Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your Life

some1else.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: Your Life

#121

Post by Jonovono »

vitd wrote: post #92
Jonovono wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hehe just came here to post my project - moriclock! Cool to know people still remember it. I like your idea of coloring of the blocks. I had big plans of turning it into some sort of journaling application.

I'm not sure what it's attempting to do, but the data it provided me was completely wrong. It was claiming there were only 6 days left in the year, for example. (It's April 10th, so there are many more than 6 days left.) It said 20 minutes left in the hour, but it's 8:22, so there's more like 38 minutes left. WTF?

Weird. Looks correct to me. Is it possible your system time is weird? It might be based off of that.

Re: Your Life

#122

Post by CullingTheHerd »

fizixer wrote: post #112
CullingTheHerd wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even if we accomplish all this and more, we have still not answered the question, "what is the 'good life'?" because that is not a technical question. we can put off death. we can increase quality of life during the later years of life. and this is important and beneficial work. but, nothing in this work intrinsically speaks to existential issues we face. we may use these technologies as a paradigm through which to a…

First to respond to reasoning behind my first line, maybe I should've said "Every time an existential post _like this_ is made." It's pretty clear that one of the points of the website showing the 52x90 grid is to remind us that we have only a few decades of life left. (And I believe that's the wrong way to look at it in this day and age.) And people responded accordingly in a depressing manner. This has happened mul…

Re: ad hominem critiques. I thought they were duly deserved. Your comment came across, to me, as condescending and arrogant, both qualities of the person putting forth the argument, rather than the argument. So, the critique will by necessity be "to the man" (or woman).

As to, you not being able to make sense out of my other comments. That's not necessarily my fault.

Re: Your Life

#123

Post by CullingTheHerd »

fizixer wrote: post #114
CullingTheHerd wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eventually even atoms will stop spinning. i think what the commenter was getting at, is that, immortality is impossible, and so finding meaning in a life that must eventually end, is still important. also, your argument, red herring. the commenter didn't say, let's all be happy that old age is crap. at all. that was you. you said that. why? idk.

Again you're not making much sense. 'To reconsider getting old and dying as negative' is as close to 'consider philosophies in which old age and dying is not negative' as it can get. Please look at a description of 'red herring' [0] and kindly elaborate how it applies to my response. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

The first line from Wikipedia:

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

And, this is exactly why I keep "losing my password" for my HN account, so that I have to take a break from participating. I didn't need to look to Wikipedia know what a Red Herring is. And it's a waste of my time spelling it out for others when they could figure it out themselves.

So, it works like this:

You said: "If you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be, then I respectfully disagree with you."

But the person you were replying to said:"If you consider aging and death in old age as a negative, perhaps you should reconsider your philosophy, instead of chasing immortality."

their comment.. If P, perhaps Q. P = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" Q = "you should reconsider your philosophy" & "[not] chasing immortality"

and your comment... "If P, then Q." P = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be" Q = "I respectfully disagree with you"

so, the "P"s are at issue, as both "Q"s can roughly be translated into, "no", "false"

P[1] = "you consider aging and death in old age as a negative" compared to... P[2] = "you believe getting old, and sick, and miserable, and then dying, is good or natural or the way it is supposed to be"

Not the same.

The original comment simply said, it's not necessarily bad. You said, "you're" arguing it is good, or natural, or the way it's supposed to be.

Again, red herring: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

You're misstatement of the original comment so distorts the issue that we're now arguing about whether "death is natural and inevitable" or "death is good". That is not what the original issue was. So, to reply to your comment, is to be distracted from a relevant or important issue. One would have been misled to go down that path.

logic 101. but hey, you have more karma points than me. so, what does logic really have against that.

