Lockheed Reassigns Workers to Fix F-35 Software - <AUTHOR> http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/19/lockheed-reassigns-workers-to-fix-f35-software.html <comment><USER2> > The F-35 requires more than 8 million lines of code, compared with about 2 > million for the F-16 and less than 1 million for other fourth-generation > fighter aircraft

The F-35 is programmed in C++, while the other aircraft are programmed in Ada, which is one of the reasons that there is so much more code. When you have to code, test, and maintain 8 million lines of C++ in an environment where a single bug can be deadly, you should expect delays.

The choice of using C++ to write a system that is designed to never crash and the obvious ignorance of the "mythical man month" does not give a good impression of Lockheed's management.

<comment><AUTHOR> > system that is designed to never crash

Oh, they crash. Software on currently fielded jets crash all the time, pilots call them "software anomalies."

Systems are designed to fail softly and reboot quickly (~1 minute) and sometimes do so automatically without physically crashing the jet. Sometimes the pilot won't even notice.

<comment><USER3> _sometimes do so automatically without physically crashing the jet_

I hope by "sometimes" you mean "almost every time!"

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, bad grammar. I meant that sometimes they reboot automatically. The systems are designed to always reboot without physically crashing the jet, but sometimes the pilot has to command the reboot themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Any one who's worked at Martin Marietta in the past (now part of Lockheed) will recognize this. Martin had a long, long history of doing this sort of thing for projects in trouble.

When they get past this (and they will, they have the DoD over a barrel, they just have to not gloat too publicly) the fallout to the F-35 will last as long as F-35s are in operation. In the early 90s, Martin people hand-assembled Titan rocket guidance and control software because some time in the distant past, the assembler had some bugs. The F-35 software group will live with whatever horrific "best practices" the current group of reassigned workers come up with.

<comment><USER5> > In the early 90s, Martin people hand-assembled Titan rocket guidance and > control software

What the fuck?

<comment><USER4> To be completely truthful, they compared binary dumps of hand-assembled, and machine-assembled software, to ensure that everything was exactly the same. But yes, they hand-assembled some weird instruction set. I can't recall asking if they assembled to ASCII hexadecimal word (24-bit) representations, or to something else.

I believe this was for "Commerical Titan", a short-lived, Titan 34D variant. Four flights, one of which left Intelsat VI in the wrong orbit. That wasn't software, but plugging the wrong cable in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.

\- Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. "The Mythical Man-Month".

<comment><USER7> >Nine women can't make a baby in one month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not only have they added 200 engineers from other projects which will now suffer delays and quality issues, both also "They're running 24-7, what we call lights out." which will ensure massive burn out. Brilliant...

<comment><USER9> If you time it right, you don't have to hit burnout. In my view, "timing it right" basically means completing the project before burnout. A successful completion followed by a little R&R goes an incredibly long way to combating burnout.

<comment><USER8> And I suppose they will use their awesome estimation powers that have led them into this mess, to time it right...

<comment><USER9> Exactly ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "There's nothing wrong with flying before we buy. In fact, most of us test drive cars before we [buy]"

Except that if we custom-order a car, the manufacturer isn't legally prohibited from selling it to someone else if we end up refusing to buy it.

<comment><USER11> There analogy is not good, but I would also assume that lockheed won a competitive bidding process to get the contract as well. They promised to build it at a certain price and in a certain time.

<comment><USER10> Yup, Lockheed's X-35 beat out a (horrendously ugly) Boeing airplane to win the contract, but my understanding was that the initial orders were cost-plus. That's pretty typical for large procurements of advanced aircraft. It's hard to know long it will take and how much it will cost to build something that bleeding-edge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The mythical man-month in action!

</comment><comment><USER13> "Accountability". A conspicuously heroic effort (likely counterproductive long-run), because their +$6 billion drip is threatened by lawmakers who don't think they're taking this whole thing seriously.

For the sake of whatever competent programmers were already working on the system, I hope this is mostly PR noise.

</comment><comment><USER14> That plane is not a replacement for the A-10, unless you kid yourself. The loiter time is atrocious.

<comment><USER15> Because loitering and enduring battle damage make _so_ much sense in an era of countermeasure-immune SAMs and huge directed-shrapnel warheads. Spitting DU rounds onto a city block also isn't a great idea in today's conflicts. The A-10 is obsolete, the tankbuster role is obsolete, the F-35 isn't perfect but is far more appropriate for today's conflicts.

<comment><USER16> Yet we fight a lot of "obsolete" enemies. The effectiveness of the F-35 won't be known until it is battle-tested. Before then, it's all rainbows and unicorns.

<comment><USER17> We aren't likely to see masses of T-72s rolling under uncontested airspace any time again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The program should be cancelled.

It's way over budget, not as stealthy as originally claimed and completely unnecessary. The DOD should be putting this money and effort into UAVs.

I also have to wonder how quickly the Chinese will get the software updates.</comment>


Is Windows Phone Dead? - <AUTHOR> https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/windows-phone/4512/analysis-microsoft-is-scaling-back-on-windows-phone-dramatically <comment><USER2> _Windows_ is dying. Not just the phone. Sorry, there really is no two ways about it. This little engine can chug itself over the hill for the next few years, but it's all downhill from there.

I use a Windows desktop and I constantly find myself wondering: "what am I paying MS for?". I personally like to use Word (even though it's too bloated for my needs), but clients ask for work to be in Google Docs so they can share and comment better.

My Windows experience is now largely limited to opening Chrome and doing virtually everything in it. I might open up Notepad from time to time to make a quick few notes. But that's mostly out of habit, not necessity.

Don't say "but I code on it". If you're a coder, you're already a specialized use case.

The majority of the world simply doesn't need a bloated Windows OS to run their browsers.

I'd be shorting Microsoft if I were an investor.

P.S.: I was also an early Windows Phone user because I loved the UI (still the best in the business IMO). I dumped the phone after 1 year when it constantly crashed on me (Nokia Lumia 720), had terrible apps, and didn't have half the features of my friends' iPhones and Androids. It got a notification center just about two years ago. And I still can't find apps on the marketplace that aren't cheap clones.

<comment><USER3> > Windows is dying.

No. It is not. Windows still sells millions of computers and everyone uses it, from households to corporations. It's here to stay for a very long time.

<comment><USER4> 'Dying' is not 'Dead'. Not yet... but desktop sales are in decline(1), and windows on mobile is a failure.

If you want to call it 'Windows is in decline' instead of 'Windows is dying', sure, we can call it that instead.

...but it's effectively the same thing. Don't bet on this platform; it's not the future. Sure, it'll still _be around_ for the foreseeable future, but you win when you bet on things that experience year-over-year growth, not year- over-year decline.

You can call the growth-hackers nasty names if you want, but its undeniable that there's a strong correlation between growth and success.

My bet? Microsoft won't fail. They'll find other things (services in the cloud perhaps) to grow; but windows will consistently decline over time while it fails to gain traction in the mobile space. /shrug

(1) [http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3026217](http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3026217) "Gartner Says Worldwide PC Shipments Declined 5.2 Percent in First Quarter of 2015"

<comment><USER5> PC sales always decline in the run up to a new windows version.

<comment><USER6> Looking at numbers from IDC, they've declined the last several years.

Combined with erosion of pricing power, OS licensing isn't the glorious business it used to be for Microsoft (it's still worth billions of dollars though).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I Google'd the phrase "Windows/Microsoft is Dead" (variations there of), since I feel like that cry is made every time a new version of Windows is released or layoffs announced, etc. One of PG's posts from 2007 came up. In it I think is a quote as relevant now as it was nearly a decade ago:

> No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of > money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous.

<comment><USER8> PG is for Paul Graham and the metionned post is [http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I made 5 apps early on and 6 months into it I realized there was no money in it. The dev tools and environment is probably the best in mobile development. It's unfortunate they can't break through.

<comment><USER10> I think it is fortunate for the rest of the world that they can't break through. The reason Microsoft is behaving reasonably lately is exactly _because_ they've been having problems breaking through - in fact, staying relevant - in the modern age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Was it ever alive? Like the Firefox phone, Amazon phone and sorts, they survived on Corporate funding in general not on consumer interest. Other than Google and Apple, it's simply too late for a new party to enter the game and not only over night catch up to it's competitors but surpass them. Instead they should focus on what they are good at and integrate as well as possible with the winners such as Google and Apple. Microsoft finally understand that and is now refocusing on productivity, firefox is the little engine that could but sadly can't, amazon is trying anything to make itself profitable for investors so I don't expect them to start refocusing anytime soon.

<comment><USER12> I would argue that's even harder for them than FirefoxOS because at least with FirefoxOS, it's powered by web technologies and you can have most basic apps without much work. Whereas with Windows Phone, you need actual developer time to create an application in the new ecosystem. It's already hard to convince people to port applications but it's even harder to convince them to redevelop something new entirely.

<comment><USER13> Not exactly true. You can build Web Apps for existing Windows Phone devices and Windows 10 mobile, you can import your iOS or Android apps directly to Windows app store.

<comment><USER14> What you are talking about? Importing iOS and Android apps into the Windows app store? There are some announcements, that this might be possible at some point in the future. But at the moment nobody knows how much modifications will be necessary for the apps to run on a windows phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> WP has always had an uphill climb. That's not going to change anytime soon. MS shouldn't give up on it either. I've been an early adopter and continue to use it to this day. I'm not an apple fan and don't like google either. Mobile needs MS to give an alternative in the market.

