He tweeted in preceding months and years that if found dead it wouldn't be suicide. He got "whacked" tattooed on his arm to prepare for this situation.
I don't think we can just uncritically accept that it's 100% a suicide
The guy was fucking everybody around all his life. He was crazy af and very smart. And he absolutely hated authority. It would be a beautiful last social hack to make people suspicious of the authorities in his death.
Good chance you have 200k+ saved. Stop working for a while. Travel, live somewhere new. Start learning about things outside of software... Pursue projects for anything that moves you regardless of whether you think you'd be good at it or not. Do that for a few years and see where life goes.
Life is too precious not to live it, not to explore what could be, esp when current path becomes unbearable.
Frankly if anyone actually cared about climate change we would be desperately seeking to shorten supply chains and buy/produce locally. Bringing in everything from Asia when it could be done locally is absolutely terrible for ghg levels and pollution.
Still waiting but not holding my breath for ESG to include "short supply chain".
Understand the sentiment, I took a cyclical approach over a decade or so, a couple years self-employed, a couple years on a coding team, repeat. Although the last employment period gave an equity windfall, (and not to mention crypto investments) so only doing entrepreneurial stuff moving forward.
Was hoping the point would be that science today at the most fundamental level is descriptive, not explanatory, and being humble and honest about our failure to be explanatory would make people more interested and less intimated.
For example, there are four fundamental forces and a table of fundamental particles. Why? Don't know, we just noticed them.
All of chemistry seems to be determined by properties and interactions of electrons, which also determines biology. Where do these electrons come from? Don't know, just there.
The gravitational constant pops up in bunch of equations. So does the speed of light. Why do they have their specific values? Why is there even a speed limit in the universe (which expanding space violates)? Don't know, we just noticed it.
Clearly you are not a physicist. Just because you don't personally know sth does not mean it's not there or being worked on.
The theory of relativity has quite clear thoughts about why there is a "speed limit". Entire branches of physics ponder about why and when electrons and other particles came about.
The shrugging "Don't know, we just noticed it." that you ascribe to scientists' reactions does not match reality.
Where do electrons come from? Or any of the other fundamental particles. Please, enlighten the world of science.
"Fundamental constant" means "we don't know why it has that value, we just noticed it does"
You're proving my point, people don't like science because folks like you make it seem filled with all knowing experts when really the most fundamental questions are not answered
At the scale of electron-sized particles, local reality no longer definitely exists. In fact, we have a chunk of math (Bell's inequalities) which suggests that local reality cannot exist; either some parts of reality are non-local, or some parts of local interactions are non-real.
I say this because it undermines your hope that epistemology and metaphysics is merely a matter of explaining where electrons "come from"; the question is so wrong that it must be entirely rethought. An electron isn't a dot in space, but a behavior smeared throughout a region.
I thought that the reason that folks didn't like science is because they were preoccupied with Jehovah/etc. but perhaps I'm wrong.
Sounds like you're attempting to refer to qft? Passes the buck down and is still fundamentally descriptive not explanatory.
People don't like fields when there's a bunch of gatekeepers who can't resist posing as experts and shun people who ask simple questions which they can't provide answers for. That's part of Eric Weinstein's critique of today's particle physics community which I share.
Is there any answer possible short of "it's god" that would satisfy you?
I'm asking because you are giving the impression that whatever answer you get, you will reply to with "but why?" and "that's just passing the buck down".
A fundamental thing about science is that we'll likely never have all the answers. You can always ask "but why?". That's not gatekeeping but the difference to religions which often times claims to have the final answer. (Ironically there is a lot of gatekeeping in religion since not everybody is permitted to interpret scripture as they wish.)
And you are ignoring my point. :) These questions already have (partial) answers and are otherwise being worked on. If you are really interested in answers, go ask a physicist and not some random dude on the internet whom you happen to disagree with. It's not me who is working on them, it's exactly those physicists that you are accusing of ignorance. (The irony in that is quite amusing.)
Yet you don't know... you're just saying "I bet someone else knows" without being aware that many experts in physics would admit "we don't know" to these questions... what my undergrad ivy league physics professor was wiling to admit... Not sure why you responded if you yourself don't know the subject matter, wanting to play gatekeeper because you thought I was talking too casually I guess?
