Steve Wozniak suffers minor stroke(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Steve Wozniak suffers minor stroke
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67366306
151 comments
Best wishes to Woz.
He is one of very few people I genuinely admire and look up to. So much unlike the current crop of leaders-a*holes (like Musk, SBF, and a bunch of other fraudsters not even worth mentioning that were so in vogue just a couple of years ago).
Apart from his impressive technical achievements (and they are impressive, they are his, and they are worth learning about!), his personality and style are something to be admired.
He is one of very few people I genuinely admire and look up to. So much unlike the current crop of leaders-a*holes (like Musk, SBF, and a bunch of other fraudsters not even worth mentioning that were so in vogue just a couple of years ago).
Apart from his impressive technical achievements (and they are impressive, they are his, and they are worth learning about!), his personality and style are something to be admired.
Because he is intelligent, wacky, and genuinely a good human being, the Woz is one of the few figures that many of us in the tech industry look up to and aspire to be like.
I hope he sticks around for many more years to come.
I hope he sticks around for many more years to come.
> the Woz is one of the few figures that many of us in the tech industry look up to and aspire to be like.
Relatable. My Woz story is from junior high school (middle school) in the late 1990s. I was writing a report on him and read two different biographies that seemed to report conflicting information. So I emailed him asking what actually happened back at a childhood science fair. And he actually responded and recalled the history that knocked my report out of the park <3. That left a lasting impression on me that you don't have to be scared to reach out to "famous" people. They're people too and appreciate hearing from polite/civil fans.
Relatable. My Woz story is from junior high school (middle school) in the late 1990s. I was writing a report on him and read two different biographies that seemed to report conflicting information. So I emailed him asking what actually happened back at a childhood science fair. And he actually responded and recalled the history that knocked my report out of the park <3. That left a lasting impression on me that you don't have to be scared to reach out to "famous" people. They're people too and appreciate hearing from polite/civil fans.
That's wonderful. Do you happen to remember the true version of the science fair story?
cool sentiment, but becoming increasingly harder to do. So many people an too many to not discount that some crazies will pop in. Few public/semi-public figures can just keep their contact info around freely.
Even if it all is in good faith, they will just get so many mails about business inquiries, recruits, media reqesting interviews, academia, etc. Very hard for little Timmy to ask a quick question via email these days.
Even if it all is in good faith, they will just get so many mails about business inquiries, recruits, media reqesting interviews, academia, etc. Very hard for little Timmy to ask a quick question via email these days.
emailing famous people or their handlers is kind of a hobby of mine.
over about a hundred emails i've received about 30 replies.
the surprising thing to me is that their level of 'fame' has little to do with whether or not they reply to me. I've received replies from some famously impressive people, and have been ignored by some real 'niche' ones.
I have a suspicion that there is a bit of a bi-modal distribution between 'small enough to reply to fans' and 'so big that there is a reply crew on-staff', most of my emails that were ignored were "Famous but not that famous" types of folks that are in the middle between the two.
over about a hundred emails i've received about 30 replies.
the surprising thing to me is that their level of 'fame' has little to do with whether or not they reply to me. I've received replies from some famously impressive people, and have been ignored by some real 'niche' ones.
I have a suspicion that there is a bit of a bi-modal distribution between 'small enough to reply to fans' and 'so big that there is a reply crew on-staff', most of my emails that were ignored were "Famous but not that famous" types of folks that are in the middle between the two.
One of my hobbies as a preteen was to mail a hand written letter to famous people to ask for their autograph.
I don’t remember what made me start doing it nor what my letters said but I have dozens of autographed pictures of famous people from Elton John to John Stamos just from asking.
I don’t remember what made me start doing it nor what my letters said but I have dozens of autographed pictures of famous people from Elton John to John Stamos just from asking.
So for the really famous ones you think it wasn’t really the person who replied to you?
I suppose it depends on the reason for their celebrity.
If you email someone who is famous for trivial media I’d doubt you’d get a response, but I know some people who have had conversations with more intellectual celebrities over email.
When you reach out with a genuine interest or point in a specific topic I’d like to think they often enjoy speaking about it.
I never would have expected my brother to get an email back from Noam Chomsky but he did after he wrote a decently cogent and complex question.
At the end of the day it possibly wasn’t actually him, but who knows.
If you email someone who is famous for trivial media I’d doubt you’d get a response, but I know some people who have had conversations with more intellectual celebrities over email.
When you reach out with a genuine interest or point in a specific topic I’d like to think they often enjoy speaking about it.
I never would have expected my brother to get an email back from Noam Chomsky but he did after he wrote a decently cogent and complex question.
At the end of the day it possibly wasn’t actually him, but who knows.
> Very hard for little Timmy to ask a quick question via email these days.
There was a time in HS when I had several to-fro with DMR about Unix philosophy without fully realizing what a giant he was in our CS galaxy. I truly miss him.
There was a time in HS when I had several to-fro with DMR about Unix philosophy without fully realizing what a giant he was in our CS galaxy. I truly miss him.
Me too. For me it's because he didn't seem to lose, or trade, his soul. He just seems to stay true to the person he always was. So often people loose, or trade that.
I absolutely loved his 2 Dollar Bills story. Never have I ever not laughed out loud reading it, every time !
https://web.archive.org/web/20111122202554/http://archive.wo...
https://web.archive.org/web/20111122202554/http://archive.wo...
Thanks for that link. 'You only live once' :)
He's one of very few, most that make it big end up amplifying their negative sides, Woz came out amplifying his good sides. He's exactly what we need, but unfortunately the tech bros seek other kinds of role models.
Let's hope he pulls through and in good health.
Let's hope he pulls through and in good health.
I’d throw a few others in there like Brewster Kahle.
Recovery quickly Woz!
Recovery quickly Woz!
Woz still holds a special place in my heart. He was the first to sign my laptop at Twitter (right on the Apple logo even). Talking with him was super interesting even though he was mostly a sales figure for hardware storage. He was super curious about the problem Twitter was facing at the time.
YOU.
Those fusion cards were ahead of their time. Shame they didn't take off.
Those fusion cards were ahead of their time. Shame they didn't take off.
> a sales figure for hardware storage.
what does that mean?
what does that mean?
A bit over a decade ago Woz was chief scientist for Fusion-io, a startup that made various flash storage solutions.
He had a position at Fusion-io, a storage company
Strokes suck to say the least. All the best wishes to someone so kind and smart, I’m glad it sounds like it was only minor.
Something I really wish I knew immediately after my mom had a stroke is that the recovery that often happens over the days and weeks following a stroke as the brain adapts to its new normal is nothing short of amazing. My mom was nearly blind, unable to control her eyes, and mostly unable to speak. It was very, very bad, and we both thought her life was effectively over though neither of us said that to each other. A couple weeks later she walked out of the hospital and today she has almost no lasting effects.
The only treatment she ended up receiving was time and monitoring because she got to the hospital so late (it happened on an island, hours from a hospital.) That’s not to undermine the importance of urgent treatment obviously. She was very fortunate.
Something I really wish I knew immediately after my mom had a stroke is that the recovery that often happens over the days and weeks following a stroke as the brain adapts to its new normal is nothing short of amazing. My mom was nearly blind, unable to control her eyes, and mostly unable to speak. It was very, very bad, and we both thought her life was effectively over though neither of us said that to each other. A couple weeks later she walked out of the hospital and today she has almost no lasting effects.