I'm primarily a MS stack dev (former MS). I hear these same old MS is dying rants every few years. I don't see things going away, let alone changing anytime soon. In a few years from now their market share (desktop) may be a few percentage points lower and cynics will continue to rant. I enjoy working on the Azure/Windows platform. Most issues I've had were self inflicted.

</comment><comment><USER16> I feel sorry for those being laid off, I imagine that the next generation of Microsoft phone hardware will not be a good as the Lumia range, which is the phones main strength.

The Windows Phone OS problem is that they are playing catch up, it has come a long way in a short time which has hurt App developers. But given another couple of years of stability and I think it will be on par with iOS8 and Android 5.1.

Microsoft is just lowering its overheads whilst it matures the platform. By the time we get Windows 11, they'll ramp up for a big push to ISV's.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder how the developers feel that invested in that platform?

<comment><USER5> The problem is that there's been no gold rush to reach critical mass. There aren't enough apps to draw in users, and there aren't enough users to sustain apps (as a business). The apps which are there are lower quality and miss features, with few updates and getting fewer.

I get that MS is in a tough spot. They need the apps to gain traction, but they need traction to get apps. If they'd been faster out of the gate catching up with iphone the market might have split threeways, but by now it's an entrenched duopoly and no new entrant can make a difference. I still think windows phone is better phone OS than iOS or android, but at this point the quality doesn't matter. See also: webOS, FirefoxOS.

Long story short, i think MS is doing everything they can to make the platform work for developers (excellent tools, easy porting from iOS and android, universal apps), but it's just too late. They were there before iphone (windows mobile), but they didn't innovate fast enough when the iphone happened, and now it's too late.

<comment><USER18> > There aren't enough apps to draw in users, and there aren't enough users to > sustain apps (as a business).

All evidence suggests that apps do not influence which phone a user buys. Users install less than 1 app per month. Windows Phone is unsuccessful for other reasons.

<comment><USER19> The problem with those kind of stats is they fold in every $0 Android device that are purchased and used essentially as glorified dumbphones. If you've ever used apps on those devices, you can plainly see why nobody would install anything onto them. I'm not going to cite average numbers of apps installed, because those stats fluctuate wildly and are typically bullshit. They also don't help substantiate usage.

Windows Phone isn't only unsuccessful because of the lack of significant applications, but acting like it isn't a major factor is just being wilfully blind to reality. Microsoft can't just endlessly throw money at the problem. They can't buy their way into popularity if there is no organic momentum that follows, and there isn't.

Windows Phone overall fails to make a compelling argument. But having backseat YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter clients and no SnapChat or other similarly flourishing services until it's so late nobody cares anymore is a substantial disadvantage.

Finally, that statistic you chose to offer is almost irrelevant. I probably install less than one app a month on my Macs, but that doesn't mean the apps I've already installed aren't extremely important to me. Just because people aren't constantly hunting for new apps doesn't mean they don't use the ones they have.

By that measure, the fact that I've only installed one password manager in five years means I don't like or use password managers. Quite the contrary, it just means I love 1Password and use it every day.

<comment><USER20> >The problem with those kind of stats is they fold in every $0 Android device that are purchased and used essentially as glorified dumbphones.

As if WP stats aren't dominated by cheap $0 phones that are also purchased and used as dumbphones and in the case of WP more so because of the lack of apps for the platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Windows Phone did not take off when it partnered with Nokia to sell Lumia Phones. At that time Nokia still had market share and loyal users especially in Europe and India. Despite a good OS, great dev tools and good OEM backing MSFT did not manage to get a market share of 10% be a relevant 3rd platform. It's hard to imagine how MSFT would restart a battle that has been lost some time ago.

</comment><comment> github-cat Cannot believe it. The market share of Windows Phone is even lower than Java ME. [https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market- share...](https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market- share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustomb=1)

</comment><comment><USER22> No, I'm using Lumia 830 and had 520 before. There are all basic apps and many Unity games.

And Lumia 5 __series are selling like hotcakes in poor countries. Windows Phone OS is smooth and fast on low-end even compared to iOS.

(I'm not a MS fan, OS X is my desktop.)

</comment><comment><USER23> Was it ever alive?</comment>


Ask HN: What are good resources for life advice? - <AUTHOR> What are other good resources to read from? Any source that are as good as PG essays on how to think in life?<p>Sources can be videos, audios, recordings, essays, blogs, etc. Anything. <comment><USER4> First and foremost, what you are describing is metacognition - thinking about the way you think. Hopefully that will aid you in your search for things!

Secondly, here are some of my favorite influential material:

\- Li Ka-Shing, Tips on Life. My takeaway: invest in yourself. [https://addicted2success.com/success-advice/asias-richest- ma...](https://addicted2success.com/success-advice/asias-richest-man-li-ka- shing-shares-advice-for-young-entrepreneurs/)

\- Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture. My takeaway: don't limit yourself [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7zzQpvoYcQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7zzQpvoYcQ)

\- Guy Kawasaki, Make Meaning. Aimed for startups, but equally applicable in life. My takeaway: Have the proper motivations for doing things. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQs6IpJQWXc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQs6IpJQWXc)

\- Admiral William H. McRaven, Make your bed. My takeaway: if you want to change the world, start by changing yourself. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70)

\- David Foster Wallace, This is Water. My takeaway: Take a big picture view, and don't sweat the small stuff. [https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster- wallace-this-is-water/](https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is- water/)

\- "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about."― Rumi

\- Man's Search for meaning. My takeaway: We make meaning. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4069.Man_s_Search_for_Me...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4069.Man_s_Search_for_Meaning)

\- "All the livin that you're saving, won't buy your dreams for you" \- Townes Van Zandt

\- Idiot wind by Bob Dylan My takeaway: Your reaction to things can be just as bad as the actual thing. [https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/57330/](https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/57330/)

\- Stoicism and Marcus Aurelius, Seneca. My takeaway: Focus on what matters. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to- the-g...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5617966-a-guide-to-the-good- life) (read this one first for a good foundation) [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97411.Letters_from_a_Sto...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97411.Letters_from_a_Stoic) [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30659.Meditations](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30659.Meditations)

\- Buddhism. Our takeaway: Meditation is important, the doctrine of emptiness (not nihilism!) is super interesting. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/104949.How_to_See_Yourse...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/104949.How_to_See_Yourself_As_You_Really_Are) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada) [https://www.shambhala.com/the-pocket-dalai- lama-14965.html](https://www.shambhala.com/the-pocket-dalai-lama-14965.html) [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25942786-the-mind- illumi...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25942786-the-mind-illuminated) [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3346233-buddhism](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3346233-buddhism)

\- Leonardo Da Vinci My take away: There is a beautiful intersection between tech and art. Great things could not exist without a little of both. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34684622-leonardo-da- vin...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34684622-leonardo-da-vinci)

\- The Alchemist My takeaway: It's not the destination it's the journey. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/865.The_Alchemist](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/865.The_Alchemist)

\- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. My takeaway: Seek out quality, whatever the hell that is! [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/629.Zen_and_the_Art_of_M...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/629.Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance)

\- Why we sleep. My takeaway: go the fuck to bed. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we- sleep](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466963-why-we-sleep)

\- Anti-Cancer Diet. My takeaway: don't eat shit. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1886829.Anticancer_A_New...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1886829.Anticancer_A_New_Way_of_Life)

\- Non-violent communication. My takeaway: You can (and should) communicate your needs respectfully. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/560861.Non_Violent_Commu...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/560861.Non_Violent_Communication)

\- Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela. My takeaway: There is a difference between institutionalized action and individual action. Forgiveness is the only path forward. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/318431.Long_Walk_to_Free...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/318431.Long_Walk_to_Freedom)

\- A people's history of the US. My takeaway: Things are getting better. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2767.A_People_s_History_...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2767.A_People_s_History_of_the_United_States)

<comment><USER5> I heard about non violent communication only last week. Heard there's a course and a workshop too on this.

Very eager to master Non Violent Communivation coz more often than not I find myself in loss for the right word.

<comment><USER6> If you find yourself at a loss for words often, you might find it useful to talk to yourself more often, rehearsing how you would explain something. Showers are good for this. Parks are too, but there you should carry a handful of papers and occasionally pretend to look at them .

<comment><USER5> Thanks for your pointers.

Apart from the point to which you have replied, there's one more I would like to add.

I am an Indian, and have a bit of an accent. Am trying to rub it off. I work for US clients and have observed that I can't crack jokes as easily as they do, nor do I sound as natural in a friendly banter as well as they do. Also, in the excitement of the conversation, sometimes my American client mumble off something which I am unable to grasp, and which my Indian colleague is able to understand with surprising ease. (The fact that my Indian colleague is vernacular medium educated freaks me off even more)

Also, I am preparing for IELTS the second time (Band 8 in first attempt). I am particularly weak in listening. To remediate that, I listen to a BBC podcast everyday called "The Archers". I miss out on at least 5 points in the podcast, unable to decipher what they meant. That's one area I am trying to improve at.

The other one is speaking itself. To put in simple words, I am trying to make my speech as fluid as water. The person I am conversing with should be able to understand me effortlessly. Right now my speech is quite rigid and not that articulate. I scored band 8 in speaking in IELTS. To take things forward, I learnt about this shadowing technique from YouTube's Emma's channel and from someone on HackerNews. The bottom line of the shadow technique is, pick up a favorite show - and speak along with whatever the character says, do this for all episodes, and finish the series. One person on HN said that in order to perfect his Mandarin, he shadowed on Chinese TV series for 9 years straight.

