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

Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

roy.marples.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 233 posts

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#141

Post by js2 »

sneak wrote: post #68
ceejayoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's not a legal obligation, but it might be a nicer world if we considered it an ethical one.

I think perhaps you mean "moral" rather than "ethical". It is entirely ethical to use free software, even to generate massive profits, without paying anyone anything. That's literally the whole point of software freedom: you're free.

Ethical and moral are synonyms. I don't understand the difference you're trying to draw.

    Definition of ethical

    1 : of or relating to ethics
    // ethical theories
    2 : involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval
    // ethical judgments
    3 : conforming to accepted standards of conduct
    // ethical behavior

    Definition of moral (Entry 1 of 2)

    1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
    // moral judgments
    b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
    // a moral poem
    c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
    // took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#142

Post by soneil »

caslon wrote: post #86
pjc50 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call this "Postel decentralisation": everyone thinks there's some kind of system or institution making everything work, but in fact there's just a guy doing it all on his own.

Interestingly, you seem to be the only person on the World Wide Web to ever have used that phrase (three times over three years?), but it's such a perfect description of such a common phenomenon that I'm pretty sure its propagation could save hours of time in typing for nerds on the Web.

I'd be wary of colliding with Postel's Law, which I depend on much more often than I'd like. But otherwise agree!

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#143

Post by Daho0n »

sneak wrote: post #68
ceejayoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's not a legal obligation, but it might be a nicer world if we considered it an ethical one.

I think perhaps you mean "moral" rather than "ethical". It is entirely ethical to use free software, even to generate massive profits, without paying anyone anything. That's literally the whole point of software freedom: you're free.

Free as in freedom. Even though you can't force them, big corps really should donate at least some free beer.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#144

Post by michaelmrose »

cpach wrote: post #82
fastball wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. MRI machines are not expensive because of "patents". They are expensive because they are expensive devices that utilize superconducting magnets which need a constant supply of liquid helium. Various drugs are expensive because (regardless of patents) there aren't enough patients to justify mass-production, so the price stays high. Sometimes even with mass production drugs are hard enough to make tha…

Good point. Not only are physicians needed, nurses are needed as well. They might be cheaper to train and hire compared to physicians – OTOH, there are more of the them and the numbers add up. Not all diseases can be cured by simply taking a pill.

Doctors aren't paid as much outside of the US. It turns out skilled and intelligent people will do skilled labor for only 3 times what a grocery clerk makes instead of 30

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#145

Post by michaelmrose »

souprock wrote: post #109
chrisbennet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to insurance companies determining who would die?

It really is different. The existence of unlimited pay-as-you-go care means that you could possibly raise the funds. In systems where all care is state-administered and an attempt to pay for more care would be criminalized as bribery, you'll die of a treatable disease if some bureaucrat decides that the treatment isn't cost effective for a person like you. The details of choices vary, but go something like this: "tre…

This already happens. The average american has so small a pool of resources and health care is so expensive that surgery or drugs that insurance doesn't pay for is unaffordable beyond trivialities for the vast majority.

61% couldn't shell out $1000 if their life depended on it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/just-39percent-of-americans-...

If little johnny needs a 150k operation and the insurance says no he's going to die and they can't all pay into each others go fund me. The economics just don't work out.

Also virtually nobody has suggested outlawing cash payments for services. That idea is much outside of the mainstream as believing that the earth is flat. Pretending that is what socialized medicine is, is a straw man.

