Sure, it may be focused on saving him, but that doesn't mean that what he's doing isn't good for other people too. Getting potential donors (especially in an under-represented group) to sign up for the bone marrow registry is a all around good thing, who cares if they're doing it because Amit got them to? They might end up being able to save someone else's life.
I guess HN doesn't have much experience dealing with trolls. Copy-pasta replies, repetitiveness, lack of rational argument and the _need_ to be contra-norm all point that way. Please, let's stop feeding this and letting it take up half the comment space on this.
Yeah, it appeared like trolling only until he replied to your comment above. That seems to be the first thread he's attempted to apply some logic here.
I'm not sure what part of my comment you're addressing. The only real point I made was that his plight was shameless. I understand if saying that makes people upset, but it doesn't make it less true.
And repeating it doesn't make it any more true. In what sense his is plea for help shameless? Should he simply sit back, do nothing, and hope something works out? It's not like he is taking from others for his own benefit. Indeed as others have pointed out, it's likely that his campaign has benefited others, not only himself.
In what philosophical framework does modesty or even decency come before preservation of one's own life? This isn't Breaking Bad -- making a website and asking for help is pretty well unimpeachable IMO.
He's not morally wrong, I'm saying the nature of what he's doing is shameless. Clearly this is an important issue to him, but he's vastly overestimating his importance to everyone else. If every person with a need had a poster plastered around the city with their name on it, every city would be covered from sidewalk to rooftop. I'm just calling it like I see it.
he's vastly overestimating his importance to everyone else
I think you're vastly underestimating the number of people in the startup community to who he's very important. He's not Steve Jobs, but he's someone a lot of us care about.
As I understand it, this will also help other people. Since the more people who join the registry or donate to it, the higher the chance that some other patient will find a match. If it takes some people plastering the web, so be it. In fact everyone, not just South Asians, should can use this opportunity to get on the registry.
First and foremost, I think this is a good cause,so please don't take this as a negative against the goal.
Second, I have not read the rules for donating/being on the reigstry so I may be jumping the gun and having a preconceived notion that doesn't hold true.
But there's assumption of the number of people who would help someone else if they were found a match as opposed to simply helping out Amit. If they are on the registry and do match someone else are they required to do the donation at that point? Unlike blood donation, the bone marrow is a just in time donation (if I understand it correctly). This puts it in a different category.
Again, I think this is a good idea and I hope those that are putting their names on the registry are doing so for the belief of doing good for all, not just for one.
Not many people have a need for several hours of your time which will literally save their life. Just saying, everyone has needs, but the number of people with needs this urgent is very low (tens of thousands in the US, maybe?).
In any case, take a look at the marrow match site that Amit links; it requires people who send in swabs to commit to donating to any patient that matches, not just Amit. This is probably going to help a lot of people besides just him.
If whatever you are doing works out for you, it would be cool to see the point you are trying to make by commenting on other peoples' life-threatening needs shamelessly.
I did not say that you are cynical. I just said you are shameless.
I don't know you and you more than likely don't know me. But still I feel that I have to respond to you because the way you carry yourself here is in my opinion doing a disservice to yourself, to the community and to your employer.
If you take up a position that is going to be this un-popular you should at least try to do a better job of explaining your reasons why than you have done in this thread.
In principle, you have a point. Before Amit Gupta knew that he had leukemia, he in all likelihood would not have been nearly as motivated to improve the state of the art.
But such is human nature. Strangers are statistics, people are tragedies. We can only relate to that which we ourselves have direct knowledge of, and the second best thing next to that is that someone that we know or care for has direct knowledge of.
That is what makes things personal. And I think that is where you're missing the beat here. Amit Gupta is personal for a large enough number of people here (who likely aren't even in the right demographic to help him) that you are wrong about this being 'shameless'. It would be shameless if none of us had ever heard about Amit Gupta in the first place.
And even though plenty of people here (likely including you, but I can't be sure of that) have never heard of him, lots of people have.
We also have a lot in common with Amit Gupta. We're all either working in the IT business, working on start-ups and we're likely all at risk of being blindsided by a disease like this. Which is typically not on your radar when you're a 20 or 30 something working hard on your startups.
So, just like it isn't proper to talk bad about people on their funeral it isn't proper to piss on those that have landed a very bad lottery ticket indeed and that are currently - with the help of some dedicated friends - trying to change the odds in their favor.
Whether it will work or not is unknowable for now, and even if it does work it will likely be a thing with a very significant impact on the lives of Amit and those near him.
If Amit should die you may come to regret your harsh words here quite a bit.
In the meantime I hope that a match will come up and that Amit will be allright and that this will raise the awareness of how fragile life is, even when it seems as though you're doing just fine.
