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

Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

zamoshi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#41

Post by karlgkk »

pierrekin wrote: post #26
karlgkk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you needed a bed for the night, do you have friends who would offer you their couch? Family? Cousins, parents, etc?

In my society, absolutely, possibly literally more than a hundred people. Where in the world is the answer no? Maybe if you’ve freshly immigrated to a new country or something? That is a very scary thought, but it’s also scary for me to think that so many people live such isolated lives, it’s such a foreign concept to me culturally.

The answer is no when you are severely mentally ill or have some other condition that causes you to be strongly detrimental to the people around you, such as addiction.

To the point where you have no friends. To the point where even your own parents have given up.

> Where in the world

Everywhere. You can’t comprehend it because you don’t know anyone like that, likely because the government you live in takes care of that problem for you.

> isolated lives

And by the way, the people in your culture in this situation are isolated too, from you. And that’s okay, and maybe good even. But you don’t know about them.

I don’t know what the right answer is. America’s answer is definitely not the right answer. But interrogate your culture, too, and how it takes care of your most vulnerable people. You may be dismayed at the answer, or you may not.

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#42

Post by mettamage »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #21
ArchieScrivener wrote: post #7

Are people reading this or just up voting the title? Sounds like someone who screwed up their life, likely by being stubborn, and doing a lot of drugs, which doesn't take knowing how to code to pull off. Reads like a love letter to misery by someone who knew they would never be truly affected by it.

There's a good saying, "People become homeless not when they run out of money, but when they run out of relationships." This post reads to me like someone suffering from mental illness and/or personality disorder.

This is the first time I'm seeing that phrase. And I think it hits the nail on the head.

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#43

Post by imiric »

pierrekin wrote: post #20
imiric wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, we don't know the entire backstory, but can we agree that no person should live in these conditions? Especially in one of the richest places in the world. Everyone deserves dignity, food, and shelter. Also, can we stop stigmatizing "drug" use? Most of humanity uses "drugs" regularly for various reasons. Just because a specific "drug" which someone enjoys using recreationally is on a government list doesn't mean…

It’s hard to respond to a call for “everyone to agree” in an online forum but yes. Even people who are self or outwardly destructive, do not deserve the outcome the author got. I think a harder to answer question is, assuming there are not enough resources to help everyone in need (in a practical sense) should we prioritise the “more deserving” over the less. Every human who is suffering deserves compassion, but shou…

> Every human who is suffering deserves compassion, but should we deprioritise those who are suffering partially because of their own choices?

Opening the discussion about who is more worthy of assistance is a slippery slope towards some people not getting it due to personal biases and politics of those in power.

Poor life choices can be consequences of poor upbringing, mental health, or simply bad luck. People can be helped in different ways to avoid making those mistakes. Reform is possible, but it starts with a society and government that cares for all of its people, and doesn't marginalize some as lower-class citizens.

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#44

Post by viraptor »

drhodes wrote: post #34
pierrekin wrote: post #15

I get an incredible “narcism ick” from this writing. I wonder if other people feel the same way. It’s so gross contrasted with the theme. The very first paragraphs start with a poor attempt to humble brag his”credentials” as not just a “normal” homeless person. The self mythologising, the framing of negative things more like the weather than consequences of his choices. The fact that despite privileged upbringing and…

It seems clear to me that the author was experiencing an unmedicated psychotic disorder and gallantly owning the preposterous outlook he had at the time. So, not bragging, just plainly stating the sort of bigger than life delusions that come with the territory.

Which parts do you think were the delusions?

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#45

Post by mettamage »

tossandthrow wrote: post #39
ryanjshaw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The style of writing and strange segways suggest mental illness; the blog description seems to confirm it.

It is incredible how much energy is being put into justifying why this is his own fault? I guess this is the only way people with high salaries or wealth in the US can find peace with themselves - maybe that's the mental illness?

> Currently constructing the Sanctuary of the Silent Star while unpacking a 6-month journey through psychosis, homelessness, and the systems that govern us. One story at a time.

I'm not saying it's his own fault. I'm also not too happy when people point to mental illness. But this is his blog description where he mentions himself that he unpacs a 6-month journey through psychosis.

