throwawaytime's comments

And then you're in a situation where you've raised litigation at past employers, and that will follow you around.

The point is, the worst possible situation to be in is that everyone knows you're narcoleptic and knows you're not choosy about raising legal action. No one will touch you. The best option seems to be to conceal it and part ways as amicably as possible.

In case it's helpful, here's my story from two years ago about living with undiagnosed narcolepsy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10984478

One of my memories of that job was sleeping fully-dressed for work, then leaping out of bed when my alarm goes off. I'd carefully balance on my feet and wait for the tiredness to pass.

That's not sustainable. I can't do that more than a week at a time.

So there's all this anger focused toward people who are genuinely lazy, and it's impossible to separate it from people who have a genuine medical condition. What's the solution?

One way to handle it is to be upfront with your employer. This tends not to work. Recruitment in software has heated up to the point where any small flag against the candidate is enough to pass. No one would voluntarily jump in with someone whose attitude is "Well, I couldn't sleep until 3am because of being wide awake since 10pm, so I'm gonna show up around noon if that's ok."

It makes scheduling meetings extremely difficult. Morning standups are out. How many of you have weekly standups?

I still two years later have no idea what to do about this. I'm working remotely part-time, putting in full-time hours, just because I feel lucky to have any sort of job.

The point is, the next time someone posts in a company-wide Slack channel that they're feeling sleepy and will be in later, consider there might be more going on than meets the eye. Relationship problems and medical conditions both need to be concealed, and it takes a toll.

The thing is, it's not up to you to care. We have to deal with it or we're cut. And that's fine. But maybe some context will help, somehow.

That's me. I was recently fired for having severe narcolepsy. (Irony: The medication that might help with this condition for the first time in my life arrives tomorrow, a few days before our health insurance runs out.) It's been surreal to be excluded from most life aspirations due to being unable to participate in the 9 to 5 that society expects. Part of why it's hard is that no one can relate to this at all. When you throw your back out and are unable to work, people understand. When you arrive at 1pm because you have no memory of waking up and turning off all three of the alarms you'd set, no one cares why. You're damaged goods.

A basic income would at least assist with searching for my next job. My wife and I are now in a situation where we either start receiving income within three months max, or completely run out of money.

I know intellectually what needs to be done: Port a webapp from an older framework to a next-gen framework, then write a detailed post about how it was done and what the benefits were. That would be enough social standing to at least get some freelancing gigs.

Trouble is, I'm completely frozen. It's not quite fear -- closer to profound loss of hope. When a medical condition excludes you from society, it's easy to let it get the better of you, or feel bitter. Those are precisely the opposite feelings that will result in income.

In that light, it's not strange that a $3,000 bill would reduce someone's performance by 40%. Even if it's not a disaster, you end up wishing that you could take your wife on that honeymoon you've talked about for four years. When it took 6 months to save up $3,000 dispite a decently high salary, you know that your future will never be free from the "money problem," and that it will permeate every aspect of your life.

So what do you do? Try to be intelligent, of course. Try to see your situation as amusing. Amusement, yes; anger, no. It's easier to deconstruct a problem when it feels like a puzzle rather than a prison.

Easy to say that. What do I do? Pull up React docs while trying not to cry.

None of my ambitions matter anymore. Life is a years-long process of trying to recover from a tailspin. I'm 28; blink a few times and I'll be 50.

A basic income might help. When the company fired me without notice, they mentioned that our health and dental insurance will expire at the end of the month. This translates into a few things: (a) an extra $350/mo of bills, which accelerates our impending bankruptcy; (b) choose to remove my wisdom teeth and get a root canal right now, this week, which will knock me out for at least two weeks when I have to perform, and will cost at least 15% of our reserves anyway, so I'm not going to do that. Maybe it will result in messed up teeth for life, but that's an abstract problem that Future Me will deal with later.

On the other hand, maybe a basic income would hurt. I don't want handouts. I want to participate in life and to add value to my pursuits, just like you. It's easy to imagine feeling like maybe this basic income should be my lot in life. At least if I know we'll hit a brick wall in 3 months and that my wife won't be able to graduate, I can sort of force myself to try to use React / etc, and to otherwise hustle.

But I miss being 13, when life was an endless intellectual playground, and that "forcing yourself to have fun learning a programming framework" was an absurd contradiction.

Why post this? I don't know. It's not a sob story, and it's not really a warning. It seems like no one else will learn a thing from any of this. But at least it won't seem so mysterious that a $3,000 bill can subvert you.

There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare claimed in a 1999 popular science book that sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases which term is used may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder". Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[81] Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.

The common denominator in most definitions of sociopath seems to be a lack of guilt or remorse. Contrast that with:

A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection.

I don't understand how this follows from a lack of guilt.

Can it be true that a lack of ability to feel guilt makes someone an unfit parent, and that they should therefore lose their children?

Where does it stop? For example, if we can detect but not treat sociopaths, then should we abort children who we know will become sociopaths?

There are all kinds of issues that arise if people hold the view that sociopathy is a disease which should be treated. At some point, it's impossible to avoid the question of whether people should be treated against their will for the good of society. Doesn't it seem like "people should be able to live freely until they harm others" is somewhat more preferable to letting others define whether your personality should be modified before you've done anything wrong?

Assume we have some sort of sociopath detector which works from birth. Assume further that we have a treatment for sociopathy. It sounds like you'd be in favor of using that treatment on people who are fine with their state of being and who don't want to be... modified.

At one time in history, black people were considered mentally inferior or inherently violent. Most black people lived their lives without harming anyone at all. In the same way, most sociopaths currently live their lives without harming anyone. It's too easy to apply the sort of justifications that you're applying now to justify why people should be changed.