They are 2 ways to cost pool neither suggests or requires the elimination of cash payment.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#146

Post by shuringai »

rasengan wrote: post #65

Dear Roy, It is unfortunate you are dealing with this. I am so sorry and hope for the best. The Handshake founders had an airdrop pre allocated for you in the Handshake Blockchain [1] so there is about $64,000.00 in there that you can claim under marples.name as of writing. [1] https://dns.live/top.html

i cannot believe you made a marketing stunt out of his situation for your shitcoin

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#147

Post by michaelmrose »

fastball wrote: post #74
grecy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are diseases (including cancer) we could easily spend millions per patient on. Pulling out all the stops you could spend 10s of millions. But we really don't have that kind of societal overabundance, not yet. My Mum in Australia had a rare and aggressive form of lung cancer, discovered at stage four. She had almost three years of radiation, chemo, all the associated drugs, scans, treatments and even two diffe…

The calculus is still not that simple. What if that economic output could've instead been directed towards better education for children, or reducing the use of something which is known to cause cancer in the first place (e.g. coal power plants)? The decision is simple for you, because it's your mom. The decision is not a simple one for a society. We do not yet live in a post-scarcity world. Spending on one thing by…

We create a lot of the scarcity that exists in the states not so we can spend more on enriching society but so we can enrich a minority at the expense of society.

Your argument is only sound in the hypothetical case.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#148

Post by fifteenforty »

fastball wrote: post #72
AussieWog93 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason it costs millions to treat cancer patients is because of medical patents allowing companies to extract profit margins of several thousand percent (or more). In countries like Australia, where drug companies have to negotiate a fair price with a single government agency, the cost of treatment is an order of magnitude lower.

This is not true. MRI machines are not expensive because of "patents". They are expensive because they are expensive devices that utilize superconducting magnets which need a constant supply of liquid helium. Various drugs are expensive because (regardless of patents) there aren't enough patients to justify mass-production, so the price stays high. Sometimes even with mass production drugs are hard enough to make tha…

In Australia, we treat this very differently.

My training as an anaesthesiologist has cost the taxpayer roughly 2 million AUD from medical school to specialist qualification. The direct cost to me? About $75,000 AUD.

Some treatments are expensive and futile. We aren’t compelled to offer them. We do have to prioritise treatments and triage patients, resources are not unlimited. By the same token, no-one is denied care on the basis of age or ability.

Many patients suffer from too much medical intervention, and I am extremely grateful that I almost never feel compelled to perform treatments that don’t benefit patients.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#149

Post by fifteenforty »

michaelmrose wrote: post #144
cpach wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. Not only are physicians needed, nurses are needed as well. They might be cheaper to train and hire compared to physicians – OTOH, there are more of the them and the numbers add up. Not all diseases can be cured by simply taking a pill.

Doctors aren't paid as much outside of the US. It turns out skilled and intelligent people will do skilled labor for only 3 times what a grocery clerk makes instead of 30

We also don’t have the stress of bankrupting our patients. For all the difficulties we face at work; in public practice we are more worried about the parking fee for our elderly patients than the cost of treatment.

Re: Dhcpcd Will Need a New Maintainer

#150

Post by michaelmrose »

winfred wrote: post #111
duncan-donuts wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should any single person carry the weight of the person in desperate need? UBI + healthcare implies that there’s a social safety net that creates an entire network of people to carry this weight. I don’t have a clue if any implementations would successfully do this but to just throw people in desperate need to the wolves is inhumane.

I don't think people would prosper under such a system. Free health care, yes, free education, yes. Retirement for all, take care of the disabled, yes. But in my opinion, in today's society, if you take away the need for people to struggle (which UBI will do) they often end up in a worse mental and physical shape than if you make them suffer a bit. Just the way natural selection programmed us. "All basic needs are me…

>But in my opinion, in today's society, if you take away the need for people to struggle (which UBI will do) they often end up in a worse mental and physical shape than if you make them suffer a bit.

This is exactly the opposite of how people actually work people excel when given support and opportunity to grow. Adversity especially insofar as fear of basic needs being met isn't inspiring it's stunting.

Anything else is a basic dysfunction in understanding people fed by survivorship bias. Imagine if you met someone who was sure that plant growth was maximized by periodically holding a lighter to one or another of the leaves because all the surviving plants had gone through that. Your understanding is every bit as ridiculous.

We can find sufficient challenge and adversity as we need to move us in our own selves, relationships, and field of endeavor.

Post reply on HN