
Carrie Fisher has died - antr
http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/27/14074922/carrie-fisher-star-wars-princess-leia-obituary
======
gokhan
RIP. She is, of course, someone special for many of us because of her role in
Star Wars.

I guess we need to get used to the rapid loss of famous personalities in the
future. Stars are not in short supply because media is good at finding extreme
talent and injecting them into our special moments. I remember seeing her on
the big screen when I was a kid. I also remember listening to Leonard Cohen
with my then-girlfriend and now-wife, or dancing to George Michael songs with
friends in my youth. I can think of many great artists, and relate them to
special moments. I'll surely miss the ones I'll outlive when the day comes.

60 for Carrie Fisher (or 53 for George Michael, for example) is too young of
an age to die. I wish a longer and healthier life for others who make
unforgettable moments for us, the audience.

~~~
danso
I have a feeling that that we'll have fewer celebrities that have the same
magnitude of the ones in Fisher's generation, or prior to it, mostly because
we have a much more splintered entertainment world. Which is a good thing,
because today's world allows for us to be exposed to so much more talent and
genre that the movie and music industries would have previously ignored. But
it's hard to imagine anyone who is famous right now, in their 20s and 30s,
having the same grip on American culture as Michael Jackson or Muhammad Ali.

~~~
coldtea
> _Which is a good thing, because today 's world allows for us to be exposed
> to so much more talent and genre that the movie and music industries would
> have previously ignored._

I think whether it's a good thing depends on whether the important thing is to
have access to some better art, or to have shared access to art, even if it's
slightly less good.

In other words, art as a shared cultural discussion, vs art as individual
consumption. I believe that even the best of art (from a technical standpoint)
losses artistic power if it's just consumed by fewer people -- and I mean that
it loses it even for those people that do consume it (e.g. they don't get
additional layers of meaning/feelings etc by being exposed to the
interpretations of the same piece by people and other artists).

~~~
skrebbel
I feel that you underestimate how large the world is. Niche art easily
entertains millions.

Niche art in popular art forms, such as cult films and cult TV shows, easily
reach tens of millions (eg Firefly). It's still totally niche compared to Star
Wars, but I'm not sure that you can say in any way whatsoever that it loses
power because "only" tens millions of people worldwide have seen it.

~~~
coldtea
I'm not talking about Firefly level niche (which still has millions of fans).

There are Pitchfork "Top albums of the year" than less than 5000 people ever
listened to.

------
messutied
"Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those who transform into the
Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not." -Master Yoda

May the Force be with you Princess

Source: a Reddit comment [1]

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/5kkzmo/comment/dbon...](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/5kkzmo/comment/dbonl3d?st=IX7UB1IO&sh=1c85e406)

~~~
azatris
Except it's blatantly unrealistic.

Death is not 'a part of life', but a nuisance. Not all species 'die' (e.g.
jellyfish, hydra, possibly lobsters, flatworms).

And 'the Force' is fictional and does not apply to Carrie Fisher.

As long as we have our species, it is enevitable we will be achieving
immortality.

My point being - every death is a tragedy.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>And 'the Force' is fictional and does not apply to Carrie Fisher.

Its a metaphor for spirituality, and its pretty obvious that the strict
deterministic materialist worldview is far from proven and that many people
have spiritual beliefs that they feel 100% justified as having.

Not everything is horrible because we don't have immortality. If anything,
we'll hit our extinction event well before then, assuming its even possible
for complex mammals to have. No, we're not flatworms and can't have the aging
solutions of flatworms.

I think its okay to feel comforted by death. When my dad died, it hurt, but I
was happy his suffering has ended. I was happy he had a long life and raised
three boys who loved him. You absolutely can accept and even welcome death in
some ways. Life isn't all roses and chocolates. Death is currently the only
solution we have to terminal suffering, for example.

~~~
gonvaled
Science (I will use "science" as shortcut for "deterministic materialist
worldview") is not "proven": it offers (falsifiable) explanations to
observable phenomena, and it does not concern itself with as-of-yet non
explainable phenomena. It accepts, and happily adopts, corrections.

People have spiritual beliefs when they try to explain things that they can
not understand. Other people abuse this by telling them that they have special
knowledge and that they can explain those phenomena, or even more subtle, that
there is somebody out there who can explain it to them, at some point, in some
manner. All this without providing the slightest chance of falsification,
meaning basically they can assert whatever they like.

