![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
the s in ‘scrap’ is silent
the s in ‘scrap’ is silent
Save $46 billion and have musk leave? Thats win-win if I’ve ever seen it.
Unless the casino is doing something illegal, it’s really not their decision to make. If they don’t want to subsidize them, all they’d have to do is be transparent and fair in their pricing. They way CF handled it instead just seems unprofessional and deceitful.
The algorithm team must have been working overtime to get passable results with 85% of the data missing!
Also, it must feel absolutely horrifying to hear Neuralink decline a surgery to fix your implant. I guess they’re still used to the “try, fail, abandon” strategy from their animal tests?
I don’t think your distinction makes sense.
You’re saying most mental health/suicide cases have hope, and thants probably true! But the article wasn’t “every suicidal person granted euthanasia approval”, it was approved for one very extreme case of mental suffering with no indication of improving. That would be like saying “most cases of pain still have hope”. Yes exactly, they do, but there are rare, chronic cases where euthanasia may be a valid option, right? And just as much as suicidality is just ‘a symptom of something’ else, isn’t pain also just a symptom of something else?
And obviously we should help suicidal people to improve their mental health, but in her case she has been struggling since childhood with no indication of improvement. So how was this “the wrong decision” for her?
“I’m depressed and want to take my life. I’ve been struggling since my childhood and in 10 years of different kinds of treatments, nothing worked.”
“Have you tried jumping out of a plane with one of those flying squirrel things?”
“Oh wow, that was it, that fixed it! Thanks!” /s
Have you read the article?
Under Dutch law, to be eligible for an assisted death, a person must be experiencing “unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement”. They must be fully informed and competent to take such a decision.
After 10 years, there was “nothing left” in terms of treatment. “I knew I couldn’t cope with the way I live now.”
In the three and a half years this has taken, I’ve never hesitated about my decision.
How is this a temporary and overcomable problem? It seems clear that it is not temporary and no kind of treatment worked for her. As per the law, there must be unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement, and during the multiple stages of this process, apparently no one came to the conclusion that that wasn’t the case for her. So how can you make that assessment?
I selfhosted Invidious a while back, but gave up on it when it stopped working and I couldn’t figure out why. I have no experience with Piped.
I settled on a third alternative, but I don’t want to point too much attention to it because I think it might be flying under Youtubes’ radar at the moment. But let me say this: if you embed a youtube video on a third party site and have it be part of a playlist with only the video in it, you won’t see any ads. so for example I’d be embedding a link like this: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/dQw4w9WgXcQ?playlist=dQw4w9WgXcQ&vq=hd1080&autoplay=1&modestbranding=1&rel=0 on my own page and can then watch it without ads :) if you have any questions, feel free to hit me up.
EDIT: Well, I just got the first ad using this method. So it seems youtube is cracking down on all ad avoidance methods and they found this one too. Only one ad so far, so it doesn’t seem to be as bad as their own site, with (sometimes multiple) ads before almost every video, but I’m sure it’ll happen. Guess Piped/Invidious it is!
“Listen. I just have the best body. My ear did all the healing and it did it so good. The doctors can’t believe it, they say no human has ever healed this fast before.”