The only treatment she ended up receiving was time and monitoring because she got to the hospital so late (it happened on an island, hours from a hospital.) That’s not to undermine the importance of urgent treatment obviously. She was very fortunate.
The biggest grudge I have against 'stroke' is that it's such an amorphous diagnosis. A heart attack, a similarly ischemic (or hemorhagic) event, often produces, say, one of a couple dozen lasting distinct symptoms. Some can be extremely severe and disabling, but it's still a narrow enough concept that people know how serious it usually is. Conversely, strokes present in literally thousands of ways, from mild eye twitches to complete paralysis. My stroke's effects will last for decades, and many aspects will never be 'fixed', but some of the immediate effects have waned significantly due to quick medical intervention.
I wish Woz the very very best and that his stroke doesn't produce too many lingering disabilities. Taking time for yourself in the aftermath is crucial. Sending thoughts to him, in spirit, from a fellow survivor.
I wish Woz the very very best and that his stroke doesn't produce too many lingering disabilities. Taking time for yourself in the aftermath is crucial. Sending thoughts to him, in spirit, from a fellow survivor.
I’m sorry you had to suffer through that. My mother was a victim of amorphous diagnosis. She had sudden stroke symptoms and was immediately taken to the emergency room. She had the usual symptoms including blurred vision in her left eye and numbness on the whole left side of her body. Despite this, the hospital insisted she had glaucoma and dragged an ophthalmologist to come in on a late Sunday night only to diagnose her with a stroke. She needed an MRI and the hospital didn’t have anyone available to operate it at the time. She was transferred to another hospital 45 minutes away despite there being an excellent Level 1 trauma hospital 15 minutes away. (They were not affiliated with them so she couldn’t go there.)
I lost a lot of faith in the healthcare system and doctors that night. This wasn’t a hospital in the middle of nowhere either, it was in an upper middle class neighborhood in the suburbs of Chicago. It was amazing she recovered fully from the stroke, though sadly passed away several years later of unrelated causes.
I hope the best for Mr. Wozniak, this isn’t something I would wish on anyone.
I lost a lot of faith in the healthcare system and doctors that night. This wasn’t a hospital in the middle of nowhere either, it was in an upper middle class neighborhood in the suburbs of Chicago. It was amazing she recovered fully from the stroke, though sadly passed away several years later of unrelated causes.
I hope the best for Mr. Wozniak, this isn’t something I would wish on anyone.
> I lost a lot of faith in the healthcare system and doctors that night.
the trick is to realize how horridly hostile the system is to us without having to witness it firsthand. I empathize with you however, as I have been through the same things
the trick is to realize how horridly hostile the system is to us without having to witness it firsthand. I empathize with you however, as I have been through the same things
Woz is one of the most selfless people I've ever met. At a conference he keynoted for (SynBioBeta), he said that even if immortality were available to him, he wouldn't want to live forever, because he'd be taking up a spot in the Earth's population carrying capacity, and even if that's just one spot of many billions, he wouldn't feel right taking up that spot, when he's already lived his life and now it's time for someone new to get the chance to enjoy the adventure that is living.
It's surprising to me that such an obviously common-sense viewpoint is being treated as if it's extraordinary. Nonetheless, it's commendable that he hasn't succumbed to the delusions of grandeur and immortality.
What's so common-sense about it? Or even commendable?
Earth's carrying capacity is a problem to be solved, there are many viable solutions that can be executed in parallel, and it doesn't really sound like a big challenge relative to getting life extension working in the first place.
Really, it's just bewildering to me that having a death wish is considered common-sense, normal viewpoint.
Earth's carrying capacity is a problem to be solved, there are many viable solutions that can be executed in parallel, and it doesn't really sound like a big challenge relative to getting life extension working in the first place.
Really, it's just bewildering to me that having a death wish is considered common-sense, normal viewpoint.
I think Woz's point is that no matter how much the carrying capacity of the Earth (or even the entire solar system, or galaxy) is increased, it will always be finite. It's possible that we might be lucky enough to live through a great era of spaceward expansion during which even our best efforts at population growth are slower than the than the even faster growth of population capacity, and that would be amazing. That's the type of historical era in which a slogan of "be fruitful and multiply" is really good advice. But unless the universe has infinite future potential -- specifically, a way to access a limitless source of negentropy (either through time travel or magitech or something equally reality-warping) -- then eventually the population capacity would stop growing.
Extended to the limit, it's a fair point, but this type of thinking is arguably far from common-sense (since it's uncommon for people to engage in universe-scale hypotheticals), and arguably a problem for the future - i.e. for when we start outgrowing the galaxy or something.
It's not a problem for the future, it's where we are at now until sufficiently advanced technology (or sufficiently peaceful international relations) intervenes.
Ok but if you're goal is actually some form of altruism, wouldn't keeping a clearly innovative person around forever be more useful than rolling your dice with whoever is taking his spot? Statistically, they are going to be not as useful (depending on your definition of useful of course).
Sure, we Gorillas know that stronger arms and bites are going to be important for future generations.
"It takes all kinds to make a world" isn't just a saying about polite tolerance.
It isn't altruistic to value one person's life more than another for their demonstrated ability to contribute what you think is best. That is literally egocentric selfishness, which is pretty much the opposite of altruism. I think the word you want is "utilitarian".
A person's ability to contribute is also context dependent. Woz was an innovator, but he also got lucky in multiple respects to have contributed what he did. Picking "Golden Children" tends to have negative sociological and innovative effects.
"It takes all kinds to make a world" isn't just a saying about polite tolerance.
It isn't altruistic to value one person's life more than another for their demonstrated ability to contribute what you think is best. That is literally egocentric selfishness, which is pretty much the opposite of altruism. I think the word you want is "utilitarian".
A person's ability to contribute is also context dependent. Woz was an innovator, but he also got lucky in multiple respects to have contributed what he did. Picking "Golden Children" tends to have negative sociological and innovative effects.
With regards to the gorilla analogy, I think for all intents and purposes we've already knee-capped the evolutionary process of humanity with modern medicine (not going backwards ala Idiocracy, but not going forwards either). We might need to be a little bit "picky" (read: deliberate) in the future if we want to keep progressing. I believe this is the ethos of trans-humanists.
I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity.
All that said, I actually do disagree with the fundamental premise that resources are finite in a meaningful way and that one person's immortality is stealing from someone else in a zero-sum game. Intelligent life is not zero-sum, and it is just as likely that Immortal Woz would develop a new farming technology that allows X extra people to exist than that he would actually require enough resources to be a net negative.
I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity.
All that said, I actually do disagree with the fundamental premise that resources are finite in a meaningful way and that one person's immortality is stealing from someone else in a zero-sum game. Intelligent life is not zero-sum, and it is just as likely that Immortal Woz would develop a new farming technology that allows X extra people to exist than that he would actually require enough resources to be a net negative.
> I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity.
Also, if we're positing indefinite limits to the number of humans, then an immortal wouldn't be replacing one person, but the whole series of persons their extended life is taking the place of (and would be altering all lineages descended from those persons).
Also, if we're positing indefinite limits to the number of humans, then an immortal wouldn't be replacing one person, but the whole series of persons their extended life is taking the place of (and would be altering all lineages descended from those persons).
> I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity.
My "all kinds" cite wasn't meant to be about diversity per se, but about new people. Additionally, youth brings with it a native understanding that age (barring possible global amnesia) can't.
