I find it odd that disclosing a liver transplant and not disclosing the condition that precipitated it is the way they chose to go here. I would think that once the transplant cat is out of the bag, you might as well be open about the condition. After all none of the reasons for needing a new liver are good and people will probably assume the worst as it is.
I hate to break it to you, but real liver problems can follow any serious course of hard core pharmaceuticals. The man had cancer. He took chemo drugs, which likely destroyed his liver.
"Apple has previously drawn criticism from some shareholders over what they have called limited disclosure of Mr. Jobs's health problems" "once Mr. Jobs resumes work, the company will have to be "very careful" about what it says" This strikes me as almost unbelievably cynical, that Jobs' health could be factored into the price of Apple shares. I understand why, of course, but still, I hate it and I wonder how SJ hims…
How is it cynical to price the health of an organization's key person into its value?
Its not cynical.
You don't invest in companies, you invest in their leaders.
I am guessing it would also be reasonable to say it has a material affect on Apple as a publicly traded company, at least in the short term. And certainly the stock price. But I wish him the best, it seems too soon for him to be leaving this, and I am sure he has more he wants to do.
Yeah, we know it has a material e ffect... but that's not why this is here. Apple's stock isn't interesting Hacker News. This is here because it's really fun talking about Steve Jobs, love him or hate him, and because the man's the archetypal startup founder along with Woz. That's totally fine but let's not kid ourselves.
yeah I wasn't really thinking about HN relevance, more the "privacy" issue.
I think Steve is important enough to be relevant to HN.
Citing The Fountainhead - not exactly the best way to make an argument. I'm a supporter of Rand and her ideals but her writing regarding human relationships is detached from reality.
I'm not making an argument. I'm making hazy observations based on feelings. Everyone knows people who are their own people, but who do not impose on others. If asked, they will tell you. If pressed, they will stand up for themselves. But they sometimes show restraint where others might take the opportunity to "count coup." It's also possible to be your own person and stand up for yourself while being abrasive, suffer…
Objectivism is terrific in a few ways. I still reread The Fountainhead once or twice a year. But the more you learn of it the shallower it becomes. The Fountainhead works because it's an incredibly contained world; Roark is essentially a loner. But Rand makes that out to be some ideal in and of itself. In truth, lots of brilliant people are radically social, and have had convoluted lives entirely unlike the straight path Roark takes. If you ignore that, and ignore the biological imperatives that explain it, then you're creating a fantastic type of human that doesn't really exist, and in some ways you belittle the people that Rand drew inspiration from to create Roark.
I'm not making an argument. I'm making hazy observations based on feelings. Everyone knows people who are their own people, but who do not impose on others. If asked, they will tell you. If pressed, they will stand up for themselves. But they sometimes show restraint where others might take the opportunity to "count coup." It's also possible to be your own person and stand up for yourself while being abrasive, suffer…
Objectivism is terrific in a few ways. I still reread The Fountainhead once or twice a year. But the more you learn of it the shallower it becomes. The Fountainhead works because it's an incredibly contained world; Roark is essentially a loner. But Rand makes that out to be some ideal in and of itself. In truth, lots of brilliant people are radically social, and have had convoluted lives entirely unlike the straight…
I just realized -- I never really criticize Objectivism in this thread. (That the founder's world view is eventually superseded by advancing knowledge is just a fact of life, not a criticism.)
What I do criticize is the way some people apply "Objectivism." This is certainly not unique. I also find the attitudes of many Christians to be distinctly not Christ-like.
Objectivism is terrific in a few ways. I still reread The Fountainhead once or twice a year. But the more you learn of it the shallower it becomes. The Fountainhead works because it's an incredibly contained world; Roark is essentially a loner. But Rand makes that out to be some ideal in and of itself. In truth, lots of brilliant people are radically social, and have had convoluted lives entirely unlike the straight…
I just realized -- I never really criticize Objectivism in this thread. (That the founder's world view is eventually superseded by advancing knowledge is just a fact of life, not a criticism.) What I do criticize is the way some people apply "Objectivism." This is certainly not unique. I also find the attitudes of many Christians to be distinctly not Christ-like.
What I do criticize is the way some people apply "Objectivism." This is certainly not unique. I also find the attitudes of many Christians to be distinctly not Christ-like.
That's actually a really apt comparison! I think I'll borrow that in the future.
That's funny, because I always had the impression that on a personal scale he was an asshole to his friends and strangers. But yeah, I like my iPhone.
From everything I've heard of him that's right. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I rarely judge people on their personality. I know nice guys that are absolute shits, just as I know one or two nice guys that are incredible people. Similarly, most assholes are just assholes, but some are very brilliant people with short fuses. I've found that of the people I associate with, the least consistent variable is person…
so personality doesn't correlate with competence, but does that mean we should discount it?
Smart that this comes out today. Yesterday, Apple's stocks jumped up 53% with the release of the new iPhone and it proved that investor's feel good about the prospects of an Apple without Jobs at its helm day-in, day-out. If this article had come out before, I think Apple would've taken a hit.
Yesterday, Apple's stocks jumped up 53% with the release of the new iPhone Link? http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=aapl suggests it hasn't broken out of 130-140 in quite a few days. Particularly not jumping to > 200 yesterday.