If one day there will be a website titled andrewmoffatneedsyou.com then I will not hold any of this against you.
> Whether it will work or not is unknowable for now, and even if it does work it will likely be a thing with a very significant impact on the lives of Amit and those near him.
This alludes to my original comment. I hope he continues promoting this kind of thing if it helps him, but for other people, given that he has such a broad reach and lack of modesty. Is that so wrong to say? I know it is unpopular to say, but is it wrong to hope for?
I have no problem with what is being done, just how it is being done. I don't wish Amit dies. I don't even know him. It is a tragedy that he has leukemia. But given the platform and reach he so clearly has, is he grateful and humbled for his ability to seek help on such a massive scale, that many dying people will never have? Doesn't sound like it.
He wants life, but it doesn't sound like he has much respect for it. It sounds like he wants to live, but sounds like he only tangentially gives a damn about the cause which will save him (bone marrow transplants). It's very "me me me."
As for my community and my employer, don't bring them into it. I'm my own person, with my own opinions, and those are whose opinions I express.
> This alludes to my original comment. I hope he continues promoting this kind of thing if it helps him, but for other people, given that he has such a broad reach and lack of modesty.
When you've received something that is effectively a slightly delayed death sentence 'modesty' goes right out the window. You need help. Trust me, having to ask for help is not the greatest thing to do but sometimes there is no way around it. As I'm sure Amit has found out in the hardest way possible. Having to go cap-in-hand to the world at large to ask them to do something potentially invasive on your behalf is a fairly humbling experience.
> Is that so wrong to say?
Yes, I believe it is. I doubt Amit had half or even 10% of the reach that he had a year ago than he has right now because those that know him and like him are the megaphone through which is case is broadcast to the world. Before he was this gravelly ill his ability to reach people was only a small fraction of what it is today. The posted link is testimony to that.
I don't see Amit himself doing any of this on his own, it's more that enough people know him and care about him that causes this to happen. That alone should give you some pause, how many people do you know that would get that kind of response? If the answer is 'none' then you can probably attribute that to some positive factors working to Amit's advantage, such as being a relatively decent human being.
> I know it is unpopular to say, but is it wrong to hope for?
No, it is not wrong to hope for that. But that could be brought in a way that does not drag Amit or those that try to help him down. You are making your point in a uniquely negative way.
> I have no problem with what is being done, just how it is being done.
Why? How it is being done is simple: in the most effective way possible, given the short amount of time available and the difficulty of finding a match in that particular demographic the only chance there is for Amit is for some as yet unknown person to be a match. Without that, it's game over. If you have a better way of achieving that goal then I'm all ears.
> I don't wish Amit dies. I don't even know him.
Well, then before you made your original statement you should have probably invested some time in that. I don't know him either but I do know about him and what I know about him makes me think that he's a nice enough person that if I had a small chance of a match that I'd happily get myself tested.
> It is a tragedy that he has leukemia.
You bet.
> But given the platform and reach he so clearly has,
Has now.
> is he grateful and humbled for his ability to seek help on such a massive scale, that many dying people will never have?
I don't know. Have you asked him?
> Doesn't sound like it.
You are extrapolating a lot from very little. The only person that can shed light on that is Amit himself and I think that currently he has other worries. But after this is all over and he hopefully survives this ordeal you'll be in an excellent position to ask.
> He wants life, but it doesn't sound like he has much respect for it.
Again, what do you use to come to that conclusion?
Has he done anything at all that warrants that conclusion?
> It sounds like he wants to live, but sounds like he only tangentially gives a damn about the cause which will save him (bone marrow transplants). It's very "me me me."
That's the nature of disease. It hits you, you personally or someone that you know or care about. Until then it is abstract. So the only times that you will hear about a disease where it will actually hit home is when it affects someone that is not just a fragment of a barchart. For every Amit Gupta there are 1,000's of people that haven't got a chance and of course it would be great if we knew about them and if we could do something about them. The fact is that without Amit's plight I would not even realize that his demographic is underrepresented in the banks.
My own major issue with blood donations and so on is that this is big business, the donated blood products are sold at enormous profits by companies specializing in harping on your conscience and getting you to give them their raw materials at no cost, then process them (which does cost some money), turn around and make a killing.
One of my ex girlfriends worked in blood processing for a facility that will remain nameless but you can rest assured that they were not worried what they were going to pay their heating bill from.
There are lots of things wrong in this world that you could get a head of steam up about but by going after Amit Gupta personally you are making a huge mistake.
It's not his fault he landed this particular disease and you can't blame him for doing what he can (and I have yet to see Amit doing something, all this is done by others, presumably with his consent) to survive this.