So in my eyes, no, people are not really justified in having those beliefs:
they could just as well accept that certain things are (now, and possibly
forever) unknowable.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Except science doesn't support a basic Newtonian deterministic world. When you
factor in relativity and quantum mechanics your worldview can't be purely a
deterministic machine anymore.

~~~
gonvaled
You stated that the explanation we have is deterministic, I didn't. The
explanation given by science is still falsifiable, though, which is what
characterizes it. Other explanations ("beliefs") are completely arbitrary.

That said, relativity has nothing intrinsically non-deterministic about it
[1], and whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or not is open to debate
[2].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism#Classical_and_re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism#Classical_and_relativistic_physics)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison_of_interpretations)

------
eganist
Condolences to her family and to the wider Star Wars community.

On a film-related note: I'm assuming any role she might've had in Episode 8
might've already been shot since the film is in post production, but given
that she's passed away and (I figure) Leia almost certainly won't be recast,
how might Disney rejigger the storyline going forward? Furious 7 handled Paul
Walker's death through CG and the use of Paul's brother to stand in for
missing shots, but that was to close out a single film rather than to adjust
for broader plot gaps in an overarching series.

~~~
rawnlq
Maybe CG will be good enough to keep casting dead actors?

The face2face[1] tech looks pretty convincing to me and it already works in
real-time (which isn't necessary for films) and you have plenty of old footage
of them.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk)

~~~
manachar
It wasn't really good enough in Rogue One, but of course will be getting
better.

Personally, I hope that never really becomes popular. Culture is already far
too backwards looking and nostalgia filled for my taste. I'd hate for us to
get stuck using dead actors providing something mimicking a performance.

Far more interesting will be the possibility of wholly CGI actors with
artificial vocaloid voices. That'll be a ways off since a voice actor would be
cheaper.

~~~
rangibaby
> I'd hate for us to get stuck using dead actors providing something mimicking
> a performance.

It's funny to think about it now, but Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness were the
two "big name" actors in Star Wars, and provided some of the best acting in
the entire series. The look on Alec Guinness' face when he mentioned Luke's
father being his good friend said more than the accumulated total of prequel
movies and spinoffs could ever hope to.

As experienced professionals (with experience working in low budget action
films in Peter Cushing's case) they added a lot of nuance to and took
ownership of their roles that I doubt face-swapped actors will have the
authority to for a long time, if ever. To be honest, it feels kind of weird to
me that they are resurrecting an actor who has been dead for such a long time.

Having said that, I think the actual technology is good enough for de-aging
when the actual actor can give a performance; realistic CGI replacements for
actual people have been improving since 2009 when a cameo by THE Terminator
was believable enough (somewhat because it conveniently got its face blown off
immediately). Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy was not bad:
[http://www.danplatt.com/?cat=91](http://www.danplatt.com/?cat=91), and you
won't notice the de-aged actors in the latest Marvel movies unless you are
actively looking for them.

------
danso
Awful news. 60 is young, but as Fisher herself has noted, she's lived a pretty
hard life when it came to drugs and alcohol. Her reported weight loss regiment
for Star Wars VII couldn't have helped [0]

I'm glad she lived long enough to get her new memoir out. Sounds like a must-
read, with her affair with Harrison Ford being the least interesting part of
how she dealt with Star Wars at the age of 19
[http://themuse.jezebel.com/carrie-fisher-fucks-han-solo-
figh...](http://themuse.jezebel.com/carrie-fisher-fucks-han-solo-fights-
princess-leia-and-1789369256)

[0] [http://www.businessinsider.com/carrie-fisher-pressured-to-
lo...](http://www.businessinsider.com/carrie-fisher-pressured-to-lose-weight-
for-the-force-awakens-2015-12)

~~~
lucky_cloud
"To lose the weight, she watched what she ate and exercised more."

Watching caloric intake and exercising tends to decrease your chances of heart
attack.

~~~
danso
I addressed that in a longer comment here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13265439](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13265439)

tldr: Fisher had plenty of experience in losing weight, even being Jenny
Craig's spokesperson in 2011. For her to have been publicly denigrating TFA at
the time of its release (even before it, IIRC), doesn't make it sound like it
was the healthy kind of weight loss:

[http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/carrie-
fishe...](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/carrie-fisher-talks-
losing-35-pounds-force-awakens-article-1.2451740)

"They might as well say get younger, because that's how easy it is."