Living in an expat destination country currently as an American, I regularly get crap from friends, Australian, British, South African, about the perceived madness of American political culture that's now popping up in their work lives and home countries. Slightly reminiscent of living abroad during Bush-Iraq years as an American where you become a target of blame.
Same in Canada. The CBC was particularly egregious. The "World" section was just the "US Politics" section. I stopped reading; but, of course, like all Canadians, I have kept funding it.
Now that Trump is no longer the US President, and is banned from social media, I've definitely noticed a significant decrease in US domestic politics in my world news (mostly BBC and Guardian)
I miss 2010 in America. Politics was mostly an after thought on slow days in social discussions. It was so much more civil without everyone being primed to the teeth on social media with anger.
Trump’s presidency brought a lot of underground resentment (across the political spectrum) out into the open. It might turn out to be a good thing that people are having these discussions now instead of covering them up. It definitely feels less comfortable, though.
Yup. I was up in Canada visiting friends last year and the first 20 min (out of 30 min) of the CBC national news was Trump coverage or coverage of US politics in general.
Not being in the bubble makes it easier to see the absurdities of the US system.
Also, watching journalists go after Trump for the wrong reasons was quite an eye opener. Especially when the many valid reasons to go after Trump were often not pursued deeply enough. Same applies to Hillary.
And Obama. Just wow. Plenty of things Trump was attacked for promoting were in fact Obama-era initiatives. Journalism in the US is fundamentally broken. They aren't holding power to account.
I don't think its any better elsewhere. Was it ever? Its possible. Its just more obvious when you look outside your own patch.
> I don't think its any better elsewhere. Was it ever?
The concentration of power in media organisations into a few large conglomerates has likely made things worse.
To that end, it logically tracks that things were better before consolidation, as there was a greater diversity of opinion / perspective being pushed by distinct media organisations.
Many were similar, but less by leadership design, and more by virtue of simply sharing similar views.
Would take it further and say not just the media but also some powerful forces in DC going after him undemocratically, seemingly his whole presidency... the russia investigation revelations, nunes etc, and ukraine call impeachment stuff, really made it clear there was a concerted effort to remove a DC outsider. Not a fan of trump but am a fan of democratic institutions.
As much as I support the recent discourse around Aboriginal deaths in custody, I found it disconcerting that it was triggered by American police killing an African American man.
The complete apathy we show towards domestic politics is shocking, the average Australian can probably name more American politicians than Australian. I have friends who actually complain that they're forced to vote, purely because they can't be bothered to vote. People (including members of the Victorian Liberals) are more concerned with conspiracy theories about Dan Andrews getting bashed than debates on policy.
Speak for yourself. As someone who’s lived in Australia and America, I find Australians (and I imagine people in other countries too) love to consume American politics instead of their own politics because America is more interesting than their own relatively stable politics. Then many of them delight in looking down on Americans because of how “crazy” it seems. I tell people to worry about their own countries. It’s not like they’re forced to care about America on a day-to-day basis They choose it.
Especially a problem because for almost all men a career and supporting family (maybe the hardest thing to figure out in life) is non optional, whereas half the female friends I have from college have abandoned careers to saddle up to a breadwinner ... I mean I kind of want that option but men don't really have it. Does anyone ever really discuss this social reality that makes it different for men v women in real world?
For those lambasting the parent comment, ignore the phrasing and let us go by stats. Count how many women with successful careers you know that are married to unemployed men (to stick to the point the parent makes, let us skip cases where both husband/wife are working). Now do the same count with genders switched. Observe the differential - for the record, it is clear that there are complex reasons behind this difference (children being a big one) but we can't ignore the fact that this choice is much more "socially normal/acceptable" for a woman compared to a married man being unemployed by choice.
What would surprise a person more in today's context in US: hearing that child's parent is divorced/single parent (which by your stats is 60% for young parents, so pretty common) OR hearing about a successful woman with a husband who has chosen to be unemployed? You can keep twisting things but we are talking about what is "typical".
I’ve attempted this discussion all over the internet. It does not go well would be a tame statement. There seems to be a pervasive belief that men do have this option equally available to them.