> I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness.
I'm not trying to pull the Nazi card here, it's just the first parallel I can think of: Hitler wasn't blonde haired nor particularly tall, yet his desire for a race of tall, blonde, blue-eyed Aryans was still egocentric.
> Intelligent life is not zero-sum
No, for many other sentient terrestrial species, and even non-sentient ones, human life is negative sum.
Regardless, human society would have to fragment quite a bit for older folks in this hypothetical world of immortality to not dominate opportunities for the younger folks. I hope this happens, but am skeptical enough I assume it's more likely that domineering paternalism is more likely to grow.
My "all kinds" cite wasn't meant to be about diversity per se, but about new people. Additionally, youth brings with it a native understanding that age (barring possible global amnesia) can't.
> I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness.
I'm not trying to pull the Nazi card here, it's just the first parallel I can think of: Hitler wasn't blonde haired nor particularly tall, yet his desire for a race of tall, blonde, blue-eyed Aryans was still egocentric.
> Intelligent life is not zero-sum
No, for many other sentient terrestrial species, and even non-sentient ones, human life is negative sum.
Regardless, human society would have to fragment quite a bit for older folks in this hypothetical world of immortality to not dominate opportunities for the younger folks. I hope this happens, but am skeptical enough I assume it's more likely that domineering paternalism is more likely to grow.
Probably I shouldn't play into Godwin's Law, but what the hell.
How can you say with a straight face "Hitler liked blue-eyed people, this is very egocentric of him as a person without blue eyes"? Makes no sense. Was Hitler egocentric? Most certainly. Is his ideas of Aryan supremacy a good example of that? Clearly not, as you so succinctly pointed out.
Back to the actual point: if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture.
How can you say with a straight face "Hitler liked blue-eyed people, this is very egocentric of him as a person without blue eyes"? Makes no sense. Was Hitler egocentric? Most certainly. Is his ideas of Aryan supremacy a good example of that? Clearly not, as you so succinctly pointed out.
Back to the actual point: if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture.
His ideas of Aryan supremacy fed into his ego-drive for a 'superior race' as his legacy. It is our ego that strives to leave a legacy, and when this ego tramples on or disregards the legacy of others, it is egocentric.
When I was looking this up I discovered that Hitler did, apparently, have blue eyes.
> if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture.
The most proximate cause of the French Revolution was a tax on the aristocratic classes, and increased taxes in general, quite similar to the American Revolution: https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution
Another cause was shared with the Russian Revolution: Gradually increasing rights for the hoi polloi that made them acutely aware of the unjustness of the constraints that still existed.
The aristocrats provided the wealth, and the hoi polloi provided the numbers. But in an immortality scenario the aristocrats are being given a privilege, not taxed against it. Or if this immortality is available to all, then the old immortals may outnumber the youth.
In the case of France, an emperor replaced a king. In the case of Russia, a dictator replaced a czar. In the US the previously existing legislatures continued ruling, but without oversight.
When I was looking this up I discovered that Hitler did, apparently, have blue eyes.
> if the immortals actually made life shitter for everyone else, you can assume they would be French Revolution'd without too much overture.
The most proximate cause of the French Revolution was a tax on the aristocratic classes, and increased taxes in general, quite similar to the American Revolution: https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution
Another cause was shared with the Russian Revolution: Gradually increasing rights for the hoi polloi that made them acutely aware of the unjustness of the constraints that still existed.
The aristocrats provided the wealth, and the hoi polloi provided the numbers. But in an immortality scenario the aristocrats are being given a privilege, not taxed against it. Or if this immortality is available to all, then the old immortals may outnumber the youth.
In the case of France, an emperor replaced a king. In the case of Russia, a dictator replaced a czar. In the US the previously existing legislatures continued ruling, but without oversight.
Is it really a death wish? Immortality being a curse is a common trope. Hell, even surviving to 90 or 100 can be its own kind of hell for those whose life is being unnaturally preserved for the sake of those who can't or won't let go.
> Immortality being a curse is a common trope.
The silliness of the trope starts with the notion that once you have gone immortal you can't go back. Somehow you are stuck yearning for the sweet release of death.
In reality life is extremely fragile, maintaining the right conditions to support it requires constant effort. There is no reason to think that any future scientific advance will alter this fundamental fact.
Therefore it is highly likely that whoever achieves practical immortality will be also able to undo their "curse" by simply discontinuing whatever practice keeps them alive.
Also, "forever" doesn't happen all at once. Give me immortality, and then check in with me yearly if I still want it. I will let you know once I'm over it.
The silliness of the trope starts with the notion that once you have gone immortal you can't go back. Somehow you are stuck yearning for the sweet release of death.
In reality life is extremely fragile, maintaining the right conditions to support it requires constant effort. There is no reason to think that any future scientific advance will alter this fundamental fact.
Therefore it is highly likely that whoever achieves practical immortality will be also able to undo their "curse" by simply discontinuing whatever practice keeps them alive.
Also, "forever" doesn't happen all at once. Give me immortality, and then check in with me yearly if I still want it. I will let you know once I'm over it.
You have substituted immortality with being able to live as long as you want. Fair enough, but you’re just changing the premise. The word immortality has a specific meaning, even if you don’t like what it is.
> Fair enough, but you’re just changing the premise.
Because the "true and cursed" immortality is not on offer. Spending resources to extend our life is a possibility. Spending resources to better understand what aging is and how to extend our youth is. Getting cursed with immortality is not in the cards.
> The word immortality has a specific meaning, even if you don’t like what it is.
Ok. You can have your discussion about your fantasy concepts. They are fun! What should we discuss next? How many duck sized horses we would fight just to avoid being cursed with true immortality? It is all good with me as long as we don't try to draw real world conclusions from said fantasies.
Because the "true and cursed" immortality is not on offer. Spending resources to extend our life is a possibility. Spending resources to better understand what aging is and how to extend our youth is. Getting cursed with immortality is not in the cards.
> The word immortality has a specific meaning, even if you don’t like what it is.
Ok. You can have your discussion about your fantasy concepts. They are fun! What should we discuss next? How many duck sized horses we would fight just to avoid being cursed with true immortality? It is all good with me as long as we don't try to draw real world conclusions from said fantasies.
There are many definitions of immortality. The Oxford definition is "the ability to live forever; eternal life."
That seems to jive with GC's point. The definition is the ability to live forever, not the requirement to live forever.
That seems to jive with GC's point. The definition is the ability to live forever, not the requirement to live forever.
>Give me immortality, and then check in with me yearly if I still want it. I will let you know once I'm over it.
I like the rational attitude. Like you pointed out, somehow people think it's some magic portion that you drink without ever the possibility of going back to being mortal.
I like the rational attitude. Like you pointed out, somehow people think it's some magic portion that you drink without ever the possibility of going back to being mortal.
> Also, "forever" doesn't happen all at once. Give me immortality, and then check in with me yearly if I still want it. I will let you know once I'm over it.
Immortality as a subscription service—brilliant!
Immortality as a subscription service—brilliant!
Also kind of a trope. It's a minor plot point in Sandman. Morpheus and someone else were arguing about immortality and how eventually we would all tire of life. So they grant a random guy immortality for as long as he wanted. Every so often, Morpheus checks up on him to see if he's ready to die yet. And he never is. In good times, he's enjoying it too much. In bad times, all he desires is to change his fortune.
