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

When I wrote formally (IE not on the internet), I used write similarly. I can't speak for OP but I learned the style when I was an IB student in theory of knowledge class (a long, long time ago).

It's a little depressing now because writing formally used to be an incentive to read the details, but now it is a signal that someone had an AI write something out of bullet points.


Did they also teach you to give snappy little titles to little different sections of writing? I find it a very odd but specific style of writing that has only recently risen in prominence.

No - although that was something I picked up when writing for the executive class who didn't want to read my 10 page long technical memos.

I wish this rule didn't exist. This was the only useful post to me in this whole thread and I missed it because of this nerd sniping.

Well, more carbon emissions for me.


I find it overall very unnerving how quiet this is and how the Canadian press never really finds issues with this.

I often saw Japanese media moving lock-step with the police (in terms of vocabulary to use for certain crimes, how to report certain issues), and thought it was creepy as hell. However, the complete lack of questioning of the purpose behind a sudden legalization of euthanasia (in a country with public healthcare and an inherent potential conflict of interest), and the entire concept of having "experts" sign off on it without any legal overview is creepy.

Even using "medicalized" terms like MAID instead of euthanasia is unnerving to me.

Put in another way, given how hard it is for people to see doctors, I wonder how much worse it would be without MAID? As it would clearly be worse, is this a mere sanitized form of cost cutting to deal with growing medical costs associated with treating the aging population?


I've felt since I was young that I'd like to choose when and how I will die. I'm perfectly comfortable with the thought. I'm in my 30s and have a lovely life and family. I'm in no rush to end things. But when I'm old and the scales tip, I'd like to be the one to decide that it's time. I might not ever get there, but I want the option.


Amen. I want the option to leave gracefully and in peace, if a time comes where I cannot perform my basic needs by myself. I never chose when and how I would be brought into this world, so I think it's fair that I can choose when and how to leave.

Will I actually do it? That's irrelevant. I may decide to live and fight as much as possible, and that's fine, but I want the option.


I've been hearing young and healthy people say this for my entire, fairly long, life. But I have never personally known an elderly or disabled person to kill themselves over it. If you find life worth living despite its hardships now, it's likely that you always will even as those hardships increase.


At some point it may be more than just hardship. 80+, paralyzed from the waist down, bedridden, bed sores, muscles atrophying, all of your enjoyments gone, your friends dead, dying, or lost most of their mental facilities, and you're completely miserable.


I have known people in approximately similar situations and they still didn't want to die.


My description was of someone in my family who did. So, they took it into their own hands.


Your whole comment frames MAID as something the gov't does to patients, not something patients choose as a better option than spending 6-12 months in agony with only one possible outcome.

MAID isn't a cost cutting measure. The cost of palliative care for the terminally ill is trivial.

It's not a loud issue in Canada because we've had decades of grappling with this (there's nothing sudden about it: google "Robert Latimer") and come to a humane solution: the near-term terminally ill can choose MAID, and a small number of long-term terminally ill can also choose it.

Without MAID, you'd have the same number of deaths, they'd just be medicated into insensibility for the last few months instead of making a conscious choice about it.

There's a legitimate fear in Canada about the misuse or abuse of MAID, especially amongst the disabled community (again, google "Robert Latimer"). But we've found zero evidence since its introduction of its abuse, of its application as a cost-cutting measure, of it being forced on people.

You shouldn't take the fact that something is working as designed, as sinister.


>Your whole comment frames MAID as something the gov't does to patients, not something patients choose as a better option than spending 6-12 months in agony with only one possible outcome.

It is something the government (or people working for it) have tried to push onto patients: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investig... .


"a now-suspended Veterans Affairs Canada caseworker.... which has now uncovered a total of four cases where veterans were allegedly offered MAID — all apparently by the same caseworker".

One person. Not the gov't, not many gov't employees. One person who presented the option overzealously or inappropriately, leading to four people feeling pressured, out of, IIRC, 45,000 people annually choosing MAID.