Only half? My exp is more like 80% shack up with a breadwinner. Even with half of women that means max 25% of men get this option.
My comment was strongly upvoted (50+) so I believe the HN community understands this dynamic.
I mean if you go outside Western bubbles e.g. all of Asia Latam etc. 99% of women seek to marry a breadwinner over having their own career, closer to how it was 50 years ago here in the US, a dynamic that's hard to miss.
The 50% I mentioned is from a competitive ivy league school where you get a major career leg up. If 50% of female friends who went to an ivy have tapped out from career making, yes, it's easy to imagine how it's still the widespread norm even in US
Probably because HN is something like 95%+ male demographic and career focused. The rest of the internet does not seem to agree based on my testing the water. Women (self identified of course) seem especially interested in pushing that men could simply stay at home if they wanted.
I mean if you are calling it "shacking up" that might explain why it doesn't go well.
I don't think most would say men have it equally available but I'd certainly say it's more available than it was in the past just like women having jobs that can allow them to be the primary breadwinner are much more prevalent in 2021 than it was in 1981.
I do know some male stay at home dads but not as many.
Yeah, I proposed the idea to my wife and she called me a lazy loser if I do that. It's interesting how I somewhat agree, but would never call her that if she floated the idea to stop working to raise our daughter.
And she's paid more than me, and has a PhD. She still consider me a breadwinner who must win and herself a disempowered victim who need support :D
What about the breadwinners half the women are saddling up to?
We have never had symmetry as humans in this area. Low status males don't get to fuck as much. That has always been the case for all human history. This is nothing new.
There absolutely is an option to skip career and family. It is 2021, social reality is that women can be breadwinners too. And it will be more and more difficult for women to find a breadwinner.
> Especially a problem because for almost all men a career and supporting family (maybe the hardest thing to figure out in life) is non optional
If you are going to let yourself be hammed in by such a traditionalist view of family and your inability (or maybe: lack of initiative) to get a footing in life, sounds like your setting yourself up as a victim.
I live and work across Europe, and I have never encountered men or women being held back like that. Couples I know stick together because they want to, not because of economic reasons or outdated economic views on family. Hell I've been holding down the fort while my wife was working. And vice versa. I mean, its 2021, our parents were hippies! My dad was out of work for half of his life but my mom not a single day.
My real world seems utterly unrelated to what these men seem to think. Perhaps they just need to get out there a bit more?
> Especially a problem because for almost all men a career and supporting family (maybe the hardest thing to figure out in life) is non optional...
What do you mean? Of course those are optional. If you don't want a career, you're not going to have one. If you don't want to get married and support a family, then you don't have to.
I mean, "saddle up to a breadwinner" is an extremely demeaning thing to say about a whole class of people. The reality is that men dominate all desirable, successful professions, so the probability of a man "saddling up" to a woman that makes significantly more than him is very small.
Without a career or at least some sort of good job, most men are extremely unattractive as long term partners for women. They can't just find a wife to support them while they look after the kids. So they'll end up without a career and without a family, which can be a very sad existence. For women, families are easier to come by regardless of career status.
Ride bicycles and/or motorcycles. Travel. Hike. Read. Learn things. Volunteer. Cooking is fun. Gardening as well.
I'm at a loss for how people can get bored and I don't even game or watch much in the way of movies or television. I think for some people they get attuned to work so much that they don't remember what life is like without it.
Totally agree. I don’t think I’ve been bored since I was a teenager. Every day I think to myself, all the things I could do with extra time in the day, if I didn’t have to work for a living. I am counting down the days until I retire! My nightmare actually is I die the day after I retire, just as I’m getting ready to start living my life!
Have you actually experienced a long period (year or more) with no obligations like work or school? It's much easier to be motivated when you're busy than when there's no real need for your effort or deadline for anything. I know some people manage great and have very active retirements but some just fade into passivity. Keep an eye out for the danger warned by John Mellencamp - "Life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone".
>Have you actually experienced a long period (year or more) with no obligations like work or school?
I have. And have had no problems filling it with the above activities. My folks are retired and don't seem to be having much trouble finding creative projects and enjoyable things to do, like hiking and discovering new things.
Honestly I thought my dad would be a prime candidate for the type who gets so used to chasing the rabbit that they have no idea what to do once they retire. I'm glad to see that isn't the case.
