
If I Sleep for an Hour, 30 People Will Die (2016) - pmoriarty
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/opinion/sunday/if-i-sleep-for-an-hour-30-people-will-die.html
======
pgeorgi
The article is about a person who forged papers starting in WW2 and up to the
70s to get people out of dire situations. It ends in "“I did all I could when
I could. Now, I can’t do anything,” he said. Surely, though, the rest of us
can."

Not so easy anymore, with all the biometrics and cryptographically secure data
on a microchip embedded in today's passports.

~~~
gumby
I think the point isn't "now it's time for someone to forge papers" but "there
are plenty of ways to help and other people with more energy can take them up"

From raising awareness, convincing governments, running for office, donating
money and/or labor...just volunteering on a crisis line is a huge help.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
In the context of the original article, and the current world, it appears that
far fewer are willing to bring personal risk than in the past.

My guess - and it is a guess - is rather than signing an online petition,
forwarding a meme, or attending a demo, in the past direct action, civil
disobedience, underground networks and activism was more often used. I suspect
that in today's world many of those would be viewed as terrorism or at the
very least imprisonable.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _in today 's world many of those would be viewed as terrorism_

I’m involved in local politics. The problem is a low give-a-shit factor. Older
Americans will reliably show up to vote, stop to sign petitions (real ones,
not online ones), donate to candidates and show up for town halls and
protests. Young, well-educated, technically-savvy urbanites are a predictably
anodyne bunch. (To be fair, I’m those things.)

The risk isn’t higher. The cost just is. When activism competes with brunch,
Instagram time, and the necessity of a high-paying job to settle student
loans, it’s a tougher sell.

~~~
CalRobert
I used to go to the planning board meetings for my neighborhood. They were at
4:00 on weekdays - I wonder why I was the only one under 60 there?

Even then it was only because I was trying to bootstrap a startup and setting
my own hours.

Also, "When activism competes with brunch, Instagram time, and the necessity
of a high-paying job to settle student loans, " -

good points, but remember also that those old people largely could have one
person working (and actually getting of at 5 with no bullshit
emails/slack/other crap to follow them home) and the other doing
childcare/household work/civic things, instead of 2 people working 8-6:00,
rushing to childcare, and getting home tired as dogs.

~~~
war1025
I take a bit of an issue with the tech crowd claiming that a single income
family is infeasible. Single parents get by all the time. People in tech make
well above the median income in most cases. It's absolutely possible to live a
nice middle class life on a single tech income. It's just not possible to keep
up with the spending of a dual income family. All about priorities.

~~~
wolfgke
> People in tech make well above the median income in most cases.

But have to live/work at places where the costs of living are enormous.

~~~
abright
As war1025 noted, this is not true. People in tech are the most likely to have
access to remote work that pays very well. I bring in the only income while my
wife stays home with our two boys (6 and 3). I live in Pittsburgh, PA and
worked remotely for a startup based out of SF until they ran out of money late
last year and picked up a job in downtown Pittsburgh pretty quickly after
that. I wouldn't say we're swimming in money but we are comfortable and don't
have to check our balance for most purchases.

------
gerdesj
_Though he was a skilled forger — creating passports from scratch and
improvising a device to make them look older — there was little joy in it.
“The smallest error and you send someone to prison or death,” he told me.
“It’s a great responsibility. It’s heavy. It’s not at all a pleasure.” Years
later he’s still haunted by the work, explaining: “I think mostly of the
people that I couldn’t save.”_

Hero.

------
noego
It's interesting to consider the parallels between the power/responsibilities
carried by Kaminsky, and our own lives. It is estimated that we can save a
human life for $2000. Which means that each of us faces a similar dilemma even
if we don't realize it: " _If I go on an international vacation, 1 person will
die "_

This is not to say that we should live a spartan life and donate every dollar
to charity. I wouldn't expect Kaminsky to forego sleep entirely either. But
it's a tradeoff that is worth being conscious of, the next time we spend money
on things we don't truly want or need.

[https://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-
further-...](https://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-
overseas)

~~~
scarejunba
It is undoubtedly clear to me that a human life is less valuable to me than my
having a MacBook Pro because I am both fully aware of how much it costs to
save people and consciously choose not to do so.