What comes after will take care of itself once it is known that there is an after.
> As for my community and my employer, don't bring them into it.
You brought them into it. When you speak in a public forum with your own name and a bunch of links in your profile you have to realize that you are doing nominally on your own account but that there are lots of people that will be offended and that that will radiate to those that you associate with.
You may not like that but that is human nature too.
> I'm my own person, with my own opinions, and those are whose opinions I express.
Well, if I were your employer I'd ask you to please remove that link to my company as long as you decide to make a fool out of yourself in public.
I can't see anything positive coming out of it.
Anyway, I think I'm occupying enough lines in this thread and it does not seem like I am making much sense to you so I will leave it here.
I stand by my original post. People can blow it out of proportion all they want, but I was speaking truthfully. I'll be sure to send my bosses a link to it so they can fire me over the great shame it brings them.
Could you post their replies? I know this was sarcastic, but I'd like to see what your bosses have to say about it. Honestly, what you're saying is controversial, but worth discussing. However, your attitude towards anyone who disagrees is shitty, and it does reflect on your company poorly. It doesn't matter that it shouldn't, it does. You might want to keep this in mind, fwiw.
"andrew's opinions made from his personal accounts on the web does not represent the opinion of panopta.com, its management, its affiliates, or any other of its employees. he's free to speak his mind online and when he does so, represents only himself. we know andrew can come off offensive at times unintentionally, but he means well and isn't trying to hurt anyone."
I had the same kind of thought after Christopher Reeve became paralyzed after his accident. I would think to myself "was he championing this cause prior to his accident? Then he doesn't deserve that much credit for doing it now, when it will benefit him".
Then I realized - it doesn't matter. The fact that someone noticeable shines a light on a cause and makes it more likely to receive some form of advances or help is laudable, if for no other reason than it increases the amount of time that we all think about these things and realize that it can affect any of us.
The only time I get frustrated about things like this is when I tell myself "yeah, but no one's helping out with my priority." But my priority is just as "selfish" - a friend of mine has a disease that gets almost no press. Still, why not cheer for those who spend any amount of time helping others? As soon as they cure / find treatments for these diseases, they'll have time to get to my friend's.
So... I understand where you're coming from. But I think spending any amount of time denigrating someone for trying to help (even if it helps him- or herself) is counterproductive.
This isn't any more shameless than a person who breaks their leg in the woods calling out for help. You shouldn't be ashamed to call out for help. If you're curious, I think that's why you're getting downvoted.
Shameless, defined: (of a person or their conduct) Characterized by or showing a lack of shame.
Shame, defined: A painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.
So yeah-- you're ignoring the part of the definition that comes before the semicolon for shameless. And zeroing in on one word in that definition (modesty). I think you're playing semantician, and you're not playing particularly well. I don't think very many people would agree that Amit should feel shame for what he's doing.
Question for you: Do you think he should feel shame for what he's done? If you broke your leg alone in the woods, would you cry out for help?
It's both sad and ironic that you think you're being persecuted for calling out someone else's lack of humility. It's because you're being a troll, quite frankly. I know you can't see it, but that's how you're coming across.
You claim to have a concern about the greater good and the millions who have leukemia, but from where I stand -- and pretty much everyone else -- you're using that to cover your asinine, judgmental opinion of what Amit's doing.
If that was your true concern, there are a thousand ways to express it without injecting your judgment. If you cared about not being judgmental and effectively communicating your concern, you could easily have chosen one of those. Instead, you appear more concerned about calling out Amit for a trivial fault -- the guy is using the resources at his disposal to save his own life!
He is using his name to get signups to the general national marrow donor program registry. It is possible to get tested just for Amit, but the default is that you get tested for a match to anybody who needs it.
He is using his disease to call on his community (the relatively small community of technologists and entrepreneurs) to sign up to be bone marrow donors knowing very well that there is only a small chance any one of us will be a match for him but that we may very well be a match for someone else.
So yes, he is championing other peoples' life-threatening needs!
I wonder if you excised the word "shamelessly" from this comment, if people would have had a more interesting discussion, i.e. about building a site that enables people (including non-hackers), say in similarly life-threatened positions, to spread word and bring people/marrow/blood/etc. to their aid, and perhaps too, the aid of anyone else in a similar situation. Because I think what you're calling for is interesting: a platform (like Facebook or Tumblr), instead of a single blog.
Perhaps you can link us to all of the wonderful things you are doing for other people commensurate to everything you do for your own benefit, as you seem to have this "modesty and humility" thing figured out.
I suspect you're not really sorry that we die, as you seem to think that when faced with death, the proper response is to accept one's fate.
I would understand your attitude if setting up a website meant that kittens had to die, or someone else had to suffer, but seeing as this isn't a zero-sum game, I don't.
How do you know that Amit isn't feeling ashamed of needing to publicise this? How do you know it's not his friends that have almost 'forced' him to do this?
I honestly don't get why you felt you needed to unzip your flies and piss all over this. Has this triggered some personal memory?
> you seem to think that when faced with death, the proper response is to accept one's fate.
I think the proper response is to realize that millions of people are also faced with death, that everyone WILL be faced with death, and to temper your actions with modesty and humility.
Sad to see my comment being downvoted because people disagree with it. The point that I was making was that he's shameless about his needs. Most people who have needs like his can't create this type of platform and exposure to be heard.
And it is shameless. Why do I care about amit gupta, and why are all his promotional materials centered around HIM, and not acute leukemia? People suffer every day who can't be heard like this, is it so wrong to bring up that uncomfortable fact?
To the people saying, "well what he's doing is good for others, too!" Yes, I agree. But face it, he never would've done this had he never got acute leukemia. So my original hope remains: "if this works out for him, it would be cool to see him champion other peoples' life-threatening needs." With him seeing the direct benefit of these efforts on his life, it would be cool if he maybe took it a step further and continued it for others.
> why are all his promotional materials centered around HIM(...)
Because it is more effective. It is marketing 101 that it helps to spread a message if you have a face to put on display. His story tells much more than any infochart about leukemia ever will. You can bet that people are much more inclined to help if they know who is in need.
Also, IMO, it is more honest. Even if he is "privileged" to be heard when others can't, there should be no shame in him being able to exercise this privilege to save his own life.
There's that and there is the fact that his personal background allows the spotlighting of the fact that his demographic is under-represented in the tissue banks, a fact which I did not know about.
Andrew, your comment is correct when literally interpreting dictionary definitions but misses the spirit of the situation.
If we take the current criticisms (of your comment) as being morally representative of the general population (probably a decent approximation) then most people would consider the dictionary definitions of ``shameless'' and ``modest'' to be incomplete and not applicable (at least not to someone that is possibly dying). That is one reason why you see so many upset comments here.
In the end, saving Amit's life is better than not saving it, all else being equal. Especially when the goal is so clearly defined and within reach.
> In the end, saving Amit's life is better than not saving it, all else being equal. Especially when the goal is so clearly defined and within reach.
I know...
But he could've had the same result AND acknowledged the fact that millions of people have equally important life-threatening afflictions, that his is no more important, and that his experience has helped him realize the greater good of focusing on promoting a cause like bone marrow transplants.
Instead, he chose to come off very selfish and presumptuous of his own importance to literally everyone he can reach. Just read the promotional materials, it really is shameless.
Back to my original comment though, it would be cool if he continued exactly what he's doing, but for other people, if this works out for him.
Permit me to explain how I see this. You may disagree strongly with me but I hope to convey why your comment aroused so much passion.
I don't see Amit as considering himself to be more important than anyone else. I see a man who is trying to save his own life (with very little time to spare) and I have sympathy with his cause. I don't expect him to take this cause further when he is well, even though I know that many people in the world are suffering.
My position is very different from yours. I find it difficult to agree with the sentiment of your comment because I don't expect Amit to be looking out for anyone else but himself at this moment. In this case, I suspect that many others here have similar views.
>But he could've had the same result AND acknowledged the fact that millions of people have equally important life-threatening afflictions,
He should do nothing to save himself until he's helped cure Cancer; TB; Malaria; HIV/AIDs; Starvation; Poor Sanitation; War; Earthquake prediction; etc etc?
>that his is no more important
I'm guessing (I don't know him) that it's more important to him and his loved ones.
A) I think modesty no longer becomes a factor when you are desperately trying to save your own life.
B) Sure, the design is a little flashy (I think it looks great, by the way), but I don't think he is being terribly immodest. He's not bragging about his accomplishments, he's just trying to get people to sign up as bone marrow donors, and he's using his personal plight as motivation.
Designer of the site here. (Thank you for the kind words.) We wanted to do something upbeat and positive, a kind of join-the-movement and do-your-part vibe. If it were a story just about Amit, we might be more dire, but this is a much bigger cause and we wanted to express that.
He's not morally wrong, I'm saying the nature of what he's doing is shameless. Clearly this is an important issue to him, but he's vastly overestimating his importance to everyone else. That's fine. I'm just calling it like I see it.