In addition to this, I also record myself and speak on some random topic daily for 2 min(Topic is mostly from IELTS speaking tests). Go through the recording. Spot pronunciation / intonation/ articulation mistakes. Take one more go at the same topic. And see if there's improvement.

Do you have any other ideas apart from these in your mind which can help me with improving my speech?

I am also planning to gobble up all books related to languages written by Steven Pinker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was going to suggest Dr. Peterson, but Ctrl+F revealed a veritable graveyard of downvoted comments about him already. That's too bad.

So I'll go with Steve Pavlina's [0] work instead.

Steve Pavlina's blog is a mix of solid personal development advice mixed with a journal of his self experimentation.

His most interesting work is on belief systems, and on deliberately installing new belief systems to improve your life.

An interesting note is that he has released most of his work into the public domain. I'm working on audio versions of his articles.

[0]: [https://stevepavlina.com/](https://stevepavlina.com/)

<comment><USER8> That's a clever way to mention (suggest) Mr. Peterson and evade the downvotes. :-P

Being an individualist I don't agree with his life advice one bit.

Those that are not looking to settle down to anything less than perfect in life I'd suggest looking up "Actual Freedom".

<comment><USER9> > Being an individualist I don't agree with his life advice one bit.

Without knowing much about him, my impression was such that he's a staunch individualist

<comment><USER8> I have read parts of his book and watched some of his lectures, and would hardly characterize him as a person who is independent and self-reliant (which is what the word individualist refers to).

Just for starters, allowing your well-being dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.

<comment><USER9> > hardly characterize him as a person who is independent and self-reliant

Maybe you have some example as to why.

> allowing your well-being dependent on being above some level in some social > hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.

This sounds like a mischaracterization of whatever it is is espoused. No one lives in a bubble, but a strong social network isn't antithetical to self- reliance, because self-reliance isn't an absolute nor is it purported to be - 0 people are entirely self-reliant in the literal sense. It's in practice about initiative, to move beyond a stagnant dependency. For example, seeking professional help in the instance of mental health to improve our lot, or reading a book to that same end, is an example of self-reliance at work. No one can _make_ you do it. You have to want to improve. I see it as self- motivation.

<comment><USER8> I'm talking specifically about the life advice being dished out by Mr. Peterson. Given that you said "without knowing much about him" perhaps you should first familiarize yourself with what he is promulgating before continuing this discussion.

<comment><USER9> If you know, you can sum it. Should be easy if you criticize it in abstract

<comment><USER8> Yup I did:

> Just for starters, allowing your well-being [to be] dependent on being above > some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant.

It may be hard for some not to lump self-reliance (aka. being autonomous) and hierarchy-consciousness (to coin a word) together; which is where the third paragraph of my original comment comes into picture (something you seem to have ignored[1]).

\---

[1] I can guess it because of this:

> [slothtrop]: 0 people are entirely self-reliant [in affective context] in > the literal sense.

As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description.

And:

> [Mr. Peterson]: I'm saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities > in the way that animals and human beings organize their [hierarchical] > structures. It's absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion > years of evolutionary history behind that … It's a long time. You have a > mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that's similar to the lobster > mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better > your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel > more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".

<comment><USER9> > Yup I did:

Seems rather circular then to suggest I familiarize myself with him more if you can't even be bothered to demonstrate how you've extrapolated what you reiterated using a source. Google yields no sources parroting that. Even the negative opinions suggest something completely different : "Ultimately, Peterson's dismissal of happiness as the purpose of life is a problem because it aligns his argument too closely with an emphasis on an introspective attempt at self-sufficiency. Insisting that meaning can be forged out of effort emphasizes a kind of self-reliance which, while certainly useful and even admirable at times, misses the mark in telling most of the human story. Suffering for the sake of suffering in order to "tolerate the weight of our own self-consciousness" is, I suppose, the best we can aim for if the material world is all that exists." \-- [https://humanumreview.com/articles/why-we- need-jordan-peters...](https://humanumreview.com/articles/why-we-need-jordan- peterson-and-why-he-needs-us)

> As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description.

That can only be true if you don't appreciate the fact that outcomes which appear superficially as self-reliance don't materialize from a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks.

> I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely > inevitable".

Seems you drew your own ideas as to how this has anything to do with self- reliance.

How an individual leads their life has no bearing on whether there are hierarchical structures in the whole of society. You can go live in the woods, and humans will continue on without you with class structures.

<comment><USER8> > Seems rather circular then to suggest I familiarize myself with him more

Only because you wrote "Without knowing much about him" and you keep misunderstanding the nature of my critique.

> ... if you can't even be bothered to demonstrate how you've extrapolated > what you reiterated

What I reiterated was that - allowing your well-being [to be] dependent on being above some level in some social hierarchy is hardly considered being self-reliant [aka. being autonomous].

> using a source.

Both Peterson's book and his online videos are the source for that paraphrasing.

> Google yields no sources parroting that.

All you have to do, basically, is to directly read his book and watch some of his online videos; and not read reviews (be it negative or positive) of those works online.

> Even the negative opinions suggest something completely different : > "Ultimately, Peterson's dismissal of happiness as the purpose of life is a > problem because it aligns his argument too closely with an emphasis on an > introspective attempt at self-sufficiency. Insisting that meaning can be > forged out of effort emphasizes a kind of self-reliance which, while > certainly useful and even admirable at times, misses the mark in telling > most of the human story. Suffering for the sake of suffering in order to > "tolerate the weight of our own self-consciousness" is, I suppose, the best > we can aim for if the material world is all that exists." \-- > [https://humanumreview.com/articles/why-we-need-jordan- > peters...](https://humanumreview.com/articles/why-we-need-jordan-peters..).

Of course they do, as I'm referring to the matter-of-fact self-reliance (aka. being autonomous) and not "a kind of self-reliance".

>> As a matter of fact I know at least 6 people who fit that description [being entirely self-reliant [in affective context] in the literal sense].

> That can only be true if you don't appreciate the fact that outcomes which > appear superficially as self-reliance don't materialize from a lifetime of > not benefiting from social networks.

Given that I wrote _in affective context_ it is beyond me how you can characterize what I wrote as to "appear superficially" and materializing from "a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks".

>> I know at least 6 people for whom it is not (anymore) "absolutely inevitable".

> Seems you drew your own ideas as to how this has anything to do with self- > reliance.

Of course it seems that way, as to you -- especially not being familiar with Mr. Peterson's work in critical sense -- whatever you dub as self-reliance is nothing to do with being autonomous in the affective context, and that being actually so somehow automatically implies (to you) "living in the woods" or having "a lifetime of not benefiting from social networks".

> How an individual leads their life has no bearing on whether there are > hierarchical structures in the whole of society.

Just so that it is clear, the hierarchical structures Mr. Peterson is alluding to is entirely affective in nature ("class structure" as you mention below belongs here), and is not specifically referring to the actual structures in the society.

> You can go live in the woods, and humans will continue on without you with > class structures.

Yes, and so what? This is nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl is a quick book that goes into how we internalize meaning that drives happiness from purpose that helped me figure out this out better than many other "journey > destination" books.

Bed of Procrustus by Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a bunch of quick aphorisms that takes less than an hour to read and gives good insight into Taleb's form of critical thinking.

Between the Devil and the Dragon by Eric Hoffer has essays from a self- educated, laborer philosopher and has helped me to understand much about how I think through things and why.

<comment><USER11> Aside: _The True Believer_ is well worth the read. Though I may have some issues with Hoffer's conclusions in his work, I've never regretted the time spent reading him.

<comment><USER10> True Believer is included in Between Devil and Dragon.

I like how you stated "I've never regretted the time spent reading him" as I don't agree with many of his statements and sometimes his writings seem a bit self-involved or exegesis in need of a peer review, but I've found it valuable to read through and think the power of some of the ideas I keep, or just strongly disagree, are worth all the material I discard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Books on Stoicism. In particular, "A Guide to the Good Life"

Some good stuff here:

[https://www.theschooloflife.com/](https://www.theschooloflife.com/)

<comment><USER13> Seriously? I thought they were cartoonishly bad. A group of hipsters dispensing cheap philosophic pills for lazy fake intellectuals.

<comment><USER14> True true. They don't even teach Philosophy. their video is the embodiment of cognitive ease.

<comment><USER13> Yep. I'm really surprised to see them upvoted on HN to be honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Jordan Peterson's Maps of Meaning, 12 Rules for Life, and his many tens of hours of content on YouTube.

If you're willing to entertain the idea for a brief moment that the Bible has any wisdom at all, his Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories is a must. I recommend them even if you aren't willing, in fact. They converted me, and i was a fairly nihilistic atheist for almost all of my thinking life.

<comment><USER16> I see Jordan Pererson gets downvoted here, but recommend all critic to read "12 rules for life" themselves. This book helped me a lot.

<comment><USER17> I did read it. I decided not to take life advice from someone who writes, about a two-year-old child: "I picked him bodily off the playground structure, and threw him thirty feet down the field. No, I didn't. But it would have been better for him if I had." It's a 'joke', but it's a weird joke. I believe he thinks this over-aggression makes him seem dominant and powerful; in reality, a grown man getting so furious at an infant that he fantasises about throwing it is just odd. I can see why young men on the internet find it appealing to be told that being aggressive is actually cool and powerful and good, but that doesn't actually make it good advice.