6 months of psychosis means you're mentally ill with psychosis as a symptom.

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#46

Post by mettamage »

imiric wrote: post #43
pierrekin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard to respond to a call for “everyone to agree” in an online forum but yes. Even people who are self or outwardly destructive, do not deserve the outcome the author got. I think a harder to answer question is, assuming there are not enough resources to help everyone in need (in a practical sense) should we prioritise the “more deserving” over the less. Every human who is suffering deserves compassion, but shou…

> Every human who is suffering deserves compassion, but should we deprioritise those who are suffering partially because of their own choices? Opening the discussion about who is more worthy of assistance is a slippery slope towards some people not getting it due to personal biases and politics of those in power. Poor life choices can be consequences of poor upbringing, mental health, or simply bad luck. People can b…

And is capable enough to be (1) wealthy and (2) distribute that wealth so that everyone is wealthy enough. Especially (2) is hard. Norway seems to be the only country having some actual demonstrable skill at it.

When Covid came to Europe, we saw on the news how Italy was hit and what doctors had to do.

Long story short: young people lived, old people died. Because doctors faced the awful decision of whom to put on life support.

In the Covid case there's a genuine moment of lack of resources (good luck training enough doctors to help, even in a utopia it wouldn't be possible). Unfortunately, since many countries are bad at distributing their own resources enough such that no one is poor, we're basically in a Covid-like situation when it comes to homeless people.

And I'm saying this as a Dutch person. As I have one family member who didn't eat for 2 weeks, fainted, got found, etc. Granted, this person doesn't want to deal with bureaucracy and is quite stubborn, among other things. But still, even in a country that has "socialism" this stuff happens. And we're not as socialistic as one might think: Polish people that come here to perform labor do so in quite awful circumstances, to the point that when they lose a finger or a thumb they get reimbursed like 300 to 500 euro's IIRC. I watched it from some Dutch documentary (probably Nieuwsuur).

Countries are just incredibly bad at resource (re)distribution.

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#47

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

tossandthrow wrote: post #39
ryanjshaw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The style of writing and strange segways suggest mental illness; the blog description seems to confirm it.

It is incredible how much energy is being put into justifying why this is his own fault? I guess this is the only way people with high salaries or wealth in the US can find peace with themselves - maybe that's the mental illness?

What's incredible to me are comments, like yours, that are saying that somehow the system failed this person, just based on this blog post. When in fact:

1. He was given food and shelter, which he declined - most of his comments about the food are that it's too sugary.

2. He makes it sound like he was offered more permanent shelter in Feb of 2025, which he also declined.

To be clear, I'm not making a judgment about this person - and, for that matter, the comment you replied to didn't seem to be making a judgment either, just stating a reasonable conclusion that the author suffered from mental illness.

So I'd like to know what additional resources you think would have changed this person's circumstances?

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#48

Post by darkwater »

pierrekin wrote: post #26
karlgkk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you needed a bed for the night, do you have friends who would offer you their couch? Family? Cousins, parents, etc?

In my society, absolutely, possibly literally more than a hundred people. Where in the world is the answer no? Maybe if you’ve freshly immigrated to a new country or something? That is a very scary thought, but it’s also scary for me to think that so many people live such isolated lives, it’s such a foreign concept to me culturally.

Unfortunately I think there are many places in the world like that. It just takes someone with even a mild mental illness, a relatively small family and the sudden early death of a parent to start a vicious cycle.

Re: Ex-Tech –> Homeless in SF

#49

Post by mettamage »

saagarjha wrote: post #5

> A couple months ago, I found that particular bridge was next to an office building inhabited by some of my old colleagues. A start-up I had been a part of in New York. Where I was the first employee. I had owned equity. They had eventually sold for $350 million. It is depressing easy to have this happen and even worse how many people are convinced it could never be them.

For what it's worth: I know it could be me. I'm currently with tens of thousands of dollars in savings (in Europe, not American) but it could still be me. I'm quite afraid of it actually and I live every day so that it won't be me. I've noticed that reduces chances significantly, not to zero, but significantly.
Post reply on HN