I know so many autistics with "spiky" profiles for whom the functional level they would be considered in today's system vary by context. I would really love to see more nuance but that might require a lot more research and care.

For many it is the only option to work regardless of the their housing situation.

Isolation comes mostly from those working/meeting onsite refusing to engage with remote workers. Those who see remote/hybrid meetings as inconvenience or reduction in the quality of in-person meetings.

It is the matter of values. The question is whether the organisation which is unwilling or unable to take on the inconvenience of offering at least a hybrid conference should be the one organising it. No constraints excuse exclusion.

In-person means connection for some at the cost of exclusion of many and avoiding inconvenience for catering to different needs, hybrid is not about cost efficiency, it is about accessibility and inclusion. If you think quality may be only achieved by exclusion you should rethink your priorities.

It is organised on your behalf, shouldn't you put the requirement for the conference to be truely inclusive?

Unfortunately, despite numerous mention of accessibility and inclusivity etc. on the conference website, the conference is exclusively face-to-face. Huge disappointment.