Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rschiavone's comments login

The job market since 2022 says otherwise

"Man won't fly for a million years" says the New York Times, 9 days before Wright brothers' first flight


Santos Drumond you say ;)


Someone at DARPA is a fan of Ann Leckie's novels


What if I don't want to deal with these problems in the first place


They're not problems. It's a customizable device to this extent, and you have preferences, so just change the settings. The alternative is that you cannot do anything about it.


Buy another phone?

Buy an iPhone and you don't have to ever wonder if you CAN change something


Does this comment mean to say that you can change anything or that you can't? IIRC there are quite a few things locked down on an iPhone that require you to jailbreak it if you want to customize it, but I haven't been in the iPhone space for a long time now so please forgive my naivety.


Yes, that's what i meant.

"With an Android if you have a shitty "feature" usually you can just change it"

I have a samsung and everything is custom, nothing but the setting menu is Samsung at this point on my phone.

And my choice was dictated only by the hardware in the Android ecosystem (i wanted the S pen)

On an iPhone you can customize very little, the homepage alone would make me furious.


Yup. Don’t like siri? Go kick rocks.


You can disable Siri entirely, as far as the voice interface.


You have to enable Siri for carplay, which is really obnoxious.


If a person has tried every other option and there is still no end to their pain, either physical or psychological, they would sooner or later try to end their life anyway.

It is in the best interest of everybody to offer assisted suicide at a set time and date instead of taking the matter into their own hands and leaving family, friends and first responders with the trauma of discovering a body.


> If a person has tried every other option and there is still no end to their pain

Except they certainly haven't, both because of very limited resources and became they are probably in no condition to figure what they could or should try themselves and are dependent on doctors, family members and other people (who also might have only very limited capacity to help her)


Except it won't stop with people who are truly living with unsolvable pain. You're painfully naive if you can't see that.

What's the limiting principle here exactly? If we normalize the idea that suicide is a solution to any problem, it's inevitably going to start being used as a "solution" for more and more problems: treatable illness, poverty, old age, disability, dependence on those who'd rather not shoulder the burden of caring for you.

It's already happening.


I do not advocate for taking the "easy" way out (I feel terrible for phrasing it this way).

What I say is that, for those cases where professionals have reasonable suspicion that it would happen anyway, offering a more humane option is the right thing to do. It shouldn't be an option to be offered lightly to anyone.


Consent seems like a sufficient limiting principle.


Not to me it doesn't.

For example, here's the story of a disabled Canadian man who "consented" to euthanasia because he thought it was his only alternative to homelessness:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-eut...

In this case he withdrew his "consent" after strangers helped him out financially, but I'm sure there are other cases that didn't end so luckily.

As suicide gets normalised you can expect the concept of "consent" to get expanded even further beyond the bounds of decency.


Do you have any suggestions of a limiting principle, then, or do you just think suicide should never be an available service others can offer and must always be done by oneself?


I'm honestly not sure. I recognize the complexity of the issue, and for what it's worth I used to be totally in favour of legalizing euthanasia until I saw what it looks like in practice in countries that have done it. But my current feeling is that the limiting principle should be we don't do anything in any way to normalise suicide, to tell anyone that suicide is a reasonable solution to their problems, or to give the state the power to end anyone's life. Anything else opens Pandora's box and is sure to lead us down a very dark path.


I think that's a reasonable position. My desire for legalization is more around an edge-case scenario, because I think the "do it yourself" approach for most people isn't actually that difficult if someone is actually committed in the same way they probably should be to demonstrate sufficient consent and have it done by a government-licensed doctor, and so the bodily autonomy arguments aren't really persuasive.

The edge-case is that the person wants to become an early suspended customer of a cryonics organization. Already there have been successful suicides from people who stated they would have preferred to be suspended and have the very small chance of actually getting a second chance at some distant point in the future, but there are various legal obstacles as well as practical ones to that, and so these people are just as assuredly gone forever as anyone else.

Besides being complex, it's also an old issue. You might enjoy reading this case report from 1993 about a suicidal person who wanted to be cryopreserved: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/complete-list-of-alc... He did eventually shoot himself, and unlike others there was at least a brain preservation in the end, but it's pretty far from an ideal one (and no one knows if even ideal preservation is good enough for future reanimation/emulation; I'd bet against it but obviously wouldn't rule it out). More recently, in late 2018 the first person was cryopreserved while using California's new end of life option act to hasten an otherwise painful demise from stage 4 cancer. (Short version: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/library/complete-list-of-alc... Long version: https://www.cryonicsarchive.org/docs/alcor-case-report-a-199...)


That's the atheist take. Anyone participating in this is committing a mortal sin which is not what you want right before Judgment. Religion aside, normalization of euthanasia leads to some horrible outcomes like offering euthansia as health care.


Unfortunately yes, you have to use every single piece.


And that's not explicitly stated.

Had the same "problem" too. I would expect better from an adtech/software firm.


Many people live paycheck to paycheck and do not have the privilege to quit and search for a better job.


Depending on where you live, do not forget the importance of quitting also means losing health insurance.


Whose fault is that?


The solution would be not to bundle the plugins then


That's would mean homogenizing all jetbrains ides, as theyre all essentially the same program with a different set of bundled plugins, optimized for web, Jvm, c, Python etc


I wish they would. They have a billion products many of which are just slightly incoherent flavors of one another.


> "auto-submit a captcha"

we have come full circle


well, they're too hard for me to solve on my own


When I am prompted to 'try again' with a new 3x3 of low-res images I often wonder if there was a bit of 'crosswalk' I missed in one, or if this is just how they get me to annotate another set for 'bicycles' for free.


When they decide I'm a bot and just give me the low res stuff I give up accessing the website.


Well, we have been training them to do this for a while...


And whose fault is that


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: