost without such problems and large egos or wanting to be the best (e.g. best code, application, solution).

The Miller-McCune article lists the same issues I have observed, encountered and read about the lack of and in some cases declining participation of women in things data, science and technology. In fact, just replace the word magic in the article with the words engineer, physicist, or computer scientists and it pretty much sums up the arguments I have heard time and again. The

Working magicians conjure up rationales — both beneficial and baneful — for why so few women perform magic.

and the women and technology articles I have read, like this one, miss the lack of critical reflexivity of male group norms that manifest time and again in long standing and well established men’s professions. I have only seen 2 episodes of Mad Men, and it pretty much sums it up. Except, that many of the geeks I have met are not misogynist just oblivious to their culture and unreflexive about the social/cultural aspects of what they do and how they do it.

Also, what does it mean when one group has had more than a couple thousands years of assumed dominance, superiority and attention when it comes to learning how to manipulate the material world into form (e.g. infrastructure, architecture, invention, ship building, etc.) while the other half was excluded from those spaces and was relegated to the toil of managing the material wares of the home, cooking for the smart men and wiping their kids boogers and bums. Also, what does it mean for a whole section of the population to culturally adjust to a system they have been excluded from for more than a couple thousands years? Is it just nurture?

I have been auditing a great course called Globalization and Technology taught by my friend Dale Armstrong who is an expert in the geotechnological politics of the satellite industry and space war. So far we have studies the race for a wired world in the early days of transatlantic cables, phones, radio, (e.g. Marconi, Bell, Western Telegraph, etc.). We then looked at the control of the skies such as the regulation of air travel and how it usurped rail and sea travel, followed by the eyes in the sky - satellites, the race to create the perfect clocks for seafarers, atomic clocks in the sky and the Internet as a global clock. I all cases it seems like the same stories repeat themselves. Super focussed inventors, monopolies, empire building both corporate and political, cut throat competition, control, greed, power, fear, war mentalities, wanting technological strategic advantage, technological inferiority complexes (e.g. Sputnik, Galileo), regulation to control technology, its spread and its development, for geopolitical reasons but also very often to buy time to develop locally to compete internationally. In all cases all men, and in all cases not cooperative except at the moment, regarding the control of the skies mostly because it is getting harder to hide.

As I read these articles, I see these patterns, and wonder if the way of thinking about science and technology will ever change. The impetus is never about sharing but always about winning. What if…

I like that the oldest words so far is image (1440), map (1527), fact (-1539), followed by geography (1542). Infrastructure does not appear as a word, statistics shows up in the 18th century and Canada in its first official incarnation not until 19th century. According to the dictionary that is… The first known statistics on Canada were 1666, shortly after the word data comes into usage, and the first map? Certainly Canada was first imagined way before 1666 so there must be some early representations. to be continued… The definition for Canada however, and the etymology of that word is best described in the Canadian Encyclopedia.

The following definitions are from: Onions, C. T. ed. 1957, Oxford International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, Toronto: Leland Publishing Company.

Data, Infrastructures and Geographic Imagination: Mapping Data Access Discourses in Canada

notes: 1st date is the first occurrence, -date the latest limit of an obsolete word, ad.=derived by adaptation, t = obsolete, dist=distinguished, Arch.= from architecture, ME.=middle English, f. = formed on, L.=Latin, F.=French, Gr.=German, cf.=compare, transf.=in transferred and figurative use., exc.=except, onf.=old northern french,

Datum - PL. data, 1646, [L., neut, pa. pple. of dare] A thing given or granted; something known or assumed as fact, and made the basis of reasoning or calculation. Out of what Data arises the knowledge T. H. [Hale]. p.455

Fact - 1539, [ad. L. factum thing done, , f. facere. See also Feat]. 1. A thing done or performed: t a. an action, deed. Also in general-1815, t b. An exploit; a feat -1730, c. an evil deed , a crime. Now obs. exc. in after, before the f. etc. 1539 td. An action cognizable in Law Bacon. t2. The making, doing, or performing - 1808. 3. Something that has already occurred or is the case; hence, a datum of experience, a dist. from conclusion 1632. 4. Loosely, Something that is alleged to be, or might be, a ‘fact’ 1729, 5. (Without a and pl.) The circumstance and incidents of a case, as dist. from their legal bearing. p.667

Infrastructure - not in this dictionary!

Geographic - 1610 [ad. GR. Cf. F. geographique] A. adj. Of or pertaining to geography; of the nature of geography. Now rare. B. Geographics (rare), geographical science; t. a treatise on this 1610. p.787

Geography - 1542, [a. F. geographie, ad. L. a. Gr. Geo (earth)-+writing]. 1. The science that describes the earth’s surface, its form and physical features, its natural and political divisions, its climates, productions, etc. Also transf. b. The subject-matter of geography; the range or extent of what is known geographically 1737., 2. A treatise on this science 1559. p.787

Geographer - 1542, One who is versed in, or writes upon, geography. p.787

Image - sb. ME. [a.F. image, earlier imagene, ad. L. imago, imaginene; app. f, same root as imitari to imitate]. 1. An artificial imitation or representation of the external form of any object, esp. of a person a. A statue, effigy, sculptured figure. (often applied to figures as objects of worship.). b. (less usually) A likeness, portrait, picture, carving or the like. (now rare or obs. exc, in allusion to Matt. xxii. 20). t c. applied to the constellations as figures etc., -1674, d. fig. 1548. 3. abstractly. Appearance, form;, semblance, likeness (Now only with reference to biblical language exp. Gen. 1. 26, 27). ME. Also concr. (Obs. pr arcj.). 1530 4. A counterpart copy, ME. A symbol, emblem, representation 1566, a type, typical example, embodiment 1548, 5. A mental representation of something, a mental acute or impression : an idea, concept ME. 6. A vivid or graphic description 1522. 7. rhet. A simile, metaphor, or figure of speech 1676.

Image - v. 1440, [f. Image sb. earlier a. F. Imager]. 1. trans. To make an image of; to represent by an image, to figure, portray, delineate. Also fig. 1790 2. To reflect, mirror 1792. 3. To copy (rare) 1611; to represent (rare) 1701. 4. t a. to devise, plan -1460, b. to imagine, represent to oneslef 1708., 5. To describe (esp. vividly, graphically) 1628. 6. To symbolize, typify 1816.

Imagination - ME. [a.F. ad. L. imaginationem.]. 1, The action of imagining, or forming a mental concept of what is not actuall present to the senses (cf. sense 3.); the result of this, a mental image or idea (freq. characterized as cain, false, etc.). t2.The mental consideration of actions or events not yet in existence. a. scheming or devising; a device, scheme, plot; a fanciful project. Obs. exc. as a biblical archaism. ME. b. expectation, anticipation -1654, 3. That faculty of the mind by which we conceive the absent as ig it were present (feq. including memory); the ‘productive imagination’ ME. 4. The power which the mind has of forming concepts beyond those derived from external objects; the ‘productive imagination’. a. Fancy ME. b. The creative faculty; poetic genius, 1509, 5. The operation of the mind, thinking; thought, opinion. Now rare or obs. ME. p.958

Map - sb. 1527. [ad. L. mappa in class L. table-cloth, napkin, but in med. L. used transf. in mappa mundi Mappemonde.]. 1. A representation of the earth’s surface or a part of it, its physical and political features, etc. or of the heavens, delineated on a flat surface of paper. etc. according to a definite scale of projection. 2. fig. A detailed representation in epitome; a circumstantial account of a state of things. Now rare or obs. 1586. tb. The very picture (of virtue, vice, character, etc.). (so sp. mapa.)-1698 p.1204

Map - v. Onf. mapped, mapping, 1586. [Map sb.]. I. Trans. to make a map of; to represent on a map 1602. Also, transf. and fig. 2. M.Out a. To represent in detail on a map 1656, b.fig. to record minutely 1619; to plan out (a course of conduct, one’s time, etc.) 1883. c. To divide (a country) into districts, as by lines on a map 1860.

Cartography - also Charto-,1863, [f. F. carte, or L. charta, carta+Gr.] The drawing of charts or maps. p.269

Statistic - a. and sb. 1789 [as. G. statistik sb., statistisch adj. ad. mod.L. statiscus, f. *statista Statist] A. Adj. I.=next. Now rare. 2. O or pertaining to status 1871, b. sb.I.=statistics I rare 1796 2.=statistician 1804. p. 2007

Statistics - 1787 [pl. of statistic] 1. Construed as sing. In early use, that branch of political science dealing with the collection, classification, and discussion of facts bearing on the condition of a state or community. In recent use, the department of study that has for its object the collection and arrangement of numerical facts or data, whether relating to human affairs or to natural phenomena. 2. Construed as p. numerical facts or data collected and classified 1837. p. 2007

Statistical - a. 1787. [f.prec.+-AL I.] Of or pertaining to statistics, esp. with reference to economic, sanitary, and vital conditions. b. Of a writer, etc.: dealing with statistics 1787. The moral and s. features of the period 1841. b. some respectable s. writers 1787. Hence Statistically.p. 2007