I also don't agree with his sexual-marketplace ideas about how women choose mates, and why it's a good thing for women to choose men who behave badly towards them because they'll change: "[female lobsters] identify the top guy quickly, and become irresistibly attracted to him. This is brilliant strategy, in my estimation. It's also one used by females of many different species, including humans. ... His aggression has made him successful, so he's likely to react [to the female] in a dominant, irritable manner. Furthermore, he's large, healthy and powerful. It's no easy task to switch his attention from fighting to mating. (If properly charmed, however, he will change his behaviour towards the female. This is the lobster equivalent of Fifty Shades of Grey, the fastest-selling paperback of all time, and the eternal Beauty- and-the-Beast plot of archetypal romance. This is the pattern of behaviour continually represented in the sexually explicit literary fantasies that are as popular among women as provocative images of naked women are among men.)" Is this good advice or information for men or women? Personally, I don't think so, but since it bears absolutely no relation to how I chose my partner, I suppose Peterson would say I am some kind of outlier or unusual female. Readers may make their own minds up about the quote.

<comment><USER18> > in reality, a grown man getting so furious at an infant that he fantasises > about throwing it is just odd

You are getting that backwards. In reality, people think that way. They get angry with kids. They may even think violent thoughts. Tragically, they may actually be violent.

Any time you make a statement about what's weird about interactions between adults (especially parents) and kids, you should clarify that you do or do not have kids. So, I'll ask, do you have kids? I ask because we can be rational in an HN discussion. Dealing with kids tests that rationality.

> Is this good advice or information for men or women?

Men who are "alpha male" types get more selection. This may or may not be true. The "should" (rational decisions) is a different argument. JP is trying to explain how things ARE (and he could be wrong on that.) That's different from advice and the information is neither good or bad.

<comment><USER17> He is just describing "how things are", not giving advice or telling you what you should do, in his self-help advice book about his "rules for life"? That's surprising to me, I must say!

<comment><USER18> Heh, good point.

Okay, you're right. It's a self help book with advice. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What sort of "life advice" do you want?

I think for starters is to realize there is a lot of contradicting life advice. Then the other thing is wether people follow the advice they give others.

There is a Carl Jung quote:

> Only the paradox comes anywhere near to comprehending the fullness of life.

Personally for me, understanding life is understanding the pros/cons of every scenario.

The pros and cons of short term thinking.

The pros and cons of long term thinking.

The trade offs between both. There are trade offs in everything we do. Understanding them, and accepting them is important.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, came here to say the same thing. There's so much advice out there, different advice is good for different people at different times, and none of it can cover life in full.

One way to think of it is that reading advice puts you in the perspective of the advice-giver, instead of your own. Like, when you read a book titled "99 ways not to be a loser", you begin worrying if you're a loser and seeing everything through that lens. And then you read "35 ways to become a decent person" and suddenly being a loser isn't a problem anymore, now there's something else on your mind. And so on. It stops you from seeing your life on its own terms, from many angles and the actual weighting of each, which is very personal. It requires living, not reading.

<comment><USER21> That is part of the reason that I have thought long about maturity models: a collaboratively-built step-by-step approach. Not everyone is in the same place, but there are some best practices that can help us all, when we are ready for them. More at [http://lukecall.net](http://lukecall.net), under "Life lessons".

(ps: I am a religious person and the content is heavily influenced by that, but I hope the concept, and present/future software, are amenable to about any worldview.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The Psychology of Human Misjudgment by Charles T. Munger [https://www.harrisonbarnes.com/the-psychology-of-human- misju...](https://www.harrisonbarnes.com/the-psychology-of-human-misjudgment- by-charles-t-munger/) (You may wish to scroll down to "psychology-based tendencies that, while generally useful, often mislead")

</comment><comment><USER23> Naval has a lot of good content.

I would start with his tweet storm: How to Get Rich (without getting lucky):

[https://twitter.com/naval/status/1002103360646823936?s=21](https://twitter.com/naval/status/1002103360646823936?s=21)

<comment><USER24> This is just a bunch of vague garbage. Sure, "don't trade your time for money, invest and make money off of your investments", but saying so is a lot harder than doing. All of this vague garbage is a lot easier for white upper class people that get nice interest free loans from their white upper class parents.

<comment><USER25> Naval is an Indian Born Self-made guy. Sure, it is hard. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.

<comment><USER24> I didn't know that about Naval. I'm used to hearing this sort of self-serving advice from "self-made" people that really weren't self-made at all. The reason this vague helpless advice is appealing to people is because the implication is that it IS easy, and that everyone CAN do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an > older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, > how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then > eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is > water?" -- David Foster Wallace

This is a nice analogy about how hard it is to understand what we live in every day. To know about 'water' I learned a lot from Thomas Eriksen -- Small Places, Large Issues. It's an introduction to cultural anthropology and it's a great academic read, but it also taught me a lot on a personal level; to clearly recognize different schools of thought and see their particular and universal value.

Good contextual knowledge of this sort tones down the general chaos of life for me. It just helps a lot to have a solid mental model of cultures and ideologies, know their overlaps and contradictions, and to have the ability to relate specific thinkers to this model.

</comment><comment><USER27> I recommend Mark Manson – he's got a popular blog ([https://markmanson.net](https://markmanson.net)) on topics like these and also wrote a great book, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck.

</comment><comment><USER28> Derek Sivers' blog. One of my favourite pieces of his, There is No Speed Limit:

[https://sivers.org/kimo](https://sivers.org/kimo)

</comment><comment><USER29> 12 rules of life by Jordan Peterson. Also Peterson's YouTube channel has loads of free lectures.

<comment><USER30> It's pretty hard to avoid the reactionary politics when consuming Peterson, but if you can yeah you get mostly tried-and-true basic self-help advice.

<comment><USER15> It's funny. He took like one political stance and then got labeled awful things. We can just skip past the trans thing. It's ok.

For those that don't know: he interpreted a law that was passed in Canada as compelled speech law and decided that was a line that shall not be crossed, no matter the presumed benefit. That line happened to coincidentally involve trans people and, well, it's the late 2010s, so that speaks for itself. It takes about three minutes of listening to him talk on the subject to understand that his singular life's mission is to figure out what is necessary to prevent totalitarianism ever again. Compelled speech laws are something we ought to be on the defensive for in that regard. The fact that it involved trans people is irrelevant to him and should be irrelevant to us.

<comment><USER31> > It takes about three minutes of listening to him talk on the subject to > understand that his singular life's mission is to figure out what is > necessary to prevent totalitarianism ever again

I spent some time listening to him, and that wasn't my impression. It struck me as a mixture of contrarianism, attention seeking behaviour and latent transphobia.

<comment><USER32> My impression is that your comment is a mixture of contrarianism, attention seeking behaviour and latent transphobophobia. Can't refute it, can you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Zen mind, beginner's mind - Shunryu Suzuki. I don't think it's life advice. But, it certainly had a profound impact on my life.

As an entrepreneur, I found the best way to learn about life is to read biographies of successful people, especially the ones that speak of the transformations.

Shoe Dog - Phil Knight Benjamin Franklin, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein - <USER2> Isaacson

<comment><USER34> >Zen mind, beginner's mind - Shunryu Suzuki. I don't think it's life advice. But, it certainly had a profound impact on my life.

Just wanted to second this. One of the few books that has actually changed the way I view everything in life, and led to a years long deep dive into eastern philosophy.

<comment><USER35> Third here. I was talking about this book just yesterday on HN and also briefly with my team at work. It's definitely not life advice, but it also helped me change the way that I view most things in life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The Conquest of Happiness_ by Bertrand Russell.

Never knew unhappiness after I read this. Highly recommended.

Another one is _Méditations_ by Marcus Aurelius.

 _Lives_ by Plutarch if you have the patience.

</comment><comment><USER34> Socrates, Spinoza, Hobbes, Rosseau, Kant, Nietzche, J.S. Mill, Camus, de Beauvoir, Arendt.

</comment><comment><USER36> Your parents, grand parents and other paternal figures like coaches teachers aunts uncles and siblings

<comment><USER37> Very happy to find this obvious answer. People always look far for what can be found right here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I recently finished reading "The Wisdom of Insecurity" (1951) by Alan Watts. I have to go back through it again to grasp it further. It's a short read (~150 pages). I highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER39> I like Aaron Swartz's Raw Nerve series: [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rawnerve](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rawnerve)

<comment><USER40> Disclaimer: This is it's a series of posts on how to get better at life written by someone that ended their own life.

<comment><USER41> Why is that a disclaimer and why does your comment sound like knocking on something good? If you haven't watched the documentary "The Internet's Own Boy" [1], check it out. The amount of harassment (mental and emotional) he faced could also bring most other people to take steps that they never would've imagined themselves doing.

It's very easy to knock down others. But you haven't lived his life, and you just cannot know how it was for him and what pushed him to take his own life.

Would someone put down any works by Ian Murdock (founder of Debian) because he also took his life?

I find these kind of criticisms, based on some actions of a person who otherwise contributed a lot, very silly and downright insulting in the meanest of ways.

Next time you want to write a disclaimer on Aaron Swartz, you could perhaps describe it as how the FBI and DoJ went too far and killed him in more ways than one.