Potentially demeaning nomenclature aside, do men and women have a differential opportunity to [better phrase], and if not, is this fair?
And while it might be nice for the men who dominate all desirable, successful professions, does this help the median man? They're all individuals, after all.
Based on my experience, I do not believe women have a better or easier "differential opportunity" when it comes to finding a partner and starting a family than men. I think "everything is easier for women because they're sexy" is an old trope that should be put to rest. Women on the whole do not want to "be sexy" any more, or less, than men do. I think women want to be taken seriously, and on their own terms, just like men.
> And while it might be nice for the men who dominate all desirable, successful professions, does this help the median man? They're all individuals, after all.
No, it doesn't. The fact that Jeff Bezos is a man or a woman does not affect my life at all. But, as a man, I have an easier time networking and working with other men in my field.
>think "everything is easier for women because they're sexy" is an old trope
Pretending that this is a trope is harmful to discussion. Women can easily make it to 30yo without ever personally having to deal with solving any problems they have if they are pretty.
This does not however mean women don't have legit
problems. However the gap of assistance options men have vs women is incredibly vast.
Men are not even helped if they are hot. My wife will often not acknowledge the physical qualities of men she thinks little of. As if they are not hot just because they are assholes. Women are strange like that often. Men might decide a woman is not as hot as she is crazy but they will not simply pretend she is not hot.
Newsflash: the majority of women are not pretty, the same way most men are not attractive, this is why attractive people stand out in society, and we put them on billboards and in movies.
What gap of assistance options are you talking about? What class of women are benefiting from this? Seriously, a lot of women on Bourbon Street would like to know.
This is not true for women under 30yo. Men overwhelming rate women as attractive for the under 30yo demographic. Upwards of 80% of women are "attractive" to men. Look up the okcupid studies or others if you are really curious.
Here's an excerpt from the first hit on Google for "percentage of fortune 500 companies run by women".
> During the first quarter of 2021, 41 women will lead Fortune 500 companies. That’s just 8.2 percent, but an improvement from the 33 companies in 2019 and 24 in 2018. Going back 20 years, there were just two companies on the list that were run by women, according to Fortune.
There's more women doctors, but that percentage hovers around 35%, which is about the same as the number of women in leadership positions in U.S. federal and state government.
That's purely a US figure. In western Europe, 60% of medical graduate are women (It's almost 66% in my country). Then more women drop out of this carrer path because they can, not because they are forced out.
If I take a personal example, when studying at my university (in the top 15 QS global ranking), I had 6 girl friends that studied different fields, from physics to material science. Only one of them is still an engineer today. All by choice are now, yoga teachers, home consultant, mom at home, school teacher, etc. For my male friends maybe one decided to do something completely unrelated. I'm getting more and more suspicious about this world (at least in Europe) is unequal because of men. Women are making choice too.
One day we'll wake up and realize we've been groomed into an oppressed position by women while being shamed and accused of this very same crime hehehe.
That'd be funny in 2000 years to see the woke crowd fight for men's equal right to be trophy husband and yoga teachers too.
Did you really just call out the parent comment for being demeaning when you yourself are sitting here saying that women, as a group, choose undesirable and unsuccessful professions? Please stop.
I did not say that "women, as a group, choose undesirable and unsuccessful professions". I would say that as a group, women are doing the best they can, it is just that men tend to have greater opportunities than women, even though the capabilities of women and men are comparable. I believe that women have a harder, longer road to professional success in our society, and that this is plainly evident.
Yeah elite undergrads are striving to be entrepreneurs, CEOs, or wall street/consulting types, not code monkeys. Going to encounter a lot of resistance with standard coding jobs where need to roll up your sleeves for obvious motivation/identity reasons.
Pretty doubtful. The top innovating nations are such because they attract the top talent from around the world, and almost no talent at all moves to China. There's a lot of breakthroughs in AI left and whoever gets the most talent is going to have the advantage.
thats a different discussion. Parents point is that because CCP runs things the way they do, the access to otherwise hard to find datasets in the west, they will be better able to train their AIs. Not saying whether i agree or not just clarifying the argument being made.
I don't think we can just uncritically accept that it's 100% a suicide