------
techwizrd
This is sad. My condolences to her family and friends. At least this was after
the Star Wars: Rogue One movie.

Edit: I think the downvotes misunderstood the intent of my comment. I'm glad
she was able to enjoy the new Star Wars movie, and I'm glad her friends, fans,
and family also were able to enjoy it without mourning.

~~~
oxide
>At least this was after the Star Wars: Rogue One movie.

huh? why would that matter?

~~~
rhapsodic
_> huh? why would that matter?_

Well, it's nice that she lived long enough to see the part that her character
played in the movie, and that her family was able to enjoy it for a brief time
without her death casting a pall over it.

~~~
sandworm101
Really? An aging actress might not be too happy seeing the highlight of her
career replaced by a combination of stand-in teenagers and cgi.

~~~
danso
Fisher has always seemed to have a mature, nuanced take on what the role of
Leia meant in her life. Both a love that she got her life transformed, coupled
with the bemused resentment of people's expectations and the reality of being
an aging actress. Hard to imagine she was terribly bitter about Rogue One.

[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-
carrie-...](http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-carrie-
fisher-obit-20161227-story.html)

When some moviegoers complained on social media about how much older she
looked in “The Force Awakens” than when she had last played the character more
than three decades earlier, she retorted on Twitter with her typical sharp
wit, “Please stop debating about whether or not I aged well. Unfortunately it
hurts all 3 of my feelings.”...

...“It's not always fun, but it’s certainly life-changing,” she told The Times
last year. “I have been Princess Leia exclusively. It’s been a part of my life
for 40 years…. I’m like the diplomat to a country that I haven’t been to yet.
I am that country.”

~~~
sandworm101
What a contracted actor says in interviews should always be taken with a grain
of salt. These are professionals.

~~~
theshrike79
Have you even seen a Carrie Fisher interview? She doesn't have many filters in
what she says :)

------
kj01a
This is sad. For Star Wars fans, and for her friends and family, but the worst
part is Carrie's mother, Debbie Reynolds, is still alive at 84.

~~~
grzm
Sad to say Debbie Reynolds has passed away, the day after her daughter.

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/movies/debbie-
reynolds-...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/movies/debbie-reynolds-
dead.html)

------
ilamont
There was a great interview with Carrie on Fresh Air last month as she
promoted her memoir. She had a difficult relationship with the press over the
decades, but in this interview she came across as a funny, caring, and
interesting person. Take some time to listen to it:
[http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-
air/2016/11/28/503602884/f...](http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-
air/2016/11/28/503602884/fresh-air-for-november-28-2016)

------
greedo
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter - Yoda

------
jedimastert
I really thought she was gonna pull out of it this time. Geez.

------
protomyth
Her book Wistful Drinking was very good, funny, and sad. Recommend,
particularly the audiobook since she narrates herself.

[edit: what kind of person down votes a book written by the deceased?]

------
DoodleBuggy
Source, minus The Verge content regurgitation:

[http://www.tmz.com/2016/12/23/carrie-fisher-heart-attack-
pla...](http://www.tmz.com/2016/12/23/carrie-fisher-heart-attack-plane/)

------
LoSboccacc
I thought all planes had to have on board defribillators?

~~~
CarpetBench
AEDs (defibrillators) are only good for specific types of cardiac conditions.

Since they were performing CPR on her, it's likely she had a very weak or no
heartbeat (asystole), which defibrillators are no good with.

Defibrillators are only good when your heart is working erratically, not when
it doesn't work at all.

~~~
JshWright
Defibrillators are used in cases of ventricular fibrillation and ventricular
tachycardia. These are lethal heart rhythms where the heart is either
quivering uselessly, or beating too fast to allow the heart to fill with blood
between beats. In both of those cases, the patient will have no pulse. A
defibrillator will never shock someone who has a pulse (weak or otherwise).

Asystole is when there is no electrical activity in the heart. You are correct
that that asystole cannot be shocked, but it definitely won't result in a
'weak' heartbeat (nor should you do CPR on someone with a weak pulse).

~~~
CarpetBench
> nor should you do CPR on someone with a weak pulse

Absolutely untrue. CPR is recommended by the AHA for anyone who isn't
breathing, regardless of whether they have a pulse [0].

By "she may have had a weak pulse", I mean that she may have had a weak pulse
that wasn't felt. That's not asystole technically, but it results in the same
treatment.