One person...that we know of. The fact this one person did this, contradicts your earlier statement of "But we've found zero evidence since its introduction of its abuse, of its application as a cost-cutting measure, of it being forced on people."


A more generous reading of the comment might have read it as "widespread abuse"


They should have included the "widespread" disclaimer rather than making an absolute statement if they wanted that generous reading.


Well I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that people will understand that any system will be prone to abuse - what's more important is how much it realistically enables, and how it responds to that abuse


That's a great attitude when you're talking about other people (a.k.a. numbers). We'll see if you have the same attitude when it's you or someone you know.


I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. If it were someone I knew, I would be upset, yes, and would pursue options for justice - which is, as I said, the more important aspect of such a system. Furthermore, even if my position changed if it were one of my loved ones, I wouldn't think my emotionally-charged thinking should be used to craft legislation.

If you're advocating for systems that cannot possibly be abused... good luck. Providing benefits to society often comes with avenues of potential abuse.


I'm advocating for not enabling a system that allows legalizing death. This is similar to people who are against the death penalty because it can and has been used to execute people who were later exonerated. "Move fast & break stuff because the benefits are worth the cost" is a better argument for almost any other policy than ones that explicitly result in death.


Tracing back, this one case of one case worker who suggested MAID to perhaps as many as five veterans .. did not result in death being "forced" upon any one.

The outrage over MAID being suggested as a viable option has resulted in even more scrutiny, oversight, and guard rails.

This is not the example that demonstrates abuse of the system.


> This is not the example that demonstrates abuse of the system.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. It's an example that demonstrates abuse, and "guard rails" (LOL) that are supposedly going to protect against future abuse.


"Legalizing death" isn't really accurate, isn't it? I mean, it's not illegal to die. And this isn't legalizing murder, as murder doesn't generally require the informed, prolonged consent of the person going to be murdered.


Death that isn't murder doesn't generally require someone else taking an action that kills you.

And while encouraging people to commit suicide may or may not be illegal depending on where you live, who it is, etc, it's generally not seen as moral.


Your assuming a motive in that case when none is known of.


> One person. Not the gov't, not many gov't employees.

Yes, a gov't employee working for the gov't. A.k.a. the gov't.


A lot of people who could be asked about whether they've been pressured or felt society could have done more for them than killing them are no longer available to collect evidence from for some reason.


Yeah, I think it's fair to be cautious about the topic and keep a close eye on the employment of the MAID process. It's definitely one of those things that warrants a lot of oversight IMO, lest the line between mercy and manslaughter be crossed by too much "suggestion" or "help". Not that I am especially well-versed on the subject - just my overall feeling on it.


Given that 1 in 4 people die from cancer, I'm surprised the number is so low.


Do you know anyone who took the MAiD way out? Because once you know someone going through the pain, it changes one's perspective. I would never want my loved one, nor me to go through the agony of hell, if there's a more humane way of going through this experience.


A person can't choose for himself when or even if to come into existence in this world.

In an era when human rights are considered sacred above all, it is hypocritical to me that a person can't decide for himself when he wants to quit.


> I find it overall very unnerving how quiet this is and how the Canadian press never really finds issues with this.

I suspect this claim to be dubious. I'm certain one can find 'Canadian press' that report issues with this.

However, putting that aside... I am not surprised, because most people feel that our current prevailing culture of extending life at any cost of suffering is... cruel. Most people are glad we have things like this, so their loved ones - and themselves - can go out with some amount of dignity.


As a Canadian, i would certainly write a very unpleasant letter to the editor of a Canadian newspaper publishing anything against MAiD. To me, euthanasia is unquestionably necessary. The problem of healthcare availability is completely orthogonal because MAiD is an option available but never forced as an alternative.


> The problem of healthcare availability is completely orthogonal because MAiD is an option available but never forced as an alternative.

> an option available

You're saying it's an "option," but also saying it's "orthogonal" whether the alternative option actually exists. What kind of logic is that?