Re: Your Life

#124

Post by CullingTheHerd »

ehnto wrote: post #116
CullingTheHerd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for someone to offer an argument for the claim that "it is worth while considering other life philosophies other than those that lead to chasing immortality and viewing the end of one's own life as a negative", is kinda, well, quite frankly you sound either too naive to the world to understand the wisdom in such a claim, or you are too stubborn to allow any world view other than yours to be entertained. Either…

So your response is that if a cute soundbite is not enough to have me nodding agreeably maybe I am not wordly enough? You have made the exact same argument that you are defending, it boils down to "you do not understand my world view, if you understood more maybe you would." I understand not everything fits in a comment box, but when you choose to participate in a discussion then a one line excerpt of "wisdom" is har…

HN is, barely, a step above twitter. If one were to pick the bottom 20% of comments from HN, it would be ignorant, biased, group think, poor logic, borderline bigoted (but mainly ignorant).

I don't expect that you'd be nodding agreeably. But I do think one with a bit more perspective might engage in a more productive manner.

Re: Your Life

#126

Post by tangled_zans »

fizixer wrote: post #71

Every time an existential post is made here, I have to remind people: As technologists you guys should have a little more confidence/faith/whatever in the progress we're making every passing day, than is evident from the tone of most of the comments here. Smart-phones, social media, startups, IPOs, these are huge blind spots of technology. It makes you think that's all there is to it. Technology is much more than tha…

Well said. +1 for mentioning Aubrey.

Re: Your Life

#127

Post by ehnto »

CullingTheHerd wrote: post #124
ehnto wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your response is that if a cute soundbite is not enough to have me nodding agreeably maybe I am not wordly enough? You have made the exact same argument that you are defending, it boils down to "you do not understand my world view, if you understood more maybe you would." I understand not everything fits in a comment box, but when you choose to participate in a discussion then a one line excerpt of "wisdom" is har…

HN is, barely, a step above twitter. If one were to pick the bottom 20% of comments from HN, it would be ignorant, biased, group think, poor logic, borderline bigoted (but mainly ignorant). I don't expect that you'd be nodding agreeably. But I do think one with a bit more perspective might engage in a more productive manner.

All I have done is suggest that the parent comment's argument was shallow and ultimately unhelpful. The intention was to illicit some in depth discussion, hence my questions and my views added afterwards.

All you have done in both your comments is slight the platform and slight myself, adding nothing.

I believe I understand his argument; It would be a waste to spend life chasing immortality, as you would waste the only life you had in search of more of it, thus getting to truly enjoy neither.

But I am still glad there are people chasing it, as it means we get to enjoy more life than if they were not.

The parent comment's sentiment only really makes sense if you yourself are chasing more life, and even then only if you are destined to fail. The last 50 years alone should show us that more quality life is an extremely reasonable goal. Adding nearly 20 years to the average life expectancy, from 60 to 80 for males in Australia for example.

Re: Your Life

#129

Post by true_religion »

fizixer wrote: post #71

Every time an existential post is made here, I have to remind people: As technologists you guys should have a little more confidence/faith/whatever in the progress we're making every passing day, than is evident from the tone of most of the comments here. Smart-phones, social media, startups, IPOs, these are huge blind spots of technology. It makes you think that's all there is to it. Technology is much more than tha…

> If people like you (technologists) can get out of the pessimism of pro-aging trance, a lot can be accomplished in the next 20 to 40 years.

I'm a technologist, but I'm easily admit I'm just as useful as a brick-layer when it comes to stopping the progress of aging.

Re: Your Life

#130

Post by true_religion »

yks wrote: post #106
reitanqild wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well. I think it has been a good thing so far. Considering who tends to get access to new things first the ones that would still be living would most likely not be the nicest men and women of all times but rather the greediest.

Exactly. I don't understand this popular craving of immortality. If you look at the current society and add immortality, you just get horrific dystopian future, where by the way majority of the world is still mortal just enslaved by power-hungry immortal overlords. Right now however sadistic regimes are, we still know that Stalins/Kim Jong Uns of the day will die and there is at least hope. In currently(!) non-sadist…

I think immortality, like flying cars, is a goal that will only come incremementally.

It may take 1000 years to make people who can live 10,000 years, and in the interm I doubt we can imagine the social and economic changes that will happen as people progressively live longer.

Take the current world, and allow everyone to live till they are 120 instead of dying in their 70s on average. Is it such a horrible thing?

Post reply on HN