I believe what's going on is that the choice of calling it "shameless" brings in a number of connotations that you may not have intended. In the adverbial form it ends up bringing upon social and moral connotation beyond what you seem to be intending[1]. What I wonder is if there's a better way to put this.
If I was Amit, I would've included other sufferers in the campaign, instead of hoarding the attention all to myself. Many others could have benefited from this massive amount of exposure.
Everyone who gets swabbed is added to a national database and can be matched to anyone else who needs a donor.
The efforts happening on his behalf are, by and large, very consciously being done with this in mind. They are increasing awareness of underrepresented populations in the bone marrow database and making a much larger impact.
Also, these efforts are being coordinated and implemented by volunteers on Amit's behalf. Amit himself is not running this show. People who have better things to do than troll the internet are.
i think the majority of people protesting see many interconnected problems that they know deep down there's no silver bullet for. they're not knowledgeable enough to know all the ins and outs of how they're being fucked, but they know what it feels like, and they know they don't like it. that's my take on it.
i think it's important to respect the passion of this movement, whether you agree with it or not, because it's real, because it comes from real causes, and because it won't go away until it's addressed
> As a male, I'll never understand how cosmetics are so entrenched in the lives of females.
really? same reason people like nice clothes. looking "better" is a competitive advantage to help you get the "best" mate. makeup is a means to that end.
That's fair, but it's definitely not the most effective means. If a woman takes 5-10 minutes to apply make up each day, and if they decided to allocate that towards some other activity, the amount of time spent doing something more productive would add up very quickly. I personally find that it makes women less appealing as it's quite superficial, and a waste of time/money.
Telling women not to wear makeup is like telling guys to "be yourself". Great advice if you're a naturally gorgeous woman, or an extroverted and socially adept man. For the rest of us, not so much.
I think you're confusing make up with too much make-up for the most part(with some exceptions) if it's obvious a woman is wearing makeup she's got too much of it on IMO.
This is why engineers aren't running fashion and beauty companies. It's not about efficiency. It may not make sense to you, but it very much does to a staggering number of people.
And to tie it all in, this is why Steve Jobs was such a visionary, because he understood both engineering and aesthetics, function and form. A lot of people understand one or the other, it's the rare person who can empathize with the necessity of both.
It's a trade-off for me. For the most part, exercising every other day has good short term and long term benefits for my productivity. But sometimes, just saying "fuck it", not eating, not exercising, and blasting through code for a few days gives serious short term gains.
It's not sustainable, and I've now learned when to quit, but the gains I get during those periods get are something exercising and being healthy just can't measure up to. Maybe I'm delusional
I don't think that's delusional - the same approach has certainly worked for me - when it's been necessary. Sometimes you just have to go into crunch mode and make shit happen.
What's interesting to me is the opening paragraph of the blog post:
"It turns out to be quite difficult to hire good developers. I’m involved in the hiring process at deviantART, and it has opened my eyes to just how unqualified the majority of applicants to these jobs are."
There seems to be a complete lack of connecting the dots from "this is unusually difficult" to "what can be done to make this better/easier/more efficient." And given that this failure is centered around software developer positions... it doesn't say good things about the kinds of problem-solving that goes on in their culture.
Of course getting hard data in economics is close to impossible since you can't run controlled experiments. The closest you can get is looking at historical data such as comparing what happened after Clinton's 93 tax increase and after Bush's 01 and 03 tax cuts. Or comparing similar countries with different tax rates. But there are just too many variables to really isolate the data and reach a firm conclusion. I do remember reading about some economist's study that tried to look at the data and came to the semi-conclusion that it doesn't seem that tax rates have much an effect on GDP at all (sorry I can't find source right now).
Why would someone even bother talking to a reporter from Fox News? If the SNL fake news sent out an anchor would you participate in the mock interview or wait for a real reporter?
> I'd imagine placebos are getting more effective due to more people having purely headspace/mindset (or even imaginative) illnesses/causes due to stress factors
You could argue that many of those ailments could be due to mental/stress issues, and that it makes sense that calming the mind and believing in a treatment would work, but for some of them (Parkinson's, Herpes, food allergy), it's pretty amazing at how individuals are affected. Maybe we're under-crediting the brain's ability to control the body.
I'm reading Robert Sapolsky's Why Don't Zebras Get Ulcers right now (very interesting on subject of stress) and given what I've read, I would not be greatly shocked to learn that Parkinson's, herpes, or food allergies are affected by stress and the remediation of it.
It's impressive how integral stress hormones are to metabolism and disease. You wouldn't expect the psychogenic effects of a placebo to cure these diseases, but it makes sense that a placebo, or some factor tied to them that helps to lessen stress, could alleviate the intensity of outbreaks or symptoms.