So life isn't really precious. It is only precious in terms of its
relationship to me. My family is precious and my friends are precious. Life?
Life is cheap.

Things I value more than life for life's own sake:

* The aforementioned MacBook Pro

* A trip to Switzerland

* Two months of my personal trainer's sessions

* My bicycle

* One month of rent in SF

* Having my car for a couple of months

* A celebratory lunch for my team

The real disconnect isn't that we're imperfectly choosing our spending. It's
that we tell the lie that life is precious. It is not.

I will buy my parents a computer and a tablet soon. I will do this for them
knowing it brings them some small pleasure. I will do this knowing that doing
so will doom a child.

~~~
ddrdrck_
This is so egocentric. Do you really believe your choices can have such an
impact ? Actually it has not, and you can sleep well knowing than buying a
computer to your parents won't harm anyone, because your choices alone cannot
change the world. If you're not giving money to charities, then someone else
will do. If no one gives money, then there will still be some people trying to
save childs anyway, using their skills and their guts, not their money.

Now imagine this theoretical situation : you have the choice between buying a
new computer _or_ save an unknown child for certain death (let's imagine a
psychopath taking a child in hostage and asking you randomly). Would you still
buy the computer ? Would you still consider that human life is less valuable
for you than having a new computer ? I certainly hope not

~~~
tomhoward
Posing hypotheticals like this and passing judgment on their character for
their answer is not a good-faith way of discussing a topic. It's just not a
realistic scenario and someone's answer to the hypothetical indicates nothing
about how they would actually act in a real situation where they were able to
help someone.

~~~
ddrdrck_
You did not understand my point. My point was that you cannot pretend to not
value life just because you prefer to buy a new computer rather than giving
2000$ to a charity. There is no direct connection, if it would be that easy
then Bill Gates would be the savior of humanity.

~~~
tomhoward
Sure. I mean I think the whole discussion, right back to the root comment, is
an unrealistic hypothetical.

The $2,000 refers to the estimated average cost of saving a malaria sufferer
in certain countries.

But that's based on the cost of running a comprehensive program in which many
people donate, many people help on the ground and many lives are saved.

In some other contexts it could cost much less to save a life. In others, no
amount of money could save a particular person's life.

But many people give something to humanitarian charities from time to time and
most people are comfortable that some of their taxes - probably more than
$2000/year for most people in rich countries - are used for medical services,
welfare systems and aid programs that save lives.

What I've written above is a reality-based comment on the way most people
actually do expend funds that lead to lives being saved.

And I think it's related to the point you were trying to make at the start of
your comment.

But veering into implausible hypotheticals about child hostages, and then
passing character judgment based on an answer, starts turning a silly
discussion into a toxic one.

------
mikeash
The comments about the dangers of moving toward un-forgeable documents remind
me of the xkcd about spacebar heating.
[https://xkcd.com/1172/](https://xkcd.com/1172/)

Official documents being susceptible to forgery is a bug. Like many bugs, it
can be exploited for noble purposes, but it’s still a bug. The right way
forward isn’t to keep this bug around so our systems can remain vulnerability-
compatible with their 1940s versions, it’s to find a way to support the use
cases you want to keep.

I don’t know how to do that exactly, but on the other hand, I bet none of you
know how to convince governments to stick with forgeable paper documents
either.

------
mariuolo
And if he sleeps too little, he'll create lousy forgeries that will also cause
people to die.

------
js2
Discussion from 2016:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12621548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12621548)

------
fiftyacorn
Reminds me of "Portrait of a Young Forger" by Marian M. Pretzel

------
gerbilly
> By his 19th birthday, he had helped save the lives of thousands of people by
> making false documents to get them into hiding or out of the country.

What an immense privilege it must have been to be in a position to help so
many people.

------
caprese
I wonder how his documents would compare to listings on Oasis and Alphabay
these days.

------
Tomte
First glance at the headline: maybe about sleepy driving.

Another glance at the word "Opinion" above it: probably just clickbait.

Onward to the first paragraphs: Oh shit. A very touching story, about a real
hero in dark times.

(Why is this under "opinion"?)

~~~
strstr
(It’s a book review.)

