instantwhat

It makes perfect sense- in the same way that your reflection in a mirror "demonstrates awareness of your presence."

The commander in the video did not describe it as being like a reflection. Why don't you watch his 6-minute testimony and then offer an informed opinion?

flight computers tracking the glitch would plausibly show it "performing maneuvers" that make no sense for physical objects, such as the ones you describe.

This is an example of "coming up with less-extraordinary theories that contradict the evidence," as gfodor said[1], because you have asserted "glitches" in "flight computers" and ignored the pilots' eyeballs, which corroborated the radar contacts that had been observed over several days.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20072598

I haven't been banned from HN before, but I'm not surprised that some of my comments resemble ones from those you have banned.

Help me understand, please: what about that comment makes it a flamewar comment? I was attempting to engage him in serious discussion, and he offered voluminous nonsense in return. Is it verboten to point that out? Where did I cross your line?

By the way, I recently exchanged a few comments with you about HN's political bias, and you asked for examples. This submission's comments, and the flagging of my comment, is a good example of what I was talking about. There is a clear bias in that comments espousing a certain view are downvoted and flagged, even without violating the guidelines.

It seems clear that you quickly respond to comments which are flagged, even those flagged by the person being responded to. If I may ask, since I haven't seen this question asked or answered before: do you also police downvotes and flags? i.e. when people downvote, kill, and flag comments that do not deserve to be, do you correct it?

It doesn't appear so to me, and that creates an additional avenue for bias to be expressed: since only users with certain karma scores can vouch for wrongly flagged comments, it's easy for users with high scores to wrongly flag comments from users whose scores do not allow them to protest.

Look, I love the idea of aliens, but try to apply Occam's Razor here. What's less complicated?

I said nothing about aliens--you did. In fact, the only interpretation I offered was that the object appeared to demonstrate awareness of the aircraft sent to intercept it. Everything else I wrote was simply reporting the observations of the pilots and naval radar.

An uncommon, but natural phenomenon in which a ball of plasma (or similar) is temporarily attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft.

Did you watch the video I linked? Your explanation bears no resemblance to the phenomenon observed by the Navy: Radar contacts were observed over several days demonstrating bizarre yet consistent behavior. When an aircraft was sent to intercept, the pilot made visual contact with two objects, one beneath the ocean surface and one maneuvering erratically 20,000 feet in the air. The airborne object began mirroring the pilot's movements and then retreated when the pilot flew at it. Radar contact with the object was then established 60 miles away at the position the pilot was returning to, as if the object was anticipating the pilot's intended movement.

In no way does the reported phenomenon bear any resemblance to "a ball of plasma attracted to fast-moving, metallic aircraft."

An advanced, spacefaring race (or races) travel to Earth and spend over 70 years pulling pranks on military pilots.

I have not speculated on the provenance of the phenomenon--you have.

Again, I'm no physicist, but consider something like walking through a cloud of flying dandelion seeds. The air currents created by the person walking through the cloud create little vortices that tend to pull the seeds in their "wake" toward them. That doesn't mean the dandelion seeds are "aware" of the person they're being pulled toward.

The charitable interpretation of your comments is that you haven't watched the video and listened to the commander's testimony--and why not? Alternatively, you have, but you're still posting these interpretations that bear no relation to the reported observations--and why would you do that?

That is not true at all. What articles did you read? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20071582

That makes no sense. Testimony from the pilots who intercepted the object indicates the object demonstrated awareness of their presence.

Watch this video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 squadron commander (not an average military pilot) who intercepted one of the objects and engaged in aerial maneuvers with it. He describes intercepting the object, flying about one mile away from it, with the object demonstrating awareness of his presence by mirroring his maneuvers. Then he flew aggressively at it, and the object responded by rapidly flying away. It then showed up on radar at the position he was returning to, where he had been flying a combat air patrol before he was sent to intercept the object, indicating that the object had been aware of his aircraft all along.

The commander also said that the flying object appeared to be maneuvering about 20,000 feet over an unknown object which was submerged just beneath the ocean surface.

https://youtu.be/jCaruUtiPHo

Other testimony recounted at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27666/what-the-hell-is... mentions that the ships had been tracking these objects on radar for a few days already, with them appearing suddenly on radar at 80,000 feet, rapidly descending vertically to 20,000 feet, and then flying straight up again, disappearing past 80,000 feet. The ships went to non-drill battle stations while the aircraft intercepted the object.

That makes no sense. Testimony from the pilots who intercepted the object indicates the object demonstrated awareness of their presence.

Watch this video of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 squadron commander (not an average military pilot) who intercepted one of the objects and engaged in aerial maneuvers with it. He describes intercepting the object, flying about one mile away from it, with the object demonstrating awareness of his presence by mirroring his maneuvers. Then he flew aggressively at it, and the object responded by rapidly flying away. It then showed up on radar at the position he was returning to, where he had been flying a combat air patrol before he was sent to intercept the object, indicating that the object had been aware of his aircraft all along.