Mainstream media globally shifted from critizing governments to being their mouthpiece so absolutely no surprises here.


That keyboard is so nostalgic. Reminds me of the Apple 2C that we had in the computer room at my grade school.


> Japan whispering in his ear

Anyone who has dealt with Japanese bureaucracy and government at large is stifling a giggle at this idea.


Plus, their brand new prime minister called a snap election and damn near lost himself the job when his party came out worse than he started.


Spatchcocking turkey was a huge discovery for me when I lived in Japan. I didn't have an oven, but I did have an electric rotisserie, and the spatchcocked turkey came out perfectly.

(Sadly they don't make that rotisserie anymore, it was very popular among my friends).


In Japan electric bikes were relatively cheap as you say but in Canada, a bike to carry my family costs more than 5-6k, closer to 10k.

I can't even import those electric mama charis because of unwarranted concern about batteries.

Hard to support bike infrastructure when safetyism means bike routes are only for singles and the rich.


"Many" feels like it is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

IME this is only true about drop shippers and similar business models. The vast majority of small businesses are, as a rule, awful at advertising. The few ads I see they are very poorly put together.

Even when they manage to get people to the business, small businesses are almost inevitably awful about maintaining their web presence, which makes it moot. Here's an example thread about such from the local reddit. Including some hostile responses from, charitably, overwhelmed small businesses about how you need to call to confirm a price https://old.reddit.com/r/Calgary/comments/1ewlsib/open_lette...)


> Even when they manage to get people to the business, small businesses are almost inevitably awful about maintaining their web presence, which makes it moot. Here's an example thread about such from the local reddit. Including some hostile responses from, charitably, overwhelmed small businesses about how you need to call to confirm a price

I’m assuming most of the places that redditor contacted to buy UPS batteries from are B2B shops that aren’t geared to selling to people off the street.

I’m assuming this because sometimes I buy replacement UPS battery strings, and I pay with a purchase order after talking to or emailing an inside sales person, not with a credit card at a register.

Places like this don’t even need to advertise, the professionals they’re selling to know where to find what they need.


I literally have never seen spare parts for any electronics in a Canadian store.

Aliexpress has rescued more than a handful of my devices from the dumpster. Far more helpful than the junk mail garbage that Canada Post helpfully dumps into my home (I'm in one of the few areas where they still deliver to the house, a complete joke of a system compared to USPS)


> humanity collectively hallucinated the importance of disinfecting groceries for awhile

I reject this history.

I homeschooled my kids during covid due to uncertainty and even I didn't reach that level, and nor did anyone I knew in person.

A very tiny number who were egged on by some YouTubers did this, including one person I knew remotely. Unsurprisingly that person was based in SV.


It's not some extremist on YouTube, disinfecting your groceries was the official recommendation of many countries worldwide, including most of Europe. I couldn't say how many people actually followed the recommendation , but I would bet it's way more than a tiny number.


This is the first I’ve even heard of people disinfecting their groceries because of Covid. Honestly that sounds rather crazy to me.


There was a period near the start of the pandemic, especially while the medical establishment was trying to avoid ordinary people wearing masks in order to help stockpile them for high priority workers, when a lot of emphasis was put on surface contact.

If it's extremely important to wear gloves and keep sanitizing your hands after touching every part of the supermarket, it stands to reason that you'd want to sanitize all of the outside packaging that others touched with their diseased hands as soon as you brought it into your house. Otherwise, you'd be expected to sanitize your hands every time you touched those items again, even at home, right?

Of course, surface contact is actually a very minor avenue of infection, and pretty much limited to cases where someone has just sneezed or coughed on a surface that you are touching, and then putting your hand to your nose or maybe eyes or mouth soon after. So sanitizing groceries is essentially pointless, since it only slightly reduces an already very small risk.


I did not do this personally but I know a number of people (blue state liberal city folk) I don’t think it was that unusual.


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

Search: