Every few weeks a focus group comes up with a mantra or slogan and the media blasts it like it's the new Justin Beiber track. The current mantra is "SEPARATING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS", which you're not supposed to think too deeply about (is it inherently a bad thing? Not if we like CPS. Not if 'asylum seekers' are known to be kidnapping other people's children so that they can accompany a minor into the country. Not if putting adults and children in the same facility is going to lead to horrible abuse.)
You didn't care before this dumb slogan came out, and in a few weeks when the next one comes out (probably something about Russia), you'll stop caring again.
You must mean political lecturing, because 'discussion' implies more than one side, which means hearing from more than one side, which means not censoring or aggressively punishing voices apart from one side, which means "giving a platform to hate". Where 'hate' is one them magical words that is taken literally and figuratively at the same time, whichever is tactically convenient.
No, you halfwit, a series of unfortunate personal experiences are never going to overturn statistics. If very few people have a leg bitten off by a shark, but then I regrettably lose a leg to a shark, it's still the case that very people have a leg bitten off by a shark, and I can still reason from there.
And before the 1980s, people were medicated into living like zombies. There might be a cycle of skepticism and liberalism, but what what hasn't changed is that doctors can't feel your pain for you, and they can't know where the medication goes after they prescribe it.
Both of these are technical problems.
As for where it's more desirable to be on the cycle, in a climate of skepticism you can at least argue strenuously that you really, really need it. You can improve your own situation, by your own power. In a climate of liberalism we just have to hope that someone will notice and intervene on behalf of someone killing himself with drugs. One of these climates will result in an excess of pain; the other will result in an excess of death. Since neither is desirable, I suggest you focus on technical solutions rather than rabble-rousing to advance the cycle.
> You think horrifyingly painful medical conditions are extremely rare
Yes. In particular, they are much less of a concern than the epidemic of people killing themselves with opiates. This is so blatantly the case that I see this piece as simply axe-grinding of a certain agenda. The author is distressed and annoyed that sympathy is going towards this suicidal population. The author wants to direct your sympathy towards people like this guy.
And this guy's problem is not 'pain'. There's medicine for that. This guy's problem is that doctors are skeptical of his pain. And that is way, way, down the totem poll of things I care about, vs. an entire population group killing itself by whatever means are handy.
When I was eight I was worried about people not believing that I was really sick.
I'd rather be fired by a machine than fired by a database. In this guy's case, everyone of importance was on his side, it was just a technical matter to get the situation resolved in his favor.
In my case, there was a decision that employees like me would be paid out of the server budget. And then a subsequent decision came down: fire the employees that are getting paid out of the server budget! Of my department, regardless of how well we did our jobs, regardless of pay, regardless of length of employment, some of us had the 'paid like a server' checkbox checked and some of us didn't. The ones that didn't were kept on.
"Fortunately, that crying kid was then led back to his home country, where they were very nice to him. Our country was just too mean and racist for him--really, it would've been an unkind act to let more like him come here.
A pity we'll miss out on all those Einsteins, but at least we have still have global trade, eh? In the meantime, go to school where you, by totally unrelated coincidence, don't have to be constantly guarded by police due to MS-13 death threats."
I want my descendants to have at least a minimally functional civilization. Dramatic (staged) pictures of dead children don't change that. A single border agent being meeeeeeeeaean to chhiiiiiiiildren doesn't change that.
The immigration debate hasn't caught up to the maturity of the gun control debate, where the left is at least no longer (really) surprised when nobody changes their minds after a school shooting. But it'll get there. Once people realize where the butter is on their bread (or where the cyanide is on the bread), you're not going to change their minds with Hollywood productions and media campaigns.
"Oh, my insignificant family life is ruined, but at least I still have options when it comes to a fulfilling and meaningful career!"
"Oh, I have cancer. But at least I'll be saving money on haircuts soon!"
... not quite good enough.
"Going on an air trip with your family of four? Well, if you divert your attention to handling four parachutes, you're more likely to make a mistake, so you'd better just prepare one parachute just your yourself. That way, when the plane's in its terminal dive, you can abandon your family to their deaths and make it out alive."
Something more like that, although that's absurd.
Your view of the situation is inverted and immoral. A relationship is what might actually make life worth living for you. Your skills are how you get a job, and "ten years of home-making" just means that your lonely, pathetic existence, post-relationship, has a few less luxuries in it.
Google manipulates its results in a variety of ways. The end result is that if you and your networked peers aren't already searching for things related to Dragonfly BSD, then you're less likely to find it, because Google will be 'helpfully' biasing your search towards other stuff.
Why do you trust it? You got into a car on an arranged deal and the driver immediately wants to back out of it--this is already a shady situation. Why do you think he'll drive you anywhere after he gets the $10? Why do you think he won't charge you for the trip on top of the $10 after alerting Uber to their own GPS records that show your phone and his car taking you to the destination you said you wanted to go to?
I don't believe you. No offense, but it's easier to learn that the Earth is flat, or that a place called 'Australia' exists, or that reality is entirely a consensus affair and that strenuous wishing can change it, than it is to learn that Uber is easy to contact. Some lies people don't bother spreading.
If you lucked out and found that your specific issue had a UI entry in the app, that's not the same thing as being able to explain a situation to a human and have that human do the (paid, drudge) work of wading through obscure interfaces to find the button that fixes a given problem.
How? Uber is a current-year tech company. Like Google, there technically is a support line that technically exists, but just forget about it.
I called Uber 10 times, in Houston. Got scammed 5 times. Part of the "the driver just keeps driving and never acknowledges letting you out of the car" scam is that the app takes the same approach to "uh, I'm not in the car anymore" as it does to "uh, I would like to complain to Uber". (The way to say that the ride has ended is to cancel the trip, an operation that feels like you're trying to scam the driver, so an honest person will avoid doing that while searching for the nonexistent "the ride has ended" UI.)
4/5 scams: the driver goes past your position and then waits a mile down the road to pick you up. The moment the driver was near, Uber switches to "ok go get in the car" mode. It never switches out of it. If you cancel, rather than hike an unreasonable distance to catch the car that deliberately drove past you, then Uber charges you $5.
At the type level, nothing changes between the first program and the second. At the level of sorts and refinements, ATS2 is given more information in the second program so it's able to turn the two noted error conditions into compile time errors, when in first program they could only be runtime errors.
I haven't heard anything bad about Hongwei Xi. Who are these ill-regarded researchers?
Every few weeks a focus group comes up with a mantra or slogan and the media blasts it like it's the new Justin Beiber track. The current mantra is "SEPARATING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS", which you're not supposed to think too deeply about (is it inherently a bad thing? Not if we like CPS. Not if 'asylum seekers' are known to be kidnapping other people's children so that they can accompany a minor into the country. Not if putting adults and children in the same facility is going to lead to horrible abuse.)
You didn't care before this dumb slogan came out, and in a few weeks when the next one comes out (probably something about Russia), you'll stop caring again.