[1]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy)

<comment><USER42> On the other hand, someone here mentioned Viktor Frankl, who had been through a lot worse than what Aaron Swartz faced, and survived. Which one of them is more qualified to give life advice?

<comment><USER41> Both are qualified to give life advice based on their experiences. In fact, others are also qualified. Good life advice usually stems from struggles that one has gone through. There doesn't need to be a scale or measure on who is more qualified.

<comment><USER42> What if you need to choose only one?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Funes- Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. It's the hardest pill I've ever tried to swallow in my life; in fact, I am still in the process of doing so. It goes over the mental process and ruminations of assuming the greatest commitment a human being can make: that which you make to reason and nature. Taking full responsibility of your existence is a daunting proposition, but initiating the process is a fruitful enterprise.

Just a warning, though: be prepared for thanatophobia while reading it, since it has "memento mori" written all over it.

<comment><USER43> For people that may want to put a little Stoicism in their lives, you may want to try this book: The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance, and the Art of Living: Featuring new translations of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius [1]

This one-per-day, helps me absorb them in a slow and steady manner.

[1]: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Daily-Stoic-Meditations- Perseveranc...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Daily-Stoic-Meditations-Perseverance- translations/dp/1781257655/)

(link is not associate)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Any body remember when Alone was writing The Last Psychiatrist?

<comment><USER8> For those in the blank:

[https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/archives.html](https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/archives.html)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/](https://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I frequently scan Quora for interesting perspectives on life. I really like to learn from the personal stories of individuals. Of course, you have to take everything with a grain of salt, as Quora is not peer-reviewed or scholarly supported, but exactly this raw and unfiltered content makes it attractive.

You can learn best from the mistakes of others. It's a kind of wisdom of the crowds-approach.

(I don't work for Quora, nor do I participate in their partner program)

</comment><comment><USER46> Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (Basically the introduction to Stoicism philosophy)

<comment><USER47> Seconded !

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Coming late to this but ... I have thought long about maturity models: a collaboratively-built step-by-step approach. The famous coach John Wooden said something like "the trouble with all the good new books is they keep us from reading all the good old books".

Not everyone is in the same place in their personal growth process, or has time to read as much as needed to find what is best and most applicable to them, but there are some best practices that can help us all, when we are ready for them. So the intent is to capture those, for any area of life (which I have grouped under mental, physical, spiritual, social/emotional).

I have posted much more at [http://lukecall.net](http://lukecall.net), under "Life lessons". (I think the site is lightweight/responsive, and skimmable.)

(ps: I am a religious person and the content explains why, and is heavily influenced by that. Also, I hope the concepts, and present/future software to help with it, can be helpful, given almost any worldview.)

</comment><comment><USER48> My favorites:

 _The Last Lecture_ by Randy Pausch

 _How to win friends and influence people_ by Dale Carnegie

</comment><comment><USER49> David Chapman - <USER3>

[https://meaningness.com](https://meaningness.com)

<comment><USER50> Wow, didn't expect it here. Chapman is an amazing guy. Influenced mostly by Buddhism, has a good grasp of western philosophy and his insights into AI make things even more interesting (he was playing part in the GOFAI).

The message is very subtle, but much closer to reality than most of the other suggestions here. The difficult part is that it requires letting go a lot of views to which we are very attached. Not your typical feel-good motivational book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> [https://waitbutwhy.com/](https://waitbutwhy.com/)

</comment><comment><USER52> How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life by Scott Adams.

An extremely concise life advice book. Doesn't wander around ideas. Well- written.

Of all 'self-help' books I have read, this is the only I truely recommend.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you're in for a 15min/day kinda thing, try out the Harvard Classics. Reading them acts as a great barometer for the 'stickier' problems that we humans face. Totally free to download and read here: [https://www.myharvardclassics.com/categories/20120212](https://www.myharvardclassics.com/categories/20120212)

Daily Reading Guide here: [https://www.myharvardclassics.com/categories/20120612_1](https://www.myharvardclassics.com/categories/20120612_1)

</comment><comment><USER18> Morgan Housel for financial advice. Just Google the name and follow his Twitter feed if you have an account there.

I have learned a ton through playing poker. The game has a lot of carry-over into real life. Luck vs Skill. Variance. Take a look at the link for a great review on a great book about poker.

[https://25iq.com/2018/10/13/lessons-from-annie-duke- author-o...](https://25iq.com/2018/10/13/lessons-from-annie-duke-author-of- thinking-in-bets-making-smarter-decisions-when-you-dont-have-all-the-facts/)

</comment><comment><USER53> I think Poor Charlies Almanac is great as it covers the mental models. It also has a wealth of life advice.

You can also subscribe to the fs blog or their podcast The Knowledge Project. They do a lot with mental models.

The book The Art of Thinking Clearly is another great book that covers biases of the mind in one to two pages each.

The Tim Ferris podcast surprisingly has some amazing guests filled with life advice. I just listened to one with Jim Collins, author of Good to Great. It was absolutely fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER54> A wonderful book that's a little off the beaten path for HN is "Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life," by Anne Lamott.

</comment><comment><USER55> I enjoy the writings of Kapil Gupta. In fact I found them life-transforming. Naval is mentioned here - I believe him and Kapil are friends.

He writes on mastery, seriousness and the Truth.

His Twitter: [https://twitter.com/KapilGuptaMD](https://twitter.com/KapilGuptaMD).

And some excerpts from his writings:

> _" Cleverness and insincerity are loud. Seriousness is quiet"_

> _" The Mind does not assault man for his mistakes. It assaults him for the > cover-up"_

> _" If there was one single thing that stands between man and his freedom, it > is the belief that he has time"_

> _" What must be understood is that human beings' lives harden into routines. > They harden into a way of being. At some long-forgotten moment many moons > ago, they settled. For things they swore they would not settle for...today's > compromise is tomorrow's resentment""_

> _" People are who they are. And they will do everything in their power to > remain who they are. And the Mind will make certain of this"_

> _" The common man is afraid of "losing." The Legend is afraid of not > arriving at his ultimate capability. These are fundamentally different > paths"_

</comment><comment><USER56> Pocket's must reads are full of lots of self-development articles: [https://blog.getpocket.com/2018/11/2018-must-reads-on- pocket...](https://blog.getpocket.com/2018/11/2018-must-reads-on-pocket/)

</comment><comment><USER57> Joe imbriano, The Fullerton Informer is a good start. He covers many issue related to technology, health, government, self improvement etc.

[https://thefullertoninformer.com](https://thefullertoninformer.com)

www.YouTube.com/thefullertoninformer

</comment><comment><USER58> I would suggest the readings at [https://betterhumans.coach.me/a-directory-of- advice-that-wor...](https://betterhumans.coach.me/a-directory-of-advice-that- works-e7a177844a46)

<comment><USER59> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> There is great a number of Alan Watts talks on YouTube. For more information [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts)

</comment><comment><USER61> The Knowledge Project [https://fs.blog/the-knowledge- project/](https://fs.blog/the-knowledge-project/)

</comment><comment><USER62> [https://academyofideas.com/](https://academyofideas.com/)

</comment><comment><USER63> [http://www.actualized.org](http://www.actualized.org)

</comment><comment><USER64> Go out and explore the world and try meet interesting people ;) no better resource then that

</comment><comment><USER65> Sam Altman's blog. I like this article [https://blog.samaltman.com/the-days- are-long-but-the-decades...](https://blog.samaltman.com/the-days-are-long-but- the-decades-are-short)

In particular. Do new things often as it slows down the perception of time.

</comment><comment><USER66> I like Coach Red Pill on You Tube. Some of his stuff is pretty insightful.

</comment><comment> git-pull I'm biased in favor of audiobooks since they fit with strolls. Books are for sitting, walking burns calories :)

Books:

 _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ and _How to Stop Worrying and Start Living_ by Dale Carnegie

Taste testing:

 _PhilosophersNotes_ is like sparknotes for self-help books. Can be used as a way to discover / screen books you'd like.

Audio:

 _Psychology in Seattle_ 's episodes regarding Attachment Theory (6 episodes). The reason why is it's a swiss army knife for understanding relationships and behavior. These episodes are paywalled though, but there are free episodes available if you use a Podcast app.

Like aphextron mentioned Socrates: _Republic_ , _Apology_ by Plato are really good. The one narrated by Ray Childs.

Audible for _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ by Robert Pirsig (it's like a Socratic dialog about what Quality is)

A lot of stuff by The Teaching Company / Great Courses in general have been good quality (maybe I've been lucky).

</comment><comment><USER67> Stoicism books, Markmanson.net, books by Brene Brown

</comment><comment><USER68> If my kids ask me for advice about buying a house, taking a job, doing a degree, etc, I'll refer them to bogleheads.org without hesitation.

</comment><comment><USER69> Dear Sugar, the Rumpus advice column.

</comment><comment><USER70> On the Shortness of Life by Seneca

</comment><comment><USER71> Maybe not the place to admit it but I'm more of a Naval fan myself...

<comment><USER72> Who is that, where can it be read?

<comment><AUTHOR> Twitter @naval.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Not sure if spending time on life advice is better than on life itself.

<comment><USER74> By reading such resources and articles, I learned from the mistakes that the authors painfully learned themselves or observed in their lives. Putting what I learned from them into practice would save me so much time and money, by not repeating those mistakes or at least minimize them. They are my mentors across different space and time.

<comment><USER42> What makes you think you would have repeated those mistakes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> 12 rules of life by Jordan peterson

</comment><comment><USER75> If you already know all the usual advice or don't think highly of them, try the graduate level works of Kapil Gupta.