I'm 54 and I can't stand most of people and society now or at least here in what is mainly US/Canada. I can't imagine what it would be like at 100 if I make it that far.
> I can't imagine what it would be like at 100 if I make it that far.
The few elderly I know of who approached that age and were reflective enough told me they just ended up letting go. And they were actually happier.
Being sufficiently well-off is probably helping ;)
The few elderly I know of who approached that age and were reflective enough told me they just ended up letting go. And they were actually happier.
Being sufficiently well-off is probably helping ;)
Is it what you see online or what you see in one on one interactions? I would guess this feeling is mostly based on what you see online. If that's the case, ask yourself if that's useful to feel this way about it.
No or I should say it wasn't in the early days of the Internet and Web people seemed civil. Then it was just online where people seemed aggressive and arrogant. But now I see poor behaviour in real life every day.
People seem to "tribal" and self-centred. People don't hold doors for people, they walk past people struggling like say their hands are full and they drop something but people just walk past not helping them. In stores people walk in front of little old ladies nearly knocking them down. Just a total lack of innate civility.
People seem to "tribal" and self-centred. People don't hold doors for people, they walk past people struggling like say their hands are full and they drop something but people just walk past not helping them. In stores people walk in front of little old ladies nearly knocking them down. Just a total lack of innate civility.
It's a trope because it's silly. Like another trope of being rich being a curse. Usually the trope includes some big tradeoffs for immortality and underestimates brain capacity to forget nearly everything and make up half of the stuff you "rememeber".
> Immortality being a curse is a common trope.
This is one of those cases where one shouldn't generalize from fictional evidence. Immortality as curse is a very lazy trope that breaks down upon casual inspection.
> even surviving to 90 or 100 can be its own kind of hell for those whose life is being unnaturally preserved for the sake of those who can't or won't let go.
That is indeed true, both in fiction and reality, but it's not the kind of immortality that's under discussion. Obviously being forever locked in a state of agony, in a failing body, is something no one wants.
This is one of those cases where one shouldn't generalize from fictional evidence. Immortality as curse is a very lazy trope that breaks down upon casual inspection.
> even surviving to 90 or 100 can be its own kind of hell for those whose life is being unnaturally preserved for the sake of those who can't or won't let go.
That is indeed true, both in fiction and reality, but it's not the kind of immortality that's under discussion. Obviously being forever locked in a state of agony, in a failing body, is something no one wants.
Immortality yes, it is a curse, the option to choose your own time of death, no, it is not a curse.
Thanks for knowing what immortality means.
You get no points for knowing one meaning in a dictionary definition of the word, where it's obvious the discussion is about a different meaning.
That's like saying Rails isn't good scaffolding for a web service, because they're made of steel and are meant for trains.
That's like saying Rails isn't good scaffolding for a web service, because they're made of steel and are meant for trains.
> Really, it's just bewildering to me that having a death wish is considered common-sense, normal viewpoint.
I wonder if being selfless in that sense is not actually the "norm" when we consider most of the people who live and lived. In-between all the ones willing to sacrifice themselves for a descendant, a cause, those with a tightrope life, those who have spiritual beliefs etc.
Most people I know are at ease with their death, which is very different from having a death wish.
I wonder if being selfless in that sense is not actually the "norm" when we consider most of the people who live and lived. In-between all the ones willing to sacrifice themselves for a descendant, a cause, those with a tightrope life, those who have spiritual beliefs etc.
Most people I know are at ease with their death, which is very different from having a death wish.
> Earth's carrying capacity is a problem to be solved
It's not getting solved though, it's getting worse day by day because of climate change making increasingly large amounts of space uninhabitable, soil erosion, the aftereffects of pollution with all kinds of crap (PFAS, microplastics, nitrates from fertilizer runoff, ...) and over-exploitation below replacement levels (e.g. in fish).
> there are many viable solutions that can be executed in parallel, and it doesn't really sound like a big challenge relative to getting life extension working in the first place.
We barely understand how our body works in detail. We know a bit on how to do genetic manipulation, but at the moment no one seriously works on manipulating germ cells out of ethical reason - even something as "simple" as cloning a human is widely seen as unethical, and completely forget about using something like CRISPR to manipulate the genetics of a live human outside of people for whom this is the only chance at getting a few years out of some fatal disease.
> Really, it's just bewildering to me that having a death wish is considered common-sense, normal viewpoint.
Memento mori.
It's not getting solved though, it's getting worse day by day because of climate change making increasingly large amounts of space uninhabitable, soil erosion, the aftereffects of pollution with all kinds of crap (PFAS, microplastics, nitrates from fertilizer runoff, ...) and over-exploitation below replacement levels (e.g. in fish).
> there are many viable solutions that can be executed in parallel, and it doesn't really sound like a big challenge relative to getting life extension working in the first place.
We barely understand how our body works in detail. We know a bit on how to do genetic manipulation, but at the moment no one seriously works on manipulating germ cells out of ethical reason - even something as "simple" as cloning a human is widely seen as unethical, and completely forget about using something like CRISPR to manipulate the genetics of a live human outside of people for whom this is the only chance at getting a few years out of some fatal disease.
> Really, it's just bewildering to me that having a death wish is considered common-sense, normal viewpoint.
Memento mori.
All the problems you describe are problems of biosphere carrying capacity. If technological advancement continued to the point that humans transcended biology, we would no longer need soil or fish, suffer from PFAS or nitrate pollution, etc. Now, I am not suggesting this is any imminent development myself, I only pointing out that it is very often viewed as part of the "problem to be solved".
> If technological advancement continued to the point that humans transcended biology
That's a few decades in the future at least, but biodiversity and climate change is on a way faster scale.
That's the problem with the futurist mindset in a large part of tech culture - we need action now.
That's a few decades in the future at least, but biodiversity and climate change is on a way faster scale.
That's the problem with the futurist mindset in a large part of tech culture - we need action now.
I think you overestimate how common common sense is
And it's not a death wish. I think a lot of us realise that we probably don't offer a net positive to this earth, that our individual existence probably uses more resource than it provides. So technically that means that the earth would be better off without us, but that's not a death wish. We're not saying we're actively going to kill ourselves
And it's not a death wish. I think a lot of us realise that we probably don't offer a net positive to this earth, that our individual existence probably uses more resource than it provides. So technically that means that the earth would be better off without us, but that's not a death wish. We're not saying we're actively going to kill ourselves
> I think a lot of us realise that we probably don't offer a net positive to this earth, that our individual existence probably uses more resource than it provides. So technically that means that the earth would be better off without us, but that's not a death wish.
I don't believe most people go as far as reasoning this way - I was thinking more about internalizing "the natural order of things" / "circle of life" stuff too much.
The kind of thought pattern you described can be, for some, a rational and accurate view of their circumstances. It can also be a sign of depression (especially internalizing the "earth would be better off without me/us" part). It can, unfortunately, be also both.
I don't believe most people go as far as reasoning this way - I was thinking more about internalizing "the natural order of things" / "circle of life" stuff too much.
The kind of thought pattern you described can be, for some, a rational and accurate view of their circumstances. It can also be a sign of depression (especially internalizing the "earth would be better off without me/us" part). It can, unfortunately, be also both.
Using more resources than you provide is not a good indicator that the earth would be better off without you. This accounting strikes me as, let’s say, “uncharitable”.
Hitler was bad for human society even if he pooped enriched uranium every 5 minutes. There are people who provide no resources whatsoever who make the Earth way, way better.