Statistician - 1825, [f. Statistic+-ian.] One versed in or engaged in collecting and tabulating statistics. p. 2007

Access - ME. [In sense 4 a. Fr. acces; in other senses, direct f. L. accessus. Access is now usual]. 1. Approaching or being approached in various senses (see Quots). ME. 2. A way or means of approach/ lit. and fig. 1605. 3. A coming as an addition (replaced by accession0 1576. 4. A (sudden) coming illness, anger, etc. a fit ME. t.spec. in ague fit -1751.p.10-11

Accessible - a. 1610. [a.Fr.; see accede.]. 1. Capable of being used as an access (to). 2. Capable of being entered or reached; get-a-ble 1642; fig., open to the influence of (const. to), 1818. p.11

Discourse - sb. ME. [a.F. discours, ad. L. discursus, f. discurs-, ppl. stem of discurrence; see next]. t 1. onward course;=Course -1612, t 2. ‘The act of the understanding, by which it passes from premises to consequences’ (J.); reasoning, rationcination; reason, rationality. (obs. or arch). ME. 3. Communication of thought by speech; talk, conversation (arch.) 1559, t b. the faculty of conversing -1641, c. (with a and pl.) A talk; a conversation (arch.) 1632. t. 4. Narration; a narrative -1647. 5. A spoken or written treatment of a subject at length; a dissertation, treatise, sermon or the like. (The prevailing sense) 1581. t6. Familiar intercourse 1602. tb. Conversancy (in) 1604. p.522

Discourse - v. 1547. [f. Discourse sb.; prob. affected by F. discourir to discourse of]. t 1.intr. to run or travel of a space, region, etc, transf. to extend -1555 t 2. To pass from premises to conclusions (J.); to reason, -1700, Also ttrans. 3. intr. to hold discourse, to talk, converse, to discuss a matter, confer 1559. 4. intr, To speak or write a length on a subject 1564. 5. trans. To go through in speech; to treat of in speech or writing to talk over, to talk of to tell 1563. b. to utter 1602 6. To converse with; to talk to to discuss a matter with, to address. (obs. or arch) 1677. p.522

Canada - The name of a British dominion in N. America, used attrib. in names of plants, animals, products, etc. p.255

Canada (Canadian Encyclopedia) -

Canada, a name derived from the Huron-Iroquoian kanata, meaning a village or settlement. On 13 August 1535, as Jacques CARTIER was nearing Île d’Anticosti, 2 Indian youths he was bringing back from France informed him that the route to Canada (”chemin de Canada”) lay to the south of the island. By Canada they meant the village of Stadacona, on the future site of QUÉBEC CITY. Cartier used the word in that sense, but also referred to “the province of Canada,” meaning the area subject to DONNACONA, chief at Stadacona. The name was soon applied to a much larger region. The “Harleian” world map of c 1547, the first to show the discoveries made on Cartier’s second voyage, applied it to an area north of the gulf and river St Lawrence, and by 1550 maps were also placing the name south of the river.

Canadian - 1805 adj. Of or belonging to Canada or its people. sb. A native or inhabitant of Canada. p.255

Dominion - ME. [a. obs. F., L. Type * dominionem, deriv of dominium, f, dominus]. 1. The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority; sovereignty; rule; control. Also fig. 2. The domains of a feudal lord. b. The territory subject to a king or a ruler, or under a particular government control. Oftern in pl. 1512. Also fig. 3. Law, ownership, property; right of possession. 1651. 4. Domination 1611. Applied to countries outside England or Great Britain under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the English crown. Designating the larger self-governing British Dominions. Name given by the British to Canada in 1867 and New Zealand in 1907. In the statute of Westminster (1931) the term includes the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, The Irish Free State, and Newfoundland. p.551

Jennifer over at Visible Government sent a link to the CivicAccess.ca list a couple of days ago about some fantastic mapping projects that demonstrated US municipal social exclusionary tactics that marginalize many sectors of society.  This includes being bypassed by critical infrastructure projects - clean water and sewage being some of the basic ones. The Revolution will be Mapped was the name of the article. The article was so interesting and written in such an accessible language, that I was compelled to read a few more articles:

Miller-McCune.com harnesses current academic research with real-time reporting to address pressing social concerns. Each day, we offer you information and possible solutions to concerns in areas such as education, politics, the environment, economics, urban affairs and health so you can join our lively global conversation based on work by researchers, leaders and journalists.