\- kapilguptamd.com

\- He appeared in a few episodes on 33voices podcast

\- two recent appearances in Crazy Wisdom podcast with Stewart Alsop

<comment><USER42> Are you serious? That website looks like total bullshit.</comment></comment>


25 Photos from Mark Zuckerberg's Hacked Profile - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/a/PrLrB

<comment><USER2> Also see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3318652></comment>


Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic - <AUTHOR> http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

<comment><USER2> That's because a majority of Americans don't believe they have anything to hide, or that the stuff they do want to hide is probably so mundane to the average government official that they assume they wouldn't care. I'm guessing the way the survey question is posed has a lot to do with the outcome. Take out the word "terrorism" and I'm sure support would drop. Add the phrase "personal information" and I'm sure it would drop even further. Or perhaps ask "Would you be comfortable with the government tracking your activity on Facebook, Gmail, and Skype?" I'm guessing support for that would be close to 0%.

<comment><USER3> I get the sense that this doesn't surprise you. My question is: why would it surprise anyone? It's not just that most Americans don't believe they have anything to hide from NSA. It's that they _don 't_ have anything to hide from NSA. I'm not invoking the fallacious "nothing to hide" argument; I have stuff I need to keep hidden. But most people _really don 't_, and especially not from NSA.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. You'll get me too pull out my pitchfork if there is ever evidence this is being used for anything other than national security, I haven't seen that. IMO, the first shady use of this would most likely be the war on drugs, if we see that happen than I'll start getting worried.

<comment><USER3> Hey: my pitchfork is already within arm's reach. My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement, especially with things like "OMG Palantir is even _named_ after the all-seeing eye in Lord of the Rings, they must be in on it".

It's not OK if NSA is hoovering all communications in the US and sifting for national security issues, and that does appear to be what happened with Verizon/ATT/Sprint (though it does _not_ appear to be true of Google and Facebook).

<comment><USER5> _My "problem" over the last couple days is shoddy reporting and rush to judgement_

Right there with you. I've started digging in my heels at breaking stories simply for the speed at which people start jumping to conclusions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The even crazier story is this: In 2006, 61% of Democrats thought it was unacceptable, and in 2013, 34% of Democrats think it is unacceptable. I vote as Democrat as the next guy, but that's some crazy double-think going on there.

<comment><USER7> Cult of personalities, I think. Fascinating, if not terrifying, human trait. People root for their political party like they root for their home team; issues be damned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I _think_ I would vote for allowing call logs to be trackable by the NSA. Maybe other things like that, with some checks in place (mostly to prevent this data getting out of their hands).

But _I_ want to know about these trade-offs, and I don't care if that makes them less effective.

There's _no way_ NSA should be looking at private email, phone, VOIP, social networking communication en masse.

<comment><USER9> > I think I would vote for allowing call logs to be trackable by the NSA

Why? Someone looking to do harm doesn't use phones (maybe Burners) or other communication methods where they know they'd be easily tracked.

<comment><USER3> Why do you think people looking to do harm don't use phones? Why do you assume the use of burners makes telephonic surveillance pointless? Are you attributing to adversaries the best possible set of circumstances and smallest possible set of constraints?

<comment><USER9> I think the argument I wanted to make was that the people NSA claim to be after aren't using your typical contractual phone plans, since OP was suggesting they should simply track call logs.

Sure they used pre-paid phones as well as pay phones, hotmail and were still using coded and hidden messages.

Today they'd be using that steganography over cryptography.

Few sources: [http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-4985597.html](http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-4985597.html)

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/al_qaeda_secre...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/al_qaeda_secret.html)

<comment><USER3> The fact that these people might use disposable phones is actually one of the reasons USG supporters give in favor of hoovering all the telephony "metadata".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Keep in mind many Americans have never traveled outside the country, they are fed a constant diet of bullshit by our media alternating between frantic fear- mongering and gushing American paternalism, and simply don't stop to think about what is actually going on.

I would call them complete morons but that is unkind. Incurious and ignorant and perhaps far too trusting is perhaps more polite.

<comment><USER11> What's the polite word for elitist?

<comment><USER12> "Realist speaking from experience"

<comment><USER11> "Poor people are stupid" isn't an experience, it's a prejudice.

<comment><USER13> I'm with you on that.

But, for once, this guy wasn't insulting poor people. He was insulting average people. The average person has free time but finds it very very hard to use it for something socially beneficial. This is partially their fault but certainly not wholly their fault.

<comment><USER10> Are you saying I have a habit of insulting poor people?

I've been a poor person. Shit, I'm poor now, with no real assets. I do love reading your assumptions though. Tell me more about me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think we need to make a choice as a society where the line is drawn. We chose to allow privilege for religious, medical, and legal conversations. Sure, in individual cases, it would be better to get the data from someone's confession, but overall, it's better for society (or people decided) to allow those conversations to encourage religious confession.

Maybe there needs to be special protection for certain classes of cloud service, computing service, or communication. Certainly allowing people to use an "exocortex" without fear of seizure would make people smarter. It might make some crimes harder to punish.

Luckily, technology gets a vote, too.

I think a clear/easy line is that anything which is "personal thought" or approximates thought should be immune to search, ideally though technical means. Notes (for yourself), a journal, etc. Maybe "quantified self" measurements. etc.

The line is probably in a different place than in the telephone era, or even the disconnected Internet era.

I'd prefer it be defined through legislation (and maybe through constitutional amendment) vs. through legal decisions. The problem with legal decisions is they tend to involve criminal cases, and "a person was keeping a personal diary of his child rapes" is an exceptionally hard thing to argue privacy for, even if that's only 0.001% of the use case enabled by making personal notes private.

<comment><USER15> IANAL but aren't warrants designed to override privacy when there is existing probable cause? IMO one problem is sweeping collection and indefinite storage for the purposes of trawling for crimes. The other is that the FISA court could be a token "APPROVED" rubber stamp for all we know, taking a "guilty until proven innocent" stance on anyone outside the US.

The bit that really bothers me is the total lack of transparency and accountability.

<comment><USER14> The collect-first and degree of oversight in FISA are issues, but generally you can't get a warrant to access protected communications (lawyer, doctor, priest) unless that professional is actually a co-conspirator, not just a professional service provider. There are exceptions (e.g. child abuse, imminent harm, etc.) to the privilege, though. And I think weaker spousal privilege (not being compelled to testify, but if wiretapped, that's fine). IANAL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think that people like us (that is, people who think in a systems fashion about the electronic communications networks and the data flowing over them) are more likely to view this with alarm than the normals. I think that's because we actually know how much power having things like metadata gives you. The question is, how do we explain this to non-engineers in a way that they will listen to so that they will be as alarmed as we know they should be?

</comment><comment><USER17> Anyone with strong views about privacy would never answer an opinion poll so how can this be considered accurate?

<comment><USER18> It's not meant to be accurate.

It's meant to calm the masses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'd like to see more surveys or reviews of this survey's methods. It isn't difficult for the phrasing of the questions to skew results in one direction or another (e.g. Gallup).

I'm sure it's possible for people to be a bit apathetic and support widespread data snooping, but I'm wary of the inevitable attacks and possible drummed up support for current policies.

</comment><comment><USER20> And I have no problem with them opting in to have their lives and data tracked. The real problem is that everyone is tracked, including those in the minority who do not want their lives and data tracked. But such is democracy.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand the logic behind this comment. Surveillance against criminals doesn't work if the criminals have to opt-in to the surveillance.

<comment><USER21> In theory, that's why we have the notion of "probable cause" and warrants, etc. But what we have instead, is a "rubber stamp" mechanism from a secret court which - essentially - is completely free from an accountability to the American people.

Given that, I don't really care so much what the NSA _tries_ to do... I now realize that the real answer is promotion, advocacy and education around technological tools to evade their snooping (assuming, for the sake of argument, that they can't break strong crypto). My goal going forward is to dive into helping promote the use of, and education regarding, Tor, I2P, PGP, and their ilk. Part of that is going to mean educating myself to a considerable degree as well, as I've admittedly been too cavalier about this stuff in the past.

<comment><USER3> All federal courts are (basically) free from public accountability. That is literally one of the objectives of the design of the Judicial Branch; complain to the founding fathers.

<comment><USER21> It's not quite the same thing though. Yes, judges are appointed for life, and can't (usually) be removed from office, etc. But with the "regular" federal court system, at least we know who the judges are, who appointed them, and we can see / read / review the actual decisions and what-not. To me, that's a pretty marked difference from the FISA courts.

Nonetheless, I do agree with your basic point. When I get my hands on a TARDIS, I'll be sure to let Thomas Jefferson know how I feel about all this! :-)

<comment><USER22> We do know who appointed them. They are 11 federal judges who are appointed to 7 year terms by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. At least 3 must live within 20 miles of Washington, DC, they can only serve one term, and none can be sitting on the Court of Review.

<comment><USER21> I stand corrected. But the more important point is that the decisions and discussion are private and without oversight, and the presumption that they basically "rubber stamp" all these surveillance requests. Now, maybe they _don 't_ just "rubber stamp" everything. But without more info, who's to say?