Thinking about a human life’s value in terms of “resources in/resources out” suggests to me that you have little understanding of the true value of humans and human culture.
Hitler was bad for human society even if he pooped enriched uranium every 5 minutes. There are people who provide no resources whatsoever who make the Earth way, way better.
Thinking about a human life’s value in terms of “resources in/resources out” suggests to me that you have little understanding of the true value of humans and human culture.
It seems this fundamentally misunderstands human value. The value of a human is not whether they provide more resources than they consume. Imagine applying this to others, or a government systematically ridding citizens that are net negative. That would be a horrible genocide.
This again reveals the wisdom of very basic biblical truths, like “all men are made in the image of God”. Meaning all humans have value, a special value different from animals and plants
This again reveals the wisdom of very basic biblical truths, like “all men are made in the image of God”. Meaning all humans have value, a special value different from animals and plants
Good point.
We say many altruistic things when we’re happy and healthy.
There’s a great opinion article from a doctor that says people faced with death that come into a hospital usually change their minds about receiving care that would prolong their lives.
I have seen this many times as a caretaker for my own family members.
It’s only at the doorstep of death that we know how we truly feel about death itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/advance-directive...
We say many altruistic things when we’re happy and healthy.
There’s a great opinion article from a doctor that says people faced with death that come into a hospital usually change their minds about receiving care that would prolong their lives.
I have seen this many times as a caretaker for my own family members.
It’s only at the doorstep of death that we know how we truly feel about death itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/advance-directive...
It's probably NOT that uncommon, but modern civilization allows so many creature comforts for the ultra-rich that they feel literally in heaven. They get the best of everything, almost instantly. Luxurious cars, an army of help, private planes, the latest technology, privacy and large mansions, beautiful partners, and the non-stop adulation and drooling over by the public.
It's trivial to develop the god complex with that kind of life and the desire to prolong it as much as possible. They know what they have, and they want to keep it forever. Why hedge on the unproven promise of eternal life if you can live in paradise already?
https://theweek.com/science/the-billionaire-led-quest-for-im...
Not surprisingly, it's the kind of people who, if allowed to eternally accumulate wealth and power, will eventually cause catastrophic damage to humanity if they feel not adored enough. Many don't even need multiple lifetimes do get there.
Wozniak's point of view is very uncommon in the rarefied slice of the population that he inhabits.
It's trivial to develop the god complex with that kind of life and the desire to prolong it as much as possible. They know what they have, and they want to keep it forever. Why hedge on the unproven promise of eternal life if you can live in paradise already?
https://theweek.com/science/the-billionaire-led-quest-for-im...
Not surprisingly, it's the kind of people who, if allowed to eternally accumulate wealth and power, will eventually cause catastrophic damage to humanity if they feel not adored enough. Many don't even need multiple lifetimes do get there.
Wozniak's point of view is very uncommon in the rarefied slice of the population that he inhabits.
> Wozniak's point of view is very uncommon in the rarefied slice of the population that he inhabits.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I don't know if it's universally a common sense standpoint with regard to everyone. Some people have a purpose to provide to their family and leave a legacy; this is a goal that can be fulfilled. But what if your life motive is to learn, create and put your skills to a common good?
If you asked the population if they would want immortality, the common answer wouldn't be "no".
According to surveys your intuition is wrong.
USA:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-...
> Researchers from the university separated respondents into three groups, based on age. One group was younger people, between the ages of 18 and 29, another group of senior citizens whose average age was 72, and a third group made up of individuals whose average age was 88.
18 - 29: 34% Yes, 40% No, 26% unsure
Average age 72: 32% Yes, 43% No, 25% unsure
Average age 88: 24% Yes, 59% No, 17% unsure
> Differences in responses emerged along gender lines as well, with more men saying they would take the pill than women.
And ironically:
> "If a life extension treatment were to become available that effectively stopped ageing, young adults may be likely to use such a treatment to avoid reaching the ages at which older cohorts say they would prefer to live forever," the study determined.
USA:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-...
> Researchers from the university separated respondents into three groups, based on age. One group was younger people, between the ages of 18 and 29, another group of senior citizens whose average age was 72, and a third group made up of individuals whose average age was 88.
18 - 29: 34% Yes, 40% No, 26% unsure
Average age 72: 32% Yes, 43% No, 25% unsure
Average age 88: 24% Yes, 59% No, 17% unsure
> Differences in responses emerged along gender lines as well, with more men saying they would take the pill than women.
And ironically:
> "If a life extension treatment were to become available that effectively stopped ageing, young adults may be likely to use such a treatment to avoid reaching the ages at which older cohorts say they would prefer to live forever," the study determined.
I wonder how many of those people who want immortality currently avoid smoking, drinking, drugs, air pollution, junk food, get long sleep every night and regular exercise - all those things that are much easier than immortality and can meaningfully increase the chances of adding one, two, three decades of quality life.
And then avoid social media, clickbait, ragebait, idling, gossipping, and live in a deliberate and conscious way to make the best use of their time (best according to their own metrics).
(Given that 66% of people are overweight, seeing 59% say they would like immortality suggests there's overlap. Not that I'm preaching, I don't do much of that stuff, and there is argument to want immortality to fritter away on enjoyments and relaxing and that maybe people are unhealthy because they are 'driving it like they stole it' for their limited time - but it's possible to play the finite lifetime cards we're dealt a lot better than than most of us do, without even getting to extremes and maximising things).
And then avoid social media, clickbait, ragebait, idling, gossipping, and live in a deliberate and conscious way to make the best use of their time (best according to their own metrics).
(Given that 66% of people are overweight, seeing 59% say they would like immortality suggests there's overlap. Not that I'm preaching, I don't do much of that stuff, and there is argument to want immortality to fritter away on enjoyments and relaxing and that maybe people are unhealthy because they are 'driving it like they stole it' for their limited time - but it's possible to play the finite lifetime cards we're dealt a lot better than than most of us do, without even getting to extremes and maximising things).
Not sure this is equivalent. Those decades of life are usually worst ones, and merely doubling your lifespan with sacrifice is not equivalent to multiplying it indefinitely.
Handwaving away 15-25% of your adult life with "usually the worst bit" doesn't sit well with me, neither does the "merely" in "merely doubling your lifespan".
Y'know, given that "multiplying it indefinitely" is not actually an available option, whereas not dying at 72 from lung problems from a lifetime of smoking after several years of being nearly housebound then almost chairbound is an available option.
Y'know, given that "multiplying it indefinitely" is not actually an available option, whereas not dying at 72 from lung problems from a lifetime of smoking after several years of being nearly housebound then almost chairbound is an available option.
Is it? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2179928-only-one-in-fiv...
You beat me because I was selecting quotes.
>delusions of grandeur and immortality
Jobs took over his share of that.
Jobs took over his share of that.
why do we have to limit ourselves to earth?
It is like people can't look away and look at billions upon billions of galaxies clusters and could only see the limits of the Earth. The Earth is finite! we can't grow exponentially forever!
It is like people can't look away and look at billions upon billions of galaxies clusters and could only see the limits of the Earth. The Earth is finite! we can't grow exponentially forever!
> we can't grow exponentially forever!
We can't grow exponentially forever in space either. Somehow this gets forgotten.
We can't grow exponentially forever in space either. Somehow this gets forgotten.
O(N^t) > O(t^3), for all N > 1
Something something heat death of the universe.