I quickly deleted my facebook account, removed silly RSS feeds from my daily list and registered to their newsletter. This is a really good read, and I am keeping with one of my resolutions of ‘less garbage in’ and if I am going to idle, diddle, or procrastinate, I at least have to do it in a language that is not English and/or with content that will broaden my knowledge base in a positive way. In today’s newsletter there was this great list of 10 (Potentially) Cool Innovations from Government. That was loaded with lots of Civic Access goodies and a whole paragraph on one of my favorite topics - citizen and public use of satellite imagery.

4. Satellite imagery. Increasingly sophisticated satellite imagery is now helping officials anticipate and address a vast array of agricultural and public health problems. Satellites now monitor water needs and availability, potential famines and outbreaks of infectious diseases. They can measure changes in sea temperature that allow scientists to predict outbreaks of cholera. They even assist, along with Google Maps software, in solving a more mundane Washington problem, allowing us to aerially verify crowd count estimates at capital events — a major source of partisan fudging this year from the Obama inauguration to the Glenn Beck 9/12 rally.

Tuesdays now bring these Miller-McCune newsletter, NASA’s Earth Observatory images of the week and FASS News! Niiice!

I did not know this about him. Some, in particular Emmanuel Faye, a French Philospher, want to wipe his work out of philosophy.

First published in France in 2005, the book, “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy,” calls on philosophy professors to treat Heidegger’s writings like hate speech.

Richard Wollin, a close reader of Heidegger and Faye says:

“I’m not by any means dismissing any of these fields because of Heidegger’s influence,” he wrote in an e-mail message referring to postmodernism’s influence across the academy. “I’m merely saying that we should know more about the ideological residues and connotations of a thinker like Heidegger before we accept his discourse ready-made or naïvely.”

I had no clue and was naively reading his work. Not knowing his roots is like reifying Robert Moses without taking into account his deep racism and how that influenced his infrastructure building in New York, or glorifying Athenian democracy by forgetting that slave ownership was rampant, only wealthy men could participate and women were non persons and treated worse in Athens than in other Greek cities at the time. To claim that technology is socially or politically neutral?

How to read? How to think about technology, infrastructure, works? Most of what I have been exposed to in academia was written by white men of power, most of our technology and infrastructure was built by the same batch, many amazing artists are creeps like Woody Allen, Michael Jackson or Roman Polanski. Do we dismiss their art, thinking, artefacts? I have refused to see a Woody Allen movies since he got away with marrying his step daughter, but I do not dismiss his skill as a cinematographer, and I always considered Michael Jackson to be a sad sick person who also happened to be a musical genius, while what’s his name is nothing but a rich perverted creep. Glenn Gould? What about Ayn Rand? Her writings reflected her very disturbed psyche, and perhaps if people knew a little more about her before reading her work, they could at least frame it as writings stemming from a very disturbed mind. Or how my respect for Edward Said grew once I knew more about him.

I have great difficulty with judgemenalism and reading because I sometimes loose or gain respect for the authors once I know about them. Should the work stand on its own? I can easily dismiss the work because of the person, is that fair? Do I falsely claim a connection? I find it hard to read the work of people who write about equality and reflexivity when they cannot seem to practice it. Do these not go hand in hand?

Bref, I think it is important to learn about the people whose work we/I read. I am not promoting essentialism yet I am really not sure if we/I can separate the person from the work, that we/I should, but maybe some of their personal history does determine what they pursue and how they do so. I certainly wonder all the time about where I have come from and the reasons why I pursue the work that I do. I have not yet figured out all the details, but I can certainly see that my past, personal experience and learning trajectory very much influences how I think and how my thinking has evolved overtime. If people know our pasts, will they judge the work from that lens? Will they dismiss what we do if they judge who we are and perhaps falsely associate what they think about the work based on what they can only partially know about the person? With Heidegger, it is not just the person, but also the ideology, and as a philospher, I presume that the ideology and the philosophy are inseparable, yet we do not dismiss the entire German nation for their technology prowess? Nor do we stop using IBM computers or driving BMWs because of their historical roots with the Nazi regime either! Do we stop using electricity because because Edison was a megalomaniac? Or dismiss Turin because he was gay, as the British establishment did at the end of the war? Or should we at least know so that we can position these technologies in a historical context and then consider these when we build new ones? In the case of Turin, does it matter? Should Glenn Gould’s should his music be dismissed because he was autistic and somewhat OCD? When does it matter?

Inspired by: An Ethical Question: Does a Nazi Deserve a Place Among Philosophers?