pigbucket

Some practical stuff to consider (not prescriptions), some of which is more relevant in case of advanced disease, and some of which may save you time or headaches in the long run, and some of which will just seem trite and obvious:

1.Second opinion regarding treatment protocol (especially for second line treatment or beyond, where things tend to be a bit less settled) 2. Genetic testing that looks for treatable anomalies. (e.g., FoundationOne) 3. Disabled parking placard (if your country has this) 4. DNR. (Do not resucitate order) 5. Power of Attorney (for matters both medical and financial) Treat anxiety/depression. (Remeron, for example, helps with anxiety, depression, sleep, and appetite) 6. Protect patient from misinformation 7. Prophylactic treatment of pain 8. Prophylactic treatment of nausea 9. Prophylactic treatment of constipation (stool softeners are not always enough) 10. Always request STAT orders from doctors (to reduce time spent waiting around for tests and for test results) 11. Grab rails/ support rails for bathroom/shower + shower chair + walker 12. If relevant: consider upgrading medical insurance during open enrollment period. 13. Will. 14. TV for bedroom. 15. Make sure bed is as comfortable as possible. 16. Write down questions for oncologist prior to appointment. 17. Protect patient as much as possible from idea that she is burden, from natural expressions of impatience or frustration, from arguments etc (since these can have medical implications in terms of willingness to endure necessary treatment) 18. Caretaker needs to be taken care of too. 18. Avoid delays in treatment as much as possible. 19. Vaccinate against flu and covid

As discussed in Bertrand Russell’s If the Title is a Question, Is the Answer No?

Teachers consider the practice you describe (paying someone to spruce up an essay) cheating, but it's not clear that that is the kind of service that OP's site offers. Many teachers also encourage students to get critical feedback on their essays, and so they should. Many professional and academic writers seek out the same kind of feedback. I share your desire for the democratization of online education (that's the point of essayjudge) but there are so many sites that appeal to the baser instincts of struggling or just lazy students (selling pre-written or custom written essays) that I think any site that provides legitimate feedback to students, even if it's for a modest fee, should be welcomed.

This is why I love HN. See something that blows my mind. Read comments. Meh. (When I say "love," you know I mean "hate" right?)

This is a rare and wonderful eulogy. We can nitpick over the details of Fry's grasp of the Apple way, but today it is probably better just to appreciate what Fry gets right about the phenomenon of Steve Jobs. I think one thing he gets right, the thing in any case of most importance to me, is the attitude that Jobs brought to the things he did. The phrase "insanely great" has been knocking about in my brain as a kind of touchstone for that attitude since I first heard it used of the Mac in 84. I was a kid, but the phrase stuck with me, like the voice of conscience, becoming a constant challenge to do better. Beyond the macs and the pods and the phones and the pads, what I feel most grateful to Jobs for is the fact that he supplanted the old clarion cry "good is not good enough" with the much more powerful idea: "great is not great enough." There are other powerful ideas, including the antonymous "Just ship it!" Perhaps the challenge of living well and doing good is to somehow respond to the imperatives implied by both ideas. "Just ship it!" is a useful antidote for the procrastinating and hesitating conscience, but the romantic in me appreciates more the restraints placed on whatever forces lead us to accept mediocrity by having the ideal of the insanely great held before us the proper measure of human achievement.

>Honestly, should the consulting thing confuse or worry anyone?

I think the author did a pretty good job of explaining why she is worried, and while your two points are compelling, neither really addresses that explanation. You've got people who wanted to be artists, or public servants, or writers, or filmmakers, or non-profit workers, giving up their dreams for the sake of the security offered seductively by professional recruiters. That's a trade off for them, and perhaps liable to elicit a general shrug, but it's hardly a radical position to view so many making that trade off as potentially a loss for society or, say, humanity. Maybe the Shakespeares of this world always end up being Shakespeares. But maybe every once in a while they end up in finance or consultancy. I think it's fine that they have to freedom to do that. I think it's a shame that so much of the risk is on the side of "I'm going to be the next Shakespeare."

I recognize that this is a soundbite version of recent history and tangential to the main point of the article, but just for the sake of contrarianism: Google is the company that pulled out of China in opposition to government-sponsored censorship; Amazon is the company that cut Wikileaks loose in response to government-requested censorship. There's more to judging a company's "interestingness" than its apparent antipathy to elitism.

Your comment was looking a little grey under the collar when I read it, which I think raises the irony to which you allude to another level.

I really like your comment, but I don't think we should judge an odd philosophy on the basis of one of its most banal articulations. The article belongs to a genre with a pretty decent tradition, but its relation to that tradition is derivative in the worst sense (in fact, it's at least a second derivative, so to speak, rehashing an already bastardized rehashing of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). Every age diagnoses the malaise of the age, but not every age does it equally well. One problem with the modern era is that we don't have a Kierkegaard or Nietzsche to write our critiques of average modes of existence.

I like the concept but I think it's missing something to get the user interested in the first place. HN has content I like from people I don't know. Twitter has random soundbites from people I can choose to follow. It looks like your app drops the interesting content part of the social-networking thing and the interesting tweeter part of the twitter soundbite machine so I end up being asked to be interested in completely random soundbites from completely random people. The example of the leaderboard on your post would be an unfortunately accurate prediction of the kind of content I'd expect. You really should try to get more interesting content on your sample leaderboard.

1. Maybe I'd be more interested if I knew or in some way could identify with the people sharing quotes. So what about names being visible. Or:

2. Maybe I'd be more interested still if there was a way to filter by group. Christians might be interested in random quotes from other self-styled Christians. Atheists might be interested in god-debunking soundbites. Technophiles might be interested in "android v. apple" slugfests. And so on.

3. Maybe I'd also be interested if event-specific or news-specific quote voting were possible. E.g., I'm at a baseball game and I can follow people from all over the park sharing observations about players and hotdogs. Or there's an earthquake, and I can follow stuff about that. In this respect, you'd be doing something that makes Twitter interesting rather than just the thing that makes it boring, and the voting would be a real addition.

Caveat: complete novice here, in awe of people who can so readily conceive and execute an idea like this.

Exactly. In fact, the guy didn't discover that trees branch according to the Fibonacci sequence (which was long known) but rather began his investigation by asking, Why the Fibonacci sequence? Then he hypothesized that it optimized the gathering of sunlight for photosynthesis. Then he tested the hypothesis with a new pv array.