Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
No one knows him. He just makes really good stuff and that won't continue.bafflewaffle said:
It's like if everyone involved in GAF died before it ever came out. We'd never know what we missed out on.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Steve Jobs resigns as CEO of Apple
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
- Status
It's like if everyone involved in GAF died before it ever came out. We'd never know what we missed out on.
bafflewaffle said:
Because people can feel for strangers, like seeing a photo of some stranger suffering.
Because Apple has defined modern product aesthetics.
Because Apple & Steve had an incredible storybook-like history where the prodigal son is cast out, and returns to bring the kingdom to prominence.
This will be one of the long lasing corporate legends of our time.
StopMakingSense
Member
Triumph of the Nerds was an old three-part PBS special that actually has a really good history of those days. I think it's still up on YouTube.Canadian Psycho said:
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
You have no idea what he did or had wrong with him.DiscoJer said:
bafflewaffle
Member
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
hsukardi said:
I guess so. it will be interesting how apple does without him. I have lots of products that made my life easier, but I dunno the name of the people who made them or if they are alive.
Spokker
Member
That's sort of the idea. He believes the circumstances were dubious but since he doesn't know the whole story he doesn't come out with a stronger opinion.Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
http://www.slate.com/id/2281668/
I think he had the money to afford a higher standard of care. I don't think he did anything illegal, he could simply afford to do it. I don't blame him one bit.
Sye d'Burns
Member
Spokker said:
That disgrace of an article said:
What a disgusting piece of trash! Who needs death panels when you have Slate?
Seraphinianus
Banned
if that were my long lost dad, i would not respond. and if I were steve jobs, i'd either not read articles or I'd read and laugh at them because i'm still steve jobs and they're not
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
I dunno.
I believe the double-listing practice is unfair and that it should be reformed immediately--among other reforms to organ donation which I posted in a recent thread on the subject--so I absolutely understand why people would be angry about it.
On the other hand, I don't think it makes sense to begrudge individual people doing the best they can, including gaming the system, to save their own lives. That happens frequently. People get approvals for off-label usages of drugs, get put into clinical trials, fly abroad for better or different treatment options. Sometimes people are able to game the system using money, other times they do so using personal connections. Ultimately I can't blame them. I'd do it. I'd do it for my family members. I'd do it for my friends.
There was a similar but very different case a number of years ago in the US Military. A soldier had fundraised through his local church to buy body armor that was vastly superior to the old junky flak jacket he was given through the military. Buying that body armor would almost certainly improve his chances of survival. On the other hand, most soldiers do not have access to improved protection. The ideal thing would be if the military was able to provide the best protection for everyone, and I think there are a number of relatively easy ways to reform spending priorities to make that possible, but in the mean time, someone used money to improve their chances of survival. It was divisive and I think in the end he was ordered not to use the armor. Although there were other concerns about equipment standards and approval processes, the major issues was about the ethics of gaming the system that way.
So, I guess personally I understand why people are upset by this kind of stuff, especially in the US where this one of very many examples where the quality/availability of medical care for the average person is vastly substandard compared to the quality/availability of medical care for the rich. I don't share the shrillness of their tone, and I'd do it myself personally, but I get it.
MrHicks said:
All you need to do is actually read the article that was posted in the conversation you just participated in, and then you'll know whether or not it "really happened".
milanbaros
Member?
How can someone with pancreatic cancer receive an organ donor transplant? That cancer takes no prisoners and will kill 95% in 5 years. Am I misunderstanding it? If so, can someone correct me please.
Stumpokapow said:
so he did
as normal people can't afford doing this whole multiple waiting list BS
some "normal" person got fucked out of an organ cause steve jumped in to compete for it basically
a dick move beyond words
he must know he indirectly killed a person with this shit
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
MrHicks said:
I think this is a pretty silly way to view it. Every time one person gets an organ, another person doesn't get an organ. And yet everyone wants their doctor to be as aggressive as possible in terms of fighting for them at transplant board hearings to get them listed. The difference between a doctor fighting hard for you and a doctor doing the bare minimum is huge.
One of my family members works in medicine. Actually, in oncology (cancer studies). S/he issues recommendations for treatment courses for patients. S/he gets insane scenarios, like an 88 year old who needs an organ transplant which has a 10% chance of prolonging the patient's life by 6 months. I'm not saying s/he acts as judge and jury, because obviously you fight hard for every patient you have, but certainly there are cases where you go above and beyond and fight tooth and nail to secure the transplant or compassionate rates for drugs or offlabel usage of drugs and make desperate calls in the middle of the night to some bureaucrat half a world away to get the wheels moving. An 88 year old who needs a transplant that gives a 10% chance of prolonging the life for 6 months is not one of those cases. A kid who needs a transplant that gives an 80% chance of prolonging the life for 20+ years is one of those cases. So the system is already unfair. It already makes judgments. It already condemns someone to death to save someone else.
A friend of mine had a brother who got a heart transplant at age 8. I'm not American so we don't have this stupid-ass double-listing thing to contend with. But anyway, his brother got a heart transplant. Because there is a heart shortage, it's almost guaranteed that someone else died when he got the heart transplant. Last year, he died at age 19, so he ended up getting 11 years out of the transplant. Not sure if that's considered a success for a heart transplant or not.
Maybe the kid who would have gotten the heart way back then if David didn't would have gotten less time. Maybe more time. Maybe he would have become a famous scientist. Maybe he would have become a career criminal. I have no idea. But he didn't get the heart. Maybe he got another heart later, maybe he died. If he got another heart later, maybe some other kid ended up dying. That's the ballgame. Until we resolve the organ shortage, that's always going to be the ballgame--receiving a transplant means killing someone else.
So the question isn't "Is it a dick move to get a transplant?"--getting a transplant will inherently cause suffering to someone else. The question is "How far would you want your doctor to go for you if you needed one?" and "How far would you be willing to go if you needed one?" and "If the difference between you living and dying was spending a little money, would you spend it?".
In this case, there's a broken system. There's a system that makes the difference between living or dying taking a few plane flights and a few days off work. That's not something everyone is a position to do. That's the source of the problem. Would you save your own life knowing not everyone can save theirs?
- Status