Edit: Also, for anyone more interested in details of the FISC (some of which I obviously misremembered), here's a good resource:

[http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/fisc.html](http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/fisc.html)

<comment><USER3> The rubber stamp argument is brandished in any discussion about FISA anywhere, from message boards to NPR. But it's not hard to see that there are at least two phenomenon that can account for it:

(1) That FISA courts are not a meaningful check on the authority of NSA and the FBI to surveil people, _or_

(2) That the overwhelming majority of FISA cases involve _prima facie_ legitimate surveillance targets.

I do not find (2) that hard to believe. I'm not a firm believer in FedGov competence, but I really don't think NSA analysts are making up random targets; neither, for that matter, does Snowden, who intimated as much when he was interviewed.

(Just because I don't think surveillance in the 2000's has been abusive, it does not follow that I think we should be unconcerned with checks on surveillance).

<comment><USER23> #1 is true whether or not #2 is true, because there is no adversarial process in the FISA courts. A one-sided legal process is never a meaningful check. With regular courts, even when the _initial_ process is similarly one-sided (as it is with search and arrest warrants), the fact that the outcome _will_ be subject to adversarial process down the road is something of a constraint (but, even then, I don't think anyone is going to be point to the regular warrant process as a particularly _strong_ check on executive power.)

The FISA warrant process, because of its secrecy and because it is generally _not_ subject to downstream adversarial process, isn't a meaningful check. If the judges on the FISA Court are _extremely_ diligent, it might be better than nothing, but given the secrecy around it, its unlikely that anyone not directly involved will ever really know whether or not it is (which is one of the things that makes it _less_ likely that it _will_ be.)

<comment><USER3> How could there ever be an adversarial process for foreign intelligence surveillance? Can you explain how that could ever work?

<comment><USER23> > How could there ever be an adversarial process for foreign intelligence > surveillance?

I didn't say their could be.

Pointing out that the status quo structure doesn't provide a meaningful check _doesn 't_ mean that there is an easy framework that does provide a meaningful check while enabling the same scope of powers in "the right" kind of cases.

<comment><USER3> If I read your preceding comment and then this one, I'm left with the conclusion that you think either that there should be no foreign surveillance of any sort, or that any attempt to check the authority of our intelligence services is pointless.

<comment><USER23> Which illustrates why it is probably better to address what is said rather than what else you think a person might think in addition to what is said.

EDIT: To amplify: I've explicitly laid out why the existing FISC system is not a meaningful check, and I have explicitly declined to take a position on whether it would be possible to reform the system in a way which would retain its essential character as a judicial oversight system while fixing the problems that prevent it from being meaningful oversight. We haven't addressed any other (e.g., non-judicial) checks, existing or potential, nor have I commented at all on what _should_ exist. So your inference that I must believe certain things about what should exist, or that I have a particular belief about what checks are possible on foreign surveillance, is unwarranted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> until ppl get problems, they have no idea what the nsa does with the data. if they have no idea and get no problem, "why would it bother them?"

that yeah. its like if i had the right to sentence anybody on earth to death, but i wasn't doing it too often, and when i do it, nobody has any idea it happened. So people would think its ok.

</comment><comment><USER25> …among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States

<comment><USER26> It's funny, I've mentioned this for surveys in the past and I keep getting told I don't understand statistics.

<comment><USER27> If the survey was properly randomized, then it's actually probably true that you don't understand statistics...

<comment><USER26> It's true, I've never taken a statistics course. But, if the experts tell me a 0.0003% sample size is fine so long as it's the RIGHT 0.0003%, then I guess I'll have to concede the point.

<comment><USER27> The Central Limit Theorem and the Law of Large Numbers are wonderful things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> That is the power of fear for you. Terror in it's self.

<comment><USER9> BBC did a good documentary on this very subject:

"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430484/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430484/)

Seems fear, ignorance and apathy is still working out just fine unfortunately.</comment></comment>


Show HN: BitJoy - <AUTHOR> http://bitjoy.org/_

<comment><USER2> Maybe hacker news has taken it down.. the site doesn't get past loading data.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool site. The news feed has the month off by 1</comment>


Watching Your Customers is Brutal - <AUTHOR> http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/watching-your-customers-is-brutal

<comment><USER2> The part that struck me most was

"We've prioritized fixing the on-boarding problem and it'll get sorted out in a quick 2-week iteration by one of our Designers."

Obviously I don't know anything about this system, but where I work a 2-week iteration is not quick. This sounds like the sort of problem we would fix in an afternoon.

<comment><USER3> I think treehouse is a relatively small operation that is built to be cash low positive. I imagine the 2 weeks will include testing their theories etc too, which takes time</comment></comment>


Fighting Racism with Drones - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/14/serbia-albania-euro-2016-flag-halted?1

<comment><AUTHOR> Much of the international media coverage of the violence in the Partizan Belgrade stadium has focused on the stunt of a drone flying an Albanian banner, the ensuing brawl and pitch invasion by angry Serb fans. There were additional elements to the violence that are either not being reported by international media or being under-reported. Here are some of them:

1\. Albanian fans were not allowed to attend the match. Serb authorities said they would arrest anyone who showed any symbol of the visiting team in the stadium.

2\. The Serb crowd chanted, "Ubij, Ubij Siptar" – "Kill, Kill the Albanians," throughout the 40 minutes the game was played.

3\. The stadium was filled with Serb nationalistic political banners, like "Kosovo is Serbia" and other slogans relating to Bosnia and Croatia. The Serb fans loudly booed the Albanian national anthem.

4\. Hard objects and fireworks were thrown on Albanian players well before the drone started flying.

5\. More than half of Albania's national team has roots in Kosovo, which split from Serbia in the late 90s in a violent conflict that ended through a NATO intervention 15 years go. The alliance's flag was also burned in Belgrade last night. (Albania has been a NATO member since 2009. Serbia is officially EU- minded, but also Russia-friendly.)

6\. Despite the harsh political atmosphere in the stadium, the Albanian national team went to play football, and it managed to overcome a shaky first few minutes, moving to gain the upper hand in the field when the interruption happened.</comment>


Should assisted death/suicide be legal? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN!
I'm seeking opinions/views on society opening the gate on assisted dying and depending on different circumstances:
1. Without requiring a person to be suffering a serious illness; if yes or no, please explain why.
2. Requiring a person to be suffering a chronic illness; if yes should mental illness qualify and please explain why for your opinion including if you think no in general for illnesses.
3. Advance requests for when cognitive or physical function has declined beyond acceptable; if so please explain and should appearance be considered a physical function because it greatly effects how people interact with us.
4. Should assisted dying be solely on the person alone to perform if legal and only if the person is unable to function for performing it?
I remind myself everyday that my experience in life is unique and mine alone. I'm not necessarily keen on people that force others to live a similar life rules as oneself unless the rules don't harm others to a point of unacceptability. Anyway I'm in favour of assisted death. <comment><USER2> My mother took her own life when I was a teenager towards the end of a tough fight with cancer (it's likely she would have died eventually). I'm about to turn 42 so I have some distance from this. She did it with a handgun and because it wasn't legal for her to get help so she had to do it alone in secret. I came to learn later that my parents fought about this because my dad is a doctor and understood how to help her but would have gone to jail for it and lost his career. I also think he just couldn't bring himself to do it, so having legal medical help available might have changed things?

This obviously derailed my life and my sisters and my dad for many years. I have some skepticism about if/how assisted death would have been better but I suspect it would have been. I imagine (perhaps wrongly) we would have been able to say goodbye and give her a peaceful end. Maybe have counseling leading up to and through it?

I'll respectfully skip the 1-4 specifics. I just believe that people who want to die should be allowed to do so peacefully, and no one who objects should be obligated to help. With the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, violent suicide is widely available here, the debate is more about if a peaceful death is available and I think it should be within thoughtful constraints. Those that disagree with me are entitled to their opinions though.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. yes. In general, society exists to serve a collection of individuals, not as an end in itself, so in my view, society cannot unduly infringe on the rights of individuals. Considering that a person may generally end their life without assistance, but not reliably, I'd place suicide in the 'inalienable rights' category on which society may not infringe. Also, this gives others some vague say on whether you "suffer enough". They don't have your experience, I don't think they get to say "you don't suffer enough" based on apparent lack of suffering from a serious illness. I can't conceive of anything that gives others the right to judge that.

2\. Yes. Same as above.

3\. Yes. Same as above.

4\. I don't think I understand the question.

<comment><AUTHOR> # 4 would be performing the treatment by oneself instead of being allowed for someone else to administer the treatment to the person requesting it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For me, the problem is death is final, while our experience of life is always changing.

Reminds me of that documentary I watched about a police officer that was working on that bridge, not sure which, in CA I believe, who have seen a lot of people jump and die. The few that survived (and who were badly hurt result of the jump) explained that as soon as they threw themselves in the void they immediately regretted doing it, and later on, in the hospital, with broken bones everywhere they were happy to have survived it and were pretty much cured of their death wish.

Life is so full of unexpected turns.

<comment><USER5> > For me, the problem is death is final, while our experience of life is > always changing.

You have _no way_ to know that "our experience of life is always changing."

It doesn't always get better. Sometimes it keeps getting worse! Sometimes it stays equally awful!

What's true for you and the people you've heard talk about it isn't necessarily true for everyone. Maybe the people who died on the bridge would've hated surviving?

<comment><USER4> > You have no way to know that "our experience of life is always changing."

The experience we have is always changing, even if our material condition stay the same. That's what I mean here.

> Maybe the people who died on the bridge would've hated surviving?

Sure, at that moment, but what about 3 days later, or 3 months, who can tell?