I do hope that our civilization starts someday putting substantial research funding into moonshot bets to escape this limiting ending.
For example, if we eventually have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, then I hope we put at least a trillion dollars per topic into long-shot research topics such as time travel, the multiverse, FTL travel, methods of creating new universes via an artificial Big Bang, applied theology (trying to find evidence of a God so that we can communicate with them), methods of achieving infinitely positive states of qualia such as something like nirvāṇa, and so on.
Each bet might be 1 in a million - but I'd much rather that we try every possible chance at escaping what we currently see as the inevitable, and not go gentle into that heat death night.
This goal, to break through the wall at the end of the universe, was what Asimov called for in his inspiring short story The Last Question.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
For example, if we eventually have multiple star systems' worth of resources at our disposal, then I hope we put at least a trillion dollars per topic into long-shot research topics such as time travel, the multiverse, FTL travel, methods of creating new universes via an artificial Big Bang, applied theology (trying to find evidence of a God so that we can communicate with them), methods of achieving infinitely positive states of qualia such as something like nirvāṇa, and so on.
Each bet might be 1 in a million - but I'd much rather that we try every possible chance at escaping what we currently see as the inevitable, and not go gentle into that heat death night.
This goal, to break through the wall at the end of the universe, was what Asimov called for in his inspiring short story The Last Question.
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
One in a million FTL and time travel?
No, there's not another tree. We just happen to be rather efficient in dissipating free energy.
No, there's not another tree. We just happen to be rather efficient in dissipating free energy.
Keep in mind that anything is possible if the Cosmological Principle turns out to be false, and if we can travel far enough to escape our local zone.
For example, there might turn out to be particle types which don't exist at all in our zone, but which are force carriers for forces that enable time travel or other violations of causality. We might have evolved in a zone with zero of these particles simply because it's hard for life to evolve in a zone without causality. Our zone might be a life-friendly little bubble beyond which things get truly strange, but where with appropriately designed nanotechnology, we might achieve incredible things we've never before observed, including changing the past or even stepping entirely outside of the fabric of spacetime into someplace with more or fewer spatial dimensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
So, 1 in a million is my approximate a priori estimate of the odds of the Cosmological Principle being false in a useful way.
For a fun example of fiction that takes place in a setting where the Cosmological Principle is false, check out A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. The zone where Earth is situated, and where the laws of physics are the same as in our observed reality, is called the Slow Zone. There are three other types of zones with other laws, called the Beyond, the Transcend, and the Unthinking Depths.
For example, there might turn out to be particle types which don't exist at all in our zone, but which are force carriers for forces that enable time travel or other violations of causality. We might have evolved in a zone with zero of these particles simply because it's hard for life to evolve in a zone without causality. Our zone might be a life-friendly little bubble beyond which things get truly strange, but where with appropriately designed nanotechnology, we might achieve incredible things we've never before observed, including changing the past or even stepping entirely outside of the fabric of spacetime into someplace with more or fewer spatial dimensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
So, 1 in a million is my approximate a priori estimate of the odds of the Cosmological Principle being false in a useful way.
For a fun example of fiction that takes place in a setting where the Cosmological Principle is false, check out A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. The zone where Earth is situated, and where the laws of physics are the same as in our observed reality, is called the Slow Zone. There are three other types of zones with other laws, called the Beyond, the Transcend, and the Unthinking Depths.
Science fiction is great and all, but I'd rate this probability more like the inverse of stupid large numbers brought to us by Knuth's up-arrow notation.
Could be! Your estimate is as valid as mine.
I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who sought to understand their universe without yet having the instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is, without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ), philosophy of knowledge (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds ).
Another similar topic about which we must reason without having yet made any applicable observations is the question of whether our universe is a simulation. If it is, then it is possible that a sufficiently well-constructed prayer (message to the system administrators) could have causal effects.
I suppose that to approach a topic like this, we can reason in the classical-logic manner of the ancient Greeks and others who sought to understand their universe without yet having the instruments to make necessary observations. What I mean is, without our civilization having seen evidence either way yet, the question of what is a good prior probability is only able to be informed through non-empirical means, such as the philosophy of science (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem ), philosophy of knowledge (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ), and theology (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds ).
Another similar topic about which we must reason without having yet made any applicable observations is the question of whether our universe is a simulation. If it is, then it is possible that a sufficiently well-constructed prayer (message to the system administrators) could have causal effects.
Sorry, I can't help but perceive this as intellectual cowardice. "There has to be something that'll make our collective life not as finite and pointless as the evidence we have suggests!".
The two are apples and oranges, by a factor of a billion.
The heat death of the universe is trillions of years off. However even assuming a modest 3% annual growth, humanity runs out of matter in only a few thousand years.
What's nine orders of magnitude between friends? ;)
The heat death of the universe is trillions of years off. However even assuming a modest 3% annual growth, humanity runs out of matter in only a few thousand years.
What's nine orders of magnitude between friends? ;)
You act like we are limiting ourselves to earth on purpose. We're just not there yet.
contrast that to Jobs' "use my private jet to get first dibs on a healthy liver so I can try alternative medicine and die anyway"
I don't know all the specifics of jobs journey but a terminal cancer diagnosis does things to one's mind. My mother took every medical intervention offered her and by the end she was very much wishing she hadn't. Certain techniques the medical field has developed have the effect of really only prolonging the suffering at the very end of life. The whole family including her was begging god to end our suffering, for months.
He had a contained, super-slow growing pancreatic cancer with a high-90s survival rate if he got his pancreas removed.
Instead, he waited years until it had metastasized everywhere and it was too late simply because he couldn't bear the though of someone cutting on him. They then did a far more massive surgery on a fool's errand trying to cut it out of all the places it had gone.
Then he paid off a transplant foundation to get a liver that he definitely shouldn't have gotten meaning someone else died so he could get a transplant then die anyway.
He's quite a contrast to Woz IMO.
Instead, he waited years until it had metastasized everywhere and it was too late simply because he couldn't bear the though of someone cutting on him. They then did a far more massive surgery on a fool's errand trying to cut it out of all the places it had gone.
Then he paid off a transplant foundation to get a liver that he definitely shouldn't have gotten meaning someone else died so he could get a transplant then die anyway.
He's quite a contrast to Woz IMO.
He didn't start with a terminal cancer diagnosis. He ended up with one because he didn't do what he was supposed to do, when he was supposed to do it.
This constant vilification of one of the great figures of tech history is tiresome. Yeah, maybe Steve Jobs was not a great person, but why should constantly overshadow his tremendous successes?
Steve Jobs was a forceful and perhaps disagreeable character, but he is one of the clearest examples of how having relentless drive and taste can change the world. Focus less on the feet of clay and more on the giant.
And not to diminish Wozniak’s tremendous achievements, but Steve Jobs continuously innovated over the course of decades and had a much greater impact on the world.
Steve Jobs was a forceful and perhaps disagreeable character, but he is one of the clearest examples of how having relentless drive and taste can change the world. Focus less on the feet of clay and more on the giant.
And not to diminish Wozniak’s tremendous achievements, but Steve Jobs continuously innovated over the course of decades and had a much greater impact on the world.
It's not about Jobs, its about the life of an anonymous person who would have got that organ but died long ago on the transplant list because he didn't have a private jet. There are other people besides Steve Jobs.
Speedy recovery Steve, you and your hundred trillion dollar brain.
