guareber8

You've got a bug somewhere. I entered the correct number for today 4 times and the third digit got flipped by the software every single time. I thought I had fat-fingered at first, but I very slowly typed it afterwards. It always switched the 1 to a 0 (which is incorrect, obvs).

That's gotta be VALIS for me.

I was curious and just checked into the librem5.

I am NOT spending $900 on a phone.

The way I'm (currently!) approaching this is by implementing the decision engine in 2 steps separated by an evaluation period. I refer to these to the stakeholders as "user approves" and "user reviews".

Essentially, I first implement the engine with the output being an automated list of 1-click actions (typically a set of links on an email, but could easily be a dashboard button or anything else), so the system default is "detect, but don't do". After an evaluation period of the system actions, we move onto the second part, in which the system performs the actions and produces a log of activity, plus a list of 1-click UNDO actions to the user.

The idea is that a) the system earns trust from the stakeholders due to their direct involvement, b) the system can enjoy some supervised learning from someone other than the dev team and c) worst case, if it never earns enough trust, I've still saved a stakeholder dozens of hours of work sifting through dashboards as opposed to taking a look at a pre-filtered list. A few systems have turned out well enough that they never move from Phase1 while still being considered a massive win.

The windows app works perfectly for me - I'm vpn'd 24/7 and it never crashes. I think it depends on your usage.

What's wrong with consensual cannibalism anyway? It's their life, I don't care if they like human meat or broccoli as long as that doesn't go above the freedoms and rights of another living being.

Shit, I've gone full libertarian now.

Ok that makes more sense. I also agree with you in that I don't believe it's surprising, but I think it's for entirely different reasons. Mine are rooted in my skepticism about the capacity for critical thinking in the general population.

By that reasoning, then gun ownership should be completely banned anywhere, to prevent self defense justifications in what are now legal scenarios. Surely, you'd support such a law change as well?

Now reverse it, would you want to force someone you care about to waste their life caring for you without any quality of life?

One gives you a choice, the other one doesn't. If you want to prevent abuse, make it difficult in the law. Restrict it to advanced directives, require a psychological assessment, etc.

I disagree with your logic: the fact that there are (even possibly a majority!) of cases when not wanting to live as long as possible is the result of a pathology, it doesn't negate that there are perfectly sane people who do not want to prolongue their life. Just one such case is enough to make their statement accurate - I don't think he generalised those willing to die, but those unwilling to accept that as their choice. Based exclusively on my experience, that is a valid generalisation.

And yes, plenty of people have setup advanced directives, DnR's, and other such instructions while fully on their capacities, and that doesn't require them being in a pathological or even emotional state. It can easily be caused by having a standard of quality of life they intend to maintain.