The commander also said that the flying object appeared to be maneuvering about 20,000 feet over an unknown object which was submerged just beneath the ocean surface.

https://youtu.be/jCaruUtiPHo

Other testimony recounted at https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27666/what-the-hell-is... mentions that the ships had been tracking these objects on radar for a few days already, with them appearing suddenly on radar at 80,000 feet, rapidly descending vertically to 20,000 feet, and then flying straight up again, disappearing past 80,000 feet. The ships went to non-drill battle stations while the aircraft intercepted the object.

Or are you trying to reveal some sort of hidden value judgment or bias or something related to the politics of global warming?

Mainly that, although you aren't the person I posed the question to, and it may not apply to you. Assuming you're being sincere, it doesn't appear to.

Since we've come this far, if I may continue asking you:

Since you seem to sincerely believe that AGW theory is soundly supported by basic science, what do you make of the many reputable, accomplished scientists, physicists, etc. who do not believe that it is soundly supported by basic science?

What do you make of the former IPCC scientists who have whistleblown on the IPCC scientists' political bias and resigned in protest?

What do you make of Cook, et al's fraudulent "97% consensus" paper?

I appreciate your thoughtful discussion.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is, if these organizations made such an announcement, and assuming that they were correct, what would you think? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?

If, tomorrow, NASA, NOAA, and the UN IPCC held a joint press conference to announce surprising new evidence which indicated that anthropogenic effects on the climate were minimal, that we could not noticeably affect the climate, regardless of our emissions, and that the climate was essentially out of our control, what would your reaction be? Would that be good news or bad news? Why?

For one thing, "rising sea levels" is often used as a symbol, representing all the varied consequences of global warming, the most depressing of which may be global ecological turmoil, so you might consider taking it less literally.

Fascinating. It's good to see someone like you admit the lying.

Or maybe you slipped and let your guard down. This is probably a relatively safe place to do so. Average people don't read HN, so they'll never find out.

The problem with lying is that there are only two explanations: either your claims can't withstand honest scrutiny, or everyone's too stupid to understand the truth, so you have to fool them. History is littered with atrocities committed by those who believed the latter.

In your case, which is it?

So you're saying that you don't care what the original author named his software, and you're going to say it your way, just to be different?

He's trying to tell you, in an indirect, humorous way, that the name of your product, when spoken in English and pronounced a certain way, sounds like something other than the name of the planet and mythological god.

His comment has been downvoted according to HN's sense of humor, or lack thereof.

And that's despite the Swiss having an opinion for being like Germans, but without the openness and legendary sense of humour ;)

Friendly help from a native English-speaker: I think you meant "reputation" rather than "opinion." :)

I appreciate your response. I don't expect you'll see this reply, since it's so old, but just in case:

Let me ask you a question, though you don't have to answer it. Do you feel like HN is biased against the point of view you yourself favor?

Generally, yes, of course.

Because, in my experience, that's what everyone who feels that HN is biased actually feels. This is so reliable a phenomenon that I can predict someone's political orientation just from what they say about HN. I don't believe I've seen a single exception. That's shocking, and I'm pretty sure it's true.

I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by that, but I'd like to point out a way to interpret it: If HN is left-leaning, and left-leaning people do not think HN is biased, then only right-leaning people would think HN is biased, and one could predict political orientation based on whether a person thinks HN is biased.

In other words, if left-leaning people think their position is neutral (e.g. because they're irreligious, and they think that religion is biased and that secularism is unbiased), and HN is left-leaning, then left-leaning people would think HN is unbiased, and right-leaning people would think it is biased.

Now I'm guessing you meant that both left- and right-leaning people think HN is biased against their political orientation.

But I challenge you (not that you haven't done this, but still) to look at submissions on polarizing issues (e.g. global warming, sexism, racism), look at the comments that are downvoted and flagged, and look at which viewpoints those comments espouse. Modulo comments that are flagged or downvoted for obvious guidelines violations, my claim is that the vast majority are ones that are right-leaning. I don't think confirmation bias is causing me to think this--I think it's a fair observation.

And if that observation is correct, then I think it's fair to conclude that HN is biased to the left.

Friendly pedantry: in that video, you referred to vi as "vee"? :)

I'm talking about the difference between handing your child a book and whipping them into submission.

Isn't that a false dichotomy?

Those release notes are some of the best written I've ever seen. Clear, concise, comprehensive. Gives a lot of confidence in the project going forward. Nice work.

What should we do now? :)

I don't know what the solution is. I wish I did. My point is simply that there is definitely a bias on HN, and I think few people would seriously claim that it's right-leaning.

A multi-axis perspective would probably be more useful: one could say that the pro-business/pro-startup bias is right-leaning, but one could also say that it's libertarian, and libertarianism isn't necessarily on the right when compared to "conservatism" or other supposedly "right-leaning" political views.