How far should we take this? Should it be mandated by the state that a parent must treat their child for sociopathy in the same way vaccinations are mandatory? I am wholly in favor of the latter. But how can anyone be in favor of the former? Vaccinations don't change behavior, whereas making someone "not sociopathic" certainly would.

People are people, and until they harm someone else, they should be allowed to live their lives.

If they're voluntarily seeking help, then that's different, of course. How often does that happen? (Genuine question. I have no idea, and I'd love to find out.)

Like Zuck? Drew Houston? It's easy to rattle off a dozen names who wouldn't have started their company if they'd worked at a big company for 5 years.

The correct answer is "figure out what works for you." And stop being cynical. It's really crummy to see Sam Altman, one of the nicest and most genuine people, dumped on here just because nobody here knows him.

I know him. Or I did, once. He's not the type of person you describe. Just the opposite: what sets Sam apart is how much he believes in you. You generally don't find it elsewhere in the world. It's rare for your own parents to believe in you in the way Sam does. So why go to a big company where they definitely won't believe in you or let you forge your own opportunities? And yes, you're right, you can spend years climbing the modern equivalent of the corporate ladder in order to get people to believe in you and let you take a risk. But:

in my experience nothing opens doors for you like having solid experience at a well known and well respected company.

Empirically, you're wrong about that. There are now over a thousand YC alums who prove you don't need it.

Sam is saying, "If you want to do a startup, here's what works on average." Nothing more.

I loaded it up and declined to let it access my contacts, but unfortunately it seems like it won't let me attempt to send any messages. I just get a screen that always says "None of your contacts have Signal!"

From what I understand, the reason it wants access to my contacts is to make it easier for me to find out which of my friends already use Signal or TextSecure. But none of my friends use these apps, and my goal is to get them to start. Unfortunately they'll refuse to use it if I have to tell them "Well, you'll need to let Signal upload all of your contacts to their server."

I was hoping for the ability to send a message by typing in a phone number directly. Does anyone know if this is possible? If not, would it be possible to add this feature?

Maybe it could work like this: You tap "new message" and then type in a phone number, just like how regular text messages normally work. Then when you're finished typing in the phone number, the app checks with Signal's server to find out whether that number uses Signal. If that number doesn't use Signal, then the app pops up a message saying "Your friend doesn't seem to be using Signal."

That way I can ask my friends to install Signal and send me a message. When they load up the app for the first time and Signal asks to access their contacts, they can click "no" and then type in my phone number directly.

It seems like many people won't be comfortable letting Signal upload all of their contacts, so unless there's some way to call or send a message by typing in a phone number directly, those people won't start using Signal. I'll have a hard time convincing my friends to use it without this.

I'm fearful of hospital procedures for reasons like these. How'd the doctors let it slip by? But it's a dumb fear and I'm trying to break myself of it.

One whole weekend! :) You don't want to know how many weekends of mine that netflix or videogames have claimed. I think I turned out alright though. For me, it's mainly about whether I feel motivated. If I do, it's easy to avoid that other stuff. If not, then there's an endless stretch of time with nothing to do and no money to pursue hobbies. That stuff is a natural filler for the void of endless boredom.

About the kids: I wanted to ask you, how did the kids handle it when you left? I guess you didn't get too into it, so maybe they didn't feel very strongly one way or the other about whether you played. But I think I'm going to try to cultivate a relationship with my kids over videogames, whether it's playing Minecraft with them or whatever MMO they want to play. It seems like hiking through the woods together, but virtual woods. But I'd imagine it's going to go like: They might get too into it at the expense of schoolwork, so I'll have to put my foot down and say no more, which will make them quite upset. And sure, that's the job of a parent. I'm their parent, not just their friend. But I can't help remember how misplaced my father's rules were, so I don't want to become like that. Yet I remember how much of a pushover my friend's dad was, which my friend took full advantage of; again, don't want to be like that. So I wonder how to strike a proper balance. It'd be great to hear from you and anyone else with children what your rules are regarding videogames.

Is there an instruction manual that comes with each child? No? Hmmm....

Given the social climate surrounding the issue, it seemed appropriate to switch to a throwaway. I'll strive to keep the discussion interesting and thought-provoking.

I'd like to followup with you and get some insights. Thinking over your example leads me to conclude, "There is no such thing as what's 'acceptable,' only what's effective."

Do you feel that's true, or off the mark?

I just want to restate what jen_h said: Everyone should turn on showdead and read that comment. In addition to the comment being comprehensive, they also claim to have worked for the NSA. If that's true, then they have a unique and important perspective on this issue.

As for my comment: I don't understand what's wrong with the arrangement presented in the article. Would someone please give concrete examples of (realistic) scenarios where this would be extremely detrimental to the US, or at least more harmful than the current arrangement of contracting private firms to perform government work?

Is your position that when the government brings in a whole company from the private sector to do work, then that's perfectly fine, but when they bring in an individual, it's not? Why? All of the same safeguards seem to be in play.

Also, having a risk of conflict of interest is different from having a conflict of interest.

He said he understood it had been approved by all the necessary government authorities, and that IronNet Cybersecurity, not the government, would pay for Dowd's time spent with the firm.

Dowd, he said, wanted to join IronNet, and the deal was devised as a way to keep Dowd's technological expertise at least partly within the U.S. government, rather than losing him permanently to the private sector.

Seems straightforward to me. The US government needs technically competent people, and they wanted to keep this technically competent person. The arrangement was approved by all necessary authorities.

You can hold one of two viewpoints: The NSA is necessary, or the NSA is unnecessary. It seems pretty hard to argue that it's unnecessary. And if it's necessary, then surely it's also necessary for them to have highly competent people. (Would you rather an extremely powerful organization have extremely competent people, or incompetent people?) So if competent people are being lost to the private sector, then why not make special arrangements to retain their talent in some capacity?