So, my argument here is in life, nothing is permanent, while death is.

<comment><USER5> > my argument here is in life, nothing is permanent

Your argument is based _only_ on your own experience and what you've chosen to hear from others.

Can you acknowledge the possibility that for some people the miserable experience of their life is permanent?

<comment><USER6> But can you acknowledge that these people are probably reinforcing the miserable experience by their own? And that's why it looks like it is permanent?

<comment><USER5> No, I can't.

I can acknowledge it might be true for some of those people. But there are a whole fucking lot of people.

But when it comes to this, I'm not going to be so arrogant and self-centered as to say something that I believe applies to _all_ of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1/2) What's to allow? Anyone who is reasonably mobile always this option and needs no assistance. If they want a doctor to read the google results for "What's the best way to kill yourself" or write them a script :shrug: but they should take the final action themselves if physically capable.

3) This is the most important case. If you can't rely on someone else to put you out of your misery when you're incapable, then you have to do it yourself before it's actually necessary, while you still have the ability. Otherwise you risk being trapped in agony for the remainder of your life. That's a cruel gamble, betting on the probability, duration, and pain of your own sow death, vs how much worthwhile life you're potentially giving up. It's also very unreliable as there are all sorts of things that can take you from fine to permanent agony in an instant. I don't see why appearance would matter.

4) If capable, you should do it yourself. If incapable, someone should be allowed to assist. Assistance should always be from a qualified professional who has no conflicts of interest to keep the line between assisted suicide an murder as clear as possible.

</comment><comment><USER8> 4\. Qualified professional, or oneself. The former to ensure it is done correctly both morally and medically, the latter to prevent suicides being so negative. Though there should be a legal obligation to intervene where possible in a suicide and a legal protection from intervention when the professional is acting.

3\. Yes; though only conditions that result in a loss of mental capability or communication should be part of an advance request. Reason: an advance will reduce the standard of investigation required by the professional to "do they meet the conditions of their advance directive", but at the time the directive is made it is unlikely that the person is a valid suicide candidate, so fewer checks and balances can be in place.

2\. There should be no white or blacklist to assisted suicide. The person should only have to meet certain criteria along the lines of - they have tried to live with their reason, they have no realistic positive treatment options, etc.

1\. As 2

The overarching reason is that your life is your own. But this is tempered by the fact that people are all limited in experience and knowledge, and as a society we should act to help each other make the most out of it.

This is why, despite being wildly in favour of assisted dying and suicide in my own country, I am a lot less keen to see my unrestricted flavour in other countries, countries who do not look after the other members of their society; countries who have debtors prisons and predatory medicine are places where open suicide laws will be used to escape the hell of their tormentors instead of overthrowing it.

</comment><comment><USER9> I believe it should be legal. If a person is committed to it for an extended period they should be able to do it. It should not be a quick process obviously given that a lot of suicide attempts seem to be calls for help. If you are able bodied you can do it anyways so the current ban only really applies to a minority anyways which seems pretty unfair. Bad enough for them that they are going to have to follow some external process but that seems unavoidable we cannot have people killing others with a signed death wish note.

If death is medically certain and the person is only trying to escape a painful death this would be a hindrance. In this scenario it feels hard to have any due process unless you decide it beforehand. When my father in law died he didn't want morphine because he was correctly assuming it would kill him. At one point though he was willing to make that trade off though. He would not have wanted this before he was really trying to hang on even through the pain until he wasn't. In such cases I feel you should have a right to pain management even if it jeopardizes your life. But in this situation where you are deteriorating in the hospital a legal System style procedure would not help you at all.

</comment><comment><USER10> 1\. Yes, of course. No government, religion, or society should have control over another's life or death. See below.

2\. Yes. And yes mental illness like depression should qualify (See below). But mental illnesses where person is extremely disillusioned should not.

3\. Yes. Appearance sure, it is their life.

4\. Sure, see below.

However, I think person who is committing suicide still has responsibilities to society including not causing emotional harm to their loved ones, not leaving a mess behind for others to clean up etc. As a society, we should establish guidelines for suicide. I like Hindu practice of suicide called [Prayopavesa][1].

Prayopavesa is basically slow suicide by fasting to death. This may take days or weeks. This solves the big problem of people changing their mind after pulling the trigger or jumping off the ledge. If at any point suicidal person changes their mind, they can start eating.

Also if a person is disciplined enough to fast for days, we can trust that person has emotional maturity to make such a big decision. In other forms of assisted suicide like injecting drugs, an emotional person may sign up with a service, then they might even go through extensive paperwork. I personally end up doing things like sky diving just because I signed up to do them while drunk. I didn't want to do it later, but felt ashamed asking for refund. I imagine, emotionally unstable person may go through paperwork even when they are having second thoughts.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayopavesa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayopavesa)

<comment><AUTHOR> Starving to death is arguably torture depending on the culture you grow up in. I think I've read about Prayopavesa and I'm not sure if lighting yourself on fire is related but methods of that sort are not really acceptable for all types of people that would just want a drug making them fall asleep with eventually death following. Some people go their whole life without obtaining the discipline to put down the spoon. So I'm kind of wondering if some people just cannot do what you're suggesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> 1\. Everyone (except maybe for murderers and insane people) is a master of their body, so other people have no right at all to decide whether a sane non- murderer should be able to end his or her own life. This has nothing to do with any illness.

2\. See 1.

3\. When cognitive function is damaged severely, the person cannot make decisions on their own, including decisions on whether they should live or die.

4\. All voluntary interactions are fine.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1\. Yes — it's their choice just like any elective medical procedure. If there's enough demand for a legal service, somebody will offer it.

2\. No — I don't need to have a chronic illness to know that I hate my life and would rather die painlessly. Mental illness is not always treatable. If someone wants to die that opportunity should be available to them.

3\. Don't understand your question here.

4\. No. Killing yourself usually leaves somebody else a mess to clean up, both literally and mentally. Plus I'm not skilled at killing myself and there's a good chance I would fuck it up. If it's a legal service, somebody will take my money to do it and that option should be available.

</comment><comment><USER12> 1 / 2 / 3 - I think they should be terminal in some manner, myself I have told anyone who will listen, when I cannot do the basics on my own (like go to the toilet, have a conversation), or have a terminal (painful) condition, and there is no prospect of improvement, please let me die some how. Do not keep me drugged up.

Mental illness is a different kettle of fish. I supported taking Terry Shivo of the equipment that kept her alive.

4 - I expect when I would want to go, I would not have the physical capability to do it.

</comment><comment><USER13> 1\. not sure. 2\. not sure 3\. not sure. 4\. not sure.

In some cases it's not really a choice between life vs death. The choice is a speedy death or a slow torturous death where they let you die of dehydration. Generally I think it's good to be legal, edge cases and what-if's aside. There are already negative "what-ifs" under the status quo, such as people being left to die of dehydration. Even pet dogs get a more merciful death.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm guessing I would be interested in what makes you unsure if the rest of your comment doesn't cover it all. In all seriousness I think we all have a death we're destined to experience. So I sort of approach the topic as an evolution question for how we can experience death compared to if our exact genetic makeup to make us came earlier in time of a less evolved society. Maybe that makes sense?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> My option is on its surface simple, anyone should have the right to self terminate. This isn't something anyone should have to justify to someone.

I think selecting a method and location that doesn't cause a burden on those left behind is important.

And I could see legal grey areas when it comes to those found to be mentally unsound, and those who might be late stage pregnant.

But in general when possible, we shouldn't tell others how to live or die.

</comment><comment><USER15> Both my father and great grandmother died with the help of the docter. The first due to quality of life issues related to advanced parkinson and the latter due to advanced cancer with only a lot of pain too look forward too.

Assisted dying should be a function of healthcare. I like the way we have set it up in the Netherlands, there are strict guidelines, there is oversight and it's process to make an informed decision.

</comment><comment><USER16> Just as it is ethical for lawyers to assist with bankruptcy, it is ethical for doctors to assist with suicide. Bankruptcy discharges financial obligations; suicide discharges moral objections. Discuss.

</comment><comment><USER17> Unable/unwilling to help them live, help them die??

<comment><AUTHOR> I can only do the guessing game with your comment because there are multiple interpretations depending on how a person thinks approaching what you wrote. I think it's untrue people ending their life while wanting to die are always in a situation that's possible to be helped. Maybe the only way of helping just prolongs a person wanting to die and while that person is upset from not having the option to die? I mean some people finding nothing special about what's observable or being experienced and wish to die. That's not a fallacy. Why we have suicides in society isn't a black or white answer and can be unique per person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1\. Of course not! The mental state of someone at a given moment should not be allowed to be used as an excuse to end his/her life forever

2\. Also no, because multiple times chronic illness is related to lifestyle and can be fixed or at least improved a lot. Laziness and lack of willpower (even because of suffering) is not an excuse to be legally allowed and assisted in death

3\. The same as above.

4\. Also the same! Giving up of life doesn't need to be assisted, anyway. But definitely the state should not in ANY circumstance incentive suicide.</comment>


Patents: Can the giants protect the minnows? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14858056 <comment><USER2> Giants protecting minnows? Reminds me of middle ages. You swear allegiance to the local lord which in turn protects you from other lords.</comment>


GitHub just released their own package registry - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Bamblehorse/status/1129464283706929152 <comment><USER2> this is old news

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess I was on holiday last week :-D

My bad

Super cool though right</comment></comment>