Emergency situations are, understandably, high-adrenaline scenarios and
mistakes get made. Even professionals aren't great at detecting carotid pulses
properly all the time [1].

> In both of those cases, the patient will have no pulse

Absolutely untrue as well. Only VF is pulseless. VT can present both ways [2].

0:
[http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/18_suppl_3/S640](http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/18_suppl_3/S640)

1: [http://www.emsworld.com/article/10320480/the-vital-signs-
par...](http://www.emsworld.com/article/10320480/the-vital-signs-part-2-pulse)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventricular_tachycardia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventricular_tachycardia)

~~~
JshWright
Neither statement is untrue... You're absolutely correct that the AHA doesn't
recommend a pulse check for lay people. But if you know they have a weak
pulse, then clearly you did a pulse check, and CPR would not be indicated.

VT with a pulse is not defibrillated, it is cardioverted. If someone is being
defibrillated, they are either in VFib or pulseless VTach. In either case, no
pulse. Do not ever, ever, ever defibrillate someone with a pulse.

~~~
CarpetBench
I hate to get into an internet pissing match, but I think this is important
(especially so if you're a healthcare professional, because this obviously has
ramifications for you). Still, I really have no desire to argue with strangers
on the internet, so this is the last I'll say about this:

Both are untrue.

> But if you know they have a weak pulse, then clearly you did a pulse check,
> and CPR would not be indicated.

Re-read the AHA guidelines I linked to. CPR is indicated for apnea or agonal
respiration. Pulse or not.

You are absolutely supposed to do CPR for someone with a pulse if they aren't
breathing, because as you probably recall if you're not breathing your pulse
is going to disappear shortly anyway.

> VT with a pulse is not defibrillated

Right. You said (emphasis mine):

> _Defibrillators are used in cases of ventricular fibrillation and
> ventricular tachycardia_. These are lethal heart rhythms where the heart is
> either quivering uselessly, or beating too fast to allow the heart to fill
> with blood between beats. _In both of those cases, the patient will have no
> pulse._

Which is untrue, as you noted: VT isn't always treated by defibrillation. And,
as I noted, VT doesn't always present with no pulse. The distinction is
important, because someone reading that paragraph may be confused and think
"VT is always treated with defibrillation". Which is absolutely untrue.

~~~
JshWright
I am a paramedic and an AHA CPR instructor.

We are making orthogonal points...

If someone is being defibrillated, then they have no pulse. The person using
the AED may not know that, but the AED does.

You initially said:

> Since they were performing CPR on her, it's likely she had a very weak or no
> heartbeat (asystole), which defibrillators are no good with.

You seem to be saying that if a person doesn't have a pulse, they must be in
asystole, and don't need a defibrillator, which is dangerously untrue. The
only reason you do CPR is to preserve the heart and brain long enough to use a
defibrillator. In fact, the only circumstances under which someone should be
defibrillated are certain types of pulseless cardiac activity.

------
Insanity
May she rest in piece. I also thought she was going to pull through this. A
loss for the film industry but moreso for her family :-(

------
msie
So nothing can be done for someone with a weak heart? Perhaps the medical team
was waiting for a transplant?

~~~
goda90
She may have experienced a lot of brain damage, so even a functioning heart
wouldn't keep her alive.

~~~
msie
Thanks, this agrees with what I read elsewhere.

------
doppp
I am genuinely heartbroken. Rest in peace. :(

------
Keyframe
Rest in peace.

With George Michael passing, and now Carrie Fisher - it makes me think of the
rule of '3'. It always crops up.

~~~
coldtea
What rule of 3? Tons of other celebrities died this year.

~~~
Keyframe
As a group within a short timespan.

------
KillerRAK
Stop with the 2016 nonsense... get a grip. Death is the next baby-boomer
surge. Because there are so many celebrities in this group, we'll see daily
death announcements in the coming years that will make 2016 look like a
picnic.

~~~
jedberg
Thank you. And honestly if you look at wikipedia's notable deaths and IMDB's,
2016 was actually a light year. 2015 and 2014 both had more per day.

~~~
egillie
I think what happened was that Bowie and Alan Rickman both died in the first
two weeks of 2016 so the meme started then and everything after was just
confirmation bias.

~~~
thrillgore
I'd say it a mix of confirmation bias and the number of high profile events
with negative correlation that have occurred (that aren't celebrities/fame
worthy individuals dying).

Personally its the number of outright confusing/heartbreaking global events
such as Aleppo, Brexit, the Trump election/"presidency," that has made the
year seem particularly unbearable. Losing Carrie Fisher, George Michael, David
Bowie, Alan Rickman, among others just gives more reflection to how _bad_ it's
felt, not if its actually a bad year statistically.

------
CalChris
As a friend put it more eloquently, _Fuck 2016_.

~~~
moron4hire
Really getting sick of this meme. There hasn't been anything particularly
special about this year. Say nothing about years being arbitrary means by
which to group deaths of people.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _There hasn 't been anything particularly special about this year._

For you, perhaps.

~~~
moron4hire
Actually, for me this year has been one of the greatest years of my life. So
to see people say "fuck <the year in which my son was born>" over B-list
celebrities, yes, it can be a bit of a problem.

Where were all these not-Star-Wars Carrie Fisher fans before she died? Where
were these George Michael fans before he died? This is not to say they aren't
deserving of being mourned. This is to say, the people who take 5 seconds to
post on social media are transparent and only cheapen the mourning of these
people's real families.

~~~
pavel_lishin
My daughter was born this year, too, which was a bright ray of sunshine among
the clouds.

> _Where were all these not-Star-Wars Carrie Fisher fans before she died?
> Where were these George Michael fans before he died?_

I don't know; where are you? Whose death would sadden you, and why are you not
praising them and cheering on their accomplishments right now?

People who take 5 seconds to post on social media are _mourning_. What do you
expect them to do? Shave their eyebrows, write essays, get tattoos? I'd wager
that George Michael's and Carrie Fisher's families are probably buoyed by the
support they see for their family members, and for the outpouring of love for
them.

Sorry if our grieving process, or our celebration of someone's life, is
slightly inconvenient for you.

------
pyed
2016 man, 2016.

~~~
stevekemp
It hasn't been such a bad year, really.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38329740](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38329740)

~~~
coldpie
The celebrity deaths have been rough, but I think the political success of
racism, hate and fear has been at least equally depressing this year. It's
been a bad year.

------
erbo
[http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/](http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/)

------
appleflaxen
I think items like this, which have no relationship to the VC or tech space,
are complete noise on HN.

I understand that the culture of celebrity tickles a primitive part of our
brains, and that it's impossible to prevent on a site like reddit. But it
bothers me more than it should to see this drivel on a site driven by
technophiles.

Why is this death any more significant than any other human being who wasn't
lucky enough to be in show business?

Based on the comments and voting, though, I appear to be an extreme outlier in
this opinion.

~~~
anigbrowl
_drivel on a site driven by technophiles_

A lot of people became technophiles because of the cultural influence of films
like _Star Wars._ Perhaps you haven't noticed how every new claim of
holographic display technology, for example, is held up against the imaginary
example from that film. _Star Wars_ was unique for its time in presenting the
future as combining both breathtakingly advanced technology with industrial
decay and totalitarian oppression. The series also signaled a dramatic change
in how women were portrayed on screen. The dominant communication medium has
substantial power to shape society.

While the on-screen technology is fictional, the _Star Wars_ series was also
hugely innovative in terms of film production technology, giving rise to
modern video editing software, sound design techniques, and many digital
workflow techniques. It's had a _massive_ impact on film technology and
everything to do with it.

~~~
krapp
If this thread were about the effect of Star Wars on technology and tech
culture, it would be on topic.

But the death of a celebrity is exactly the sort of mainstream, intellectually
vacant news that this site is supposed to avoid.

The death of a woman who was chained in a bikini to a pretend space slug gets
this much attention, but the death of the woman who confirmed the existence of
dark matter _in the actual, not fictional universe_ is barely being discussed,
on what's supposed to be a forum that values substantive intellectual content
over trivia.

------
doxcf434
HRH Prince William ‏@DukeCambridgeUK Condolences from the House of Windsor to
the House Organa. RIP HRH Princess Leia.

[https://goo.gl/8TqY8Y](https://goo.gl/8TqY8Y)

~~~
jcomis
That's not a real account...

~~~
colemickens
People can't even tell when a Twitter account is fake (even when the bio
clearly says "fictional") and yet somehow people think that we can trust the
masses to discern fake news. Ugh.

~~~
PopsiclePete
Terrifying, isn't it.

~~~
SEJeff
The most terrifying part (to me), is that those people vote!