Woz is the almost-forgotten heart of Silicon Valley of days gone by, that has gotten stepped on and almost ruthlessly thrown out.
But we need him. I hope he recovers fully.
But we need him. I hope he recovers fully.
Thrown out? You are clearly unfamiliar with how revered and loved and embraced and honored and respected he is in the Valley. He is one of the actual and proverbial giants upon who’s shoulders most know they stand (except little shitheads like Zuck or Thiel).
Thrown out by who? Steve Jobs?
You're totally right about Woz's legendary status. He is essentially the living embodiment of the hacker ethos.
You're totally right about Woz's legendary status. He is essentially the living embodiment of the hacker ethos.
You don't have to be an apple fan-child to love Woz. He's an engineer's engineer and a wonderful human. Wishing him many more healthy years on this earth.
In 2009 he played a demo of my iphone game at a WWDC party and gave me a business card because I asked. What a human.
Heartbreaking, honestly.
Tbh, hate macs and macOS but I like iPhone (just because I only use a phone to call, text and youtube, and it just works (tm)) but I've been a fan of Woz for as long as I knew about him... and he hasn't changed at all with age. Dude is just awesome and you can tell he loves the tech aspect so much.
Tbh, hate macs and macOS but I like iPhone (just because I only use a phone to call, text and youtube, and it just works (tm)) but I've been a fan of Woz for as long as I knew about him... and he hasn't changed at all with age. Dude is just awesome and you can tell he loves the tech aspect so much.
He's like, the nicest guy :(
Get better soon, Woz. We need you.
I wonder sometimes how Steve Jobs would have ended up had he not met Woz. Would he have started a company within even an order of magnitude of Apple?
I think that without Woz to develop the first two product versions (at exactly the right place & time in history, in a field that Woz had been studying obsessively since childhood), Jobs would have achieved minor success at best.
Perhaps Jobs would become a well-regarded author, or a city council member, or own a franchise of restaurants. Alternatively, his drug use, lack of a useful college degree, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and his many other bad decisions could have led Jobs to end up homeless on the Berkeley streets like so many other hippies from his social circle. He might have died sunburnt and unwashed at age 45 from a heroin overdose, just as much as he might have been successful.
Even if he avoided the catastrophic homelessness and destitution which befell the believers of the "turn on, tune in, drop out" movement that Jobs immersed himself in, I think his success would be no greater than any other successful person whose career takes them to the upper-middle class. Charisma and design sense can only take you so far, and the real lotto ticket was the "right place right time" factor which came from Woz, who was practically born to invent computers at a time when the inventors of computers could change the world.
It was Woz who had dreamt of designing a computer since he was a boy, and who even in middle school taught himself computer architecture and circuit design at the Ph.D. level, and whose technical creativity was once-in-a-generation.
Woz was super lucky that his passion was about something that history had ordained would become the next technology revolution (rather than e.g. having his boyhood passion be in ornithology & birdwatching). For every Woz, there are probably 10 or 20 equally brilliant kids whose passions unfortunately, through luck of the draw and no fault of their own, have very little societal or financial value.
Jobs worked with Woz to get to the point where they had a computer company which Jobs could then grow by 1,000x.
But without Woz, Jobs would probably instead be spending the years in which Apple grew big in a "turn on, tune in, drop out" lifestyle of crashing on friends' couches and doing nothing useful, until eventually there are no more friends' couches to crash on, and he becomes a shaggy and dirty person on the street, trying to get money for drugs.
Perhaps Jobs would become a well-regarded author, or a city council member, or own a franchise of restaurants. Alternatively, his drug use, lack of a useful college degree, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and his many other bad decisions could have led Jobs to end up homeless on the Berkeley streets like so many other hippies from his social circle. He might have died sunburnt and unwashed at age 45 from a heroin overdose, just as much as he might have been successful.
Even if he avoided the catastrophic homelessness and destitution which befell the believers of the "turn on, tune in, drop out" movement that Jobs immersed himself in, I think his success would be no greater than any other successful person whose career takes them to the upper-middle class. Charisma and design sense can only take you so far, and the real lotto ticket was the "right place right time" factor which came from Woz, who was practically born to invent computers at a time when the inventors of computers could change the world.
It was Woz who had dreamt of designing a computer since he was a boy, and who even in middle school taught himself computer architecture and circuit design at the Ph.D. level, and whose technical creativity was once-in-a-generation.
Woz was super lucky that his passion was about something that history had ordained would become the next technology revolution (rather than e.g. having his boyhood passion be in ornithology & birdwatching). For every Woz, there are probably 10 or 20 equally brilliant kids whose passions unfortunately, through luck of the draw and no fault of their own, have very little societal or financial value.
Jobs worked with Woz to get to the point where they had a computer company which Jobs could then grow by 1,000x.
But without Woz, Jobs would probably instead be spending the years in which Apple grew big in a "turn on, tune in, drop out" lifestyle of crashing on friends' couches and doing nothing useful, until eventually there are no more friends' couches to crash on, and he becomes a shaggy and dirty person on the street, trying to get money for drugs.
Steve would have always had the vision and the drive to see it through. My guess is that yes, Jobs would have started a company pretty similar in success to Apple but it probably would have taken him longer.
After Jobs left Apple, he had the ideal conditions to move on with another venture. Next did ok but only survived because Apple bought it. Could Jobs have done even as good as he did with Next without the Apple II/Apple IPO reputational boost Woz gave him?
Many years ago, I used to go to his website and he had a live cam of his home. I think he had a couple pointed zoom cameras in his house and outside of his house so he can look around. It was always cool seeing him walk by or doing something in front of the camera. It was almost like Justin TV but in the early 2000s.
Love Steve. I had the pleasure of meeting him at a conference once. I wonder if Mexico City's historically bad air pollution had something to do with it. Apparently the oxygen levels are 25% lower in the city, due to its high altitude, making the air pollution worse. Carbon-based fuels also do not combust completely.
Best wishes to Woz and family. He is one of my heroes who started the personal computer industry.
I quote him "Never trust a computer that you can't throw out a window."
I quote him "Never trust a computer that you can't throw out a window."
Does anyone know how dangerous a stroke is at his age? Side note, but why do older people have strokes so more often? Young people have blood clots too.
I had a TIA(mini-stroke) a few years ago in my early 20s.
From what I understand: strokes are not more dangerous with age, but are much more likely to happen as you age.
I was told that the the risk factor is a matter of how quickly the stroke is identified and how quickly you are able to receive medical care after the onset. Faster response == less time for brain matter to die due lack of blood.
From what I understand: strokes are not more dangerous with age, but are much more likely to happen as you age.
I was told that the the risk factor is a matter of how quickly the stroke is identified and how quickly you are able to receive medical care after the onset. Faster response == less time for brain matter to die due lack of blood.
If someone you know is showing signs of a stroke (see https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/signs_symptoms.htm), get them to the hospital right away. Time is of the essence. Once you're there, don't let overworked personnel ignore them. My mother recently had a stroke. She had absolutely clear, textbook symptoms. She got to the hospital by ambulance right away, but busy doctors and nurses sent her home after two days, saying that she hadn't had a stroke because it didn't show up on an MRI. That night, she fell, broke her pelvis, and returned to the hospital. She waited over twenty hours to see a neurologist, who immediately recognized the signs, and declared that she had had a stroke. True treatment only began then. A second MRI confirmed that diagnosis.
Triage isn't always accurate, especially in overworked emergency rooms.
