http://archive.md/3VkKU
You da real MVP
A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
51–60 of 240 posts
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#52Condolences to his family and friends, but for an entertainer, I can think of no better thing that you remember last in the world, and that is to be entertaining people and to be in the middle of your craft when the reaper taps you on the shoulder.
Somehow, me collapsing on my keyboard mid code doesn't seem all that great way to go. I will have to get another passion that I am mid stream in and enjoying life to the max before I have to cross the river Styx...
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speak for yourself. I want to live for as long as I have even brief moments of lucidity. I don't believe in an afterlife, I intend to savor everything I am receiving. One of my biggest fear is that people fail to appreciate that I value more existence than the absence of suffering and may take a very bad decision for me at one point.
The idiom is "speak for yourself" (sorry if I offend)
Not at all, thanks! I stumble on these every time I inadvertently translate things directly from my native language. Ill be more careful thanks.
Corrected, by the way.
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#54That happened years ago in Italy as well: Mango was his name
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. Not sure why they include paywall content. What % of user base is subbed to WaPo.
It's trivial to avoid the Washington Post's paywall, so there's no point in banning it. Obviously, a substantial amount of people could read it, because it's on the front page. A lot of sites also give exceptions to HN so we all can pass their paywalls, which is great. (Like FT, for example.)
I'd wager that a considerable portion upvotes for the title and comments alone.
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot wait until we cure aging so we can die on our own terms. The right to death should be as inalienable as the right to life, and nothing short of the heat death should be allowed to make this decision for a sentient being.
I really want what you have said to be true, but I think there are upper limits we can reach that prevent us from really ever being the arbiters of our own death. That which allows us to become living, must also force us to become nothing, death is the necessity for life, and life is the necessity for death. Skipping death, means skipping life. If every human that ever lived could live forever, would we have been bor…
> One person living forever is not really be a big deal. But everyone?
I think any society that is capable of letting humans live forever — on the scales being discussed — would probably be virtualizing sentiences instead of relying on wasteful fleshy bodies.
Living via a human body would be a novelty experience, a vacation, a limiting of capabilities and senses.
Essentially, I think your point would be mostly mute by the time we develop true immortality.
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot wait until we cure aging so we can die on our own terms. The right to death should be as inalienable as the right to life, and nothing short of the heat death should be allowed to make this decision for a sentient being.
A couple of thoughts: 1. If everyone lives until the end of the universe, what does that mean for the prospect of having children? I would think it would mean that we would need to stop having children at some point, or else we would overcrowd whatever portion of space that we are occupying at some point. Not being allowed to have children would be sad. I don’t have any children yet, but I want to have children in th…
1. Everyone can have one kid and we will merely double the amount of humans. This is because it takes 2 persons to produce one kid. And the infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8.... sums up to 1.
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why whenever there is a discussion about aging research, people always bring out the problem of us living forever or till the end of the universe. I mean how about just double or triple our lifespan which is nothing wrong and we still have no idea how to do that. I think maybe the reason why so many people is against it is because of religion.
There's a very famous series of books by Isaac Asimov that deals with this problem - The Robots. Basically once humans are able to increase their life span, they become reluctant to take any risks and the become stuck in their own "immortality". It's no different than what the GP says. Weather it's until the end of the universe or just a few hundred years, we still become more risk adverse and less capable of change.
I do not see this as a bad thing. I would rather live happily ever after than take life-ending risks.
That said, I disagree with the premise. Any true form of immortality would virtualize us. As individuals we would be able to take risks as never before. Paragliding through dangerous canyons? Why not? Worst case scenario your fleshy avatar dies, and you wait a few weeks in a virtual utopia as a new one is printed.
And even that is only if we choose to continue to confine ourselves to human qualia. Being virtualized would enable us to experience the universe in whole new ways - who would want to constrict themselves to mere human experiences ever again?
I think this short story explains these concept really well. Don’t worry about the cliche romance backstory - it was written in 1989: http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/GentleSeduction.html
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why whenever there is a discussion about aging research, people always bring out the problem of us living forever or till the end of the universe. I mean how about just double or triple our lifespan which is nothing wrong and we still have no idea how to do that. I think maybe the reason why so many people is against it is because of religion.
There's a very famous series of books by Isaac Asimov that deals with this problem - The Robots. Basically once humans are able to increase their life span, they become reluctant to take any risks and the become stuck in their own "immortality". It's no different than what the GP says. Weather it's until the end of the universe or just a few hundred years, we still become more risk adverse and less capable of change.
Gonna be honest - once we have backups, I'm totally intending to go into seriously risky behaviors. So this is 100% the opposite of how I intend to live my life.
Re: A singer apologized, closed his eyes, dropped his head and died onstage
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot wait until we cure aging so we can die on our own terms. The right to death should be as inalienable as the right to life, and nothing short of the heat death should be allowed to make this decision for a sentient being.
I really want what you have said to be true, but I think there are upper limits we can reach that prevent us from really ever being the arbiters of our own death. That which allows us to become living, must also force us to become nothing, death is the necessity for life, and life is the necessity for death. Skipping death, means skipping life. If every human that ever lived could live forever, would we have been bor…
> enough space, enough resources
Have you looked at the universe lately? There are enough resources out there that every human being currently alive could easily have thousands of civilizations of their own, even making very conservative extrapolations regarding the true energy use of a human mind.