Triage isn't always accurate, especially in overworked emergency rooms.
[deleted]
Wow, that sounds like third-world kind of treatment. I would consider suing. Sorry that your mom had to go through this.
>that sounds like third-world kind of treatment
You wish you had third-world medical treatment, though.
Having been many times to hospitals in several 1st world countries AND several 3rd world countries, I do not find the former much better than the latter and the 10x-100x price markup is hard to ignore.
You wish you had third-world medical treatment, though.
Having been many times to hospitals in several 1st world countries AND several 3rd world countries, I do not find the former much better than the latter and the 10x-100x price markup is hard to ignore.
Ya, I'm guessing you would actually get better care in a country like Thailand, the Phillippinnes, India, or China. It might make more sense to retire in a LCOL place with good affordable healthcare rather than rely on Medicare. Heck, just get a good policy with evac to the USA if anything major happens you can't handle out of pocket (and at that point, it is probably cancer or something anyways). As I get older, it becomes more appealing to consider.
I had private insurance in China and it was wonderful. I could get an appointment quickly for whatever, the waiting room was really plushy, the deductibles were like 100-400 kuai, mostly the former. The biggest problem is that private insurance in China has a payout limit (around $100k/year for the policy Microsoft gave me)...which...well...whatever.
I had private insurance in China and it was wonderful. I could get an appointment quickly for whatever, the waiting room was really plushy, the deductibles were like 100-400 kuai, mostly the former. The biggest problem is that private insurance in China has a payout limit (around $100k/year for the policy Microsoft gave me)...which...well...whatever.
Hospitals in Thailand are actually pretty awesome. I received surgery in Thailand and spent a week in the hospital recovering.
The hospital was amazing and like nothing I’ve seen in Western Europe. Granted it was a private hospital but the people there were almost uniformly Thai.
Thailand is surprisingly economically strong. I don’t think it’s a third world country.
The hospital was amazing and like nothing I’ve seen in Western Europe. Granted it was a private hospital but the people there were almost uniformly Thai.
Thailand is surprisingly economically strong. I don’t think it’s a third world country.
Thailand is upper middle income like Brazil, China, and Mexico. Thailand has see, to have fallen into the middle income trap with Brazil, however.
Fully agree, the quality of private healthcare in the third-world for common conditions and ailments could be even higher than the first. If they are not being stingy with treatment because everything costs a lot and they're understaffed, then they are thinking what to overtreat because it'll bring in the money. Health of course, is just a secondary concern
PS: Btw Rulopotamus-related? (he was a minor celebrity, loved professor in a certain college in some place of this galaxy)
PS: Btw Rulopotamus-related? (he was a minor celebrity, loved professor in a certain college in some place of this galaxy)
Poor triage and dealing with a loved one suffering the consequences of having been placed on the wrong assembly line seem like very relatable parts of American health care.
> Wow, that sounds like third-world kind of treatment.
My first thought was that sounded exactly like here in Canada.
My first thought was that sounded exactly like here in Canada.
Sadly, I was going to say the same thing. I wouldn't even blink an eye if someone local told me this story. I've heard way worse, and I don't know anyone who doesn't have at least one story like this.
As you get older your arteries gradually narrow, a process made even more severe by the buildups of plaque. This is all accelerated by obesity, lack of exercise, and so on. Aging, high blood pressure, and various other factors also causes arteries to weaken, making a rupture even more likely.
All of this is part of the reason I think the 'search for the pill/shot of immortality' in modern times is little different than the search for the pool of immortality in ancient times. Everything breaks down over time and so to solve this, we'd need to fix everything, when we yet struggle to truly fix even a single thing.
All of this is part of the reason I think the 'search for the pill/shot of immortality' in modern times is little different than the search for the pool of immortality in ancient times. Everything breaks down over time and so to solve this, we'd need to fix everything, when we yet struggle to truly fix even a single thing.
Not a doctor but plenty of stroke-suffering family members
Strokes at any age are incredibly dangerous
Most strokes occur at advanced age because circulation decreases (at least that’s my understanding)
Strokes at any age are incredibly dangerous
Most strokes occur at advanced age because circulation decreases (at least that’s my understanding)
There are also hemorrhagic strokes aka: brain bleeds. I had a non-traumatic hemorrhagic stroke at 40. That fuckin sucked. It still sucks 2 years later, but I’m so grateful for where I’m at. Losing one’s ability to speak coherently, at midlife, is a stark reminder…everyone is only temporarily abled.
Disabled is the only minority group you can join by accident
> Side note, but why do older people have strokes so more often?
In short, your circulatory system gets old and rusty and either bursts or gets blocked. If you manage to avoid CVD, heart disease, and cancer then a stroke is the next problem.
In short, your circulatory system gets old and rusty and either bursts or gets blocked. If you manage to avoid CVD, heart disease, and cancer then a stroke is the next problem.
Aside from the risk of age, he had documented memory issues after his airplane crash in 1981, i don't know if that makes him more or less vulnerable during a stroke, but I'd be worried for sure.
I think cause is a big predictor.
If he hit his head/had trauma to his kneck, that's one thing. Clogged arteries are another.
If he hit his head/had trauma to his kneck, that's one thing. Clogged arteries are another.
Hats off to the one guy allowed to call himself The Woz. Without him, Apple Computer wouldn't have made it off the ground. Jobs may have had some business or marketing acumen but the brains was all Wozniak.
May his recovery go well and there be no long term damage.
May his recovery go well and there be no long term damage.
Just want to add to the positive voices wishing for Woz’s speedy recovery.
Get well soon Woz!
[deleted]
It's crazy that Jobs passed over 12 years ago already
It's crazier that Dennis Richie passed right around the same time as Jobs, and didn't get any of the fanfare, despite having far more meaningful contributions to the field (to say the least), while being a humble, decent, human being.
Even being in tech I only somewhat know about him. Jobs was a larger than life figure that average people knew.
The age gap explains a lot of difference for me. I expected it with Douglas Adams. They should make a big deal about it when someone passes at such a young age. (And 70 is also young)
However, it was still too much. If Jobs' passing got 100x the attention, maybe it should have only been 10x.
However, it was still too much. If Jobs' passing got 100x the attention, maybe it should have only been 10x.
Oddly, John McCarthy died within the same few days too, if I recall correctly.
Ironic that Woz has a stroke and one of the first comments is an unrelated comment about Steve Jobs.
How is that ironic?
Not ironic, maybe inappropriate, especially if his health is rapidly declining.
Since I believe, and really want to believe, he's got a lot of good years ahead of him, I'm glad to see people speaking freely.
Since I believe, and really want to believe, he's got a lot of good years ahead of him, I'm glad to see people speaking freely.
No one knows for, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t irony.
Jobs had a stroke too… a stroke of good luck, when he met Woz
Woz was lucky to meet Jobs, too
Why? Woz was happy working for HP and would have had a great career and still would have built computers. He might not have ended up super rich, but I am guessing that doesn't really matter to him.
Would have been interesting if HP had produced the Apple II and ushered in the personal computing era.
But if HP had been interested in doing so, then Woz might have stayed there to begin with.
But if HP had been interested in doing so, then Woz might have stayed there to begin with.
Seems like an exceptional figure. Technical genius. Strong sense of justice, and willing to to make personal sacrifice to help others get a more just outcome. All-around positive figure who delights in bringing happiness to others.
I don't have any personal connection to him, but I'm a fan.