Regardless, from looking at the articles that make the front page, and from reading comments on stories that have a political slant (e.g. anything environment-related), what I see flagged and downvoted into obscurity--excluding obvious guidelines violations--are not left-leaning comments, but right-leaning ones, including many thoughtful, reasonable ones.

At the same time, trite, left-leaning, talking point-style comments remain at #000.

This is plain to any observer who's been here a while.

So I don't know the answer. However, maybe a first step would be acknowledgement. I would love to see you and/or other mods openly admit the left-leaning bias on HN. Not an admission of guilt on your part for supposedly moderating unfairly, but an admission that the output of the HN "program," as it were--which includes the community, not just the actual code and staff--is left-leaning.

If nothing else, perhaps it would help certain outstanding members of the community recognize the problem and be more open-minded. I don't think anyone benefits when good comments are shamed into obscurity and their writers are driven away. That doesn't help the problem of polarization that our society is facing.

From what I hear, PUBG just has poor code, so let's leave it out of the discussion and compare well-made games.

Of course, there is an upper limit on how much latency CSP and lag compensation can compensate for, and this varies by game. One game might work well up to 100ms, while another might work well up to 50ms.

I realize that this might make it more difficult for people in Australia (or whereever) to find a game but it seems even more wrong to make the experience bad for everyone all the time. And at least when they do find a game it will be a great experience instead of terrible.

Here you're failing to account for an even more important factor: ability. Locking matches to such low relative pings would greatly restrict the number of players who were eligible to play together. That would greatly increase the skill gap between players, leading to a much worse experience.

Consider, e.g. Overwatch, which has all the Overwatch League pros on the west coast, leading to a skill gap between top players on the east and west coasts (which are usually matchmade within their own region). The more you compartmentalize players, the less likely that good players are going to be able to play with other good players, and vice versa, leading to a frustrating experience for everyone. (Not that Overwatch has good matchmaking in general. It's pretty bad, IME.)

Issues like getting hit after getting behind cover is frustrating, but it's going to happen sometimes--it's the nature of online games. But nothing is more frustrating than having teammates who aren't on the same level, or who don't have the same goals. It really makes the game feel like a complete waste of time. Matchmaking is definitely a harder and more serious problem than network latency now.

Perhaps look at it from the perspective of a software developer, Dan. A user files a bug report about bad output. The developer is mystified, because he definitely didn't intend for the code he wrote to work that way, and other users are happy with the program's output.

Now the developer has a choice: dismiss the bug report, thinking the user must be crazy, or accept that there is a problem with the software's output and fix it.

Perhaps a better system would be to upvote only? Then constructive comments would raise to the top and who really cares what's long way down?

I agree. That's one of the conclusions I've come to from having used different comment voting systems online. I think tildes.net works that way.

But HN specifically has the problem that its founder thinks downvoting for disagreement is good. It mystifies me that someone who ostensibly favors intellectual curiosity has a stated policy which creates a narrow-minded echo chamber (at least, for certain topics).

I think you're one of the lucky ones, then, that the anatomy of your ear canal allows the earplug to seal the passage without the pillow putting pressure on it.

What almost works for me is using two differently sized earplugs and putting the smaller one in the pillow-side ear, because the pillow pushing on the ear canal causes it to seal despite the smaller plug. But when I roll onto my other side several times a night, I'd have to wake up and swap ear plugs. It's not feasible. :(

Go listen to actual competitive FPS players, and hear them complain about having 60 ms latency. Listen to them complain about living on one U.S. coast and playing on servers on the opposite one and having 80-100 ms latency. Listen to players in EU who play on NA servers because they don't like players' behavior on EU servers, and they're willing to suffer 150 ms latency. Then visit Australia and listen to players who suffer 300 ms latency to play with people who aren't in the relatively small Australian population for whatever game they're playing.

Then take out CSP from their games and watch what happens.

CSP will always be necessary for any Internet-based game. Only LANs have low enough latency to not need it.

This discussion is a good example of why downvoting, graying comment text, and specifically, downvoting for disagreement, are bad.

The solution to the problem this story is about is robust, fearless discussion in pursuit of truth.

But what I see here are many thoughtful, reasoned comments being shamed and made hard-to-read by people who aren't able or willing to rebut them. It is cowardly and anti-intellectual.

It's effectively the downvoters saying, "I disagree with what you said, therefore I will make it harder for other people to hear you." It's antithetical to the stated purpose of this site: intellectual curiosity.

No, the big things are varying ear canal sizes and shapes, varying earplug sizes and shapes, and side sleepers.

Put an earplug in your ear that seals the ear canal, then press firmly on the outside of your ear canal (on the side of your head, in front of the tragus). Feel that pressure. Now imagine doing that for 8 hours a night.

I have had to sleep with ear plugs because of noise from neighbors. Two results: waking up with painful ear canals during the night, and semi-permanently enlarged ear canals, requiring the use of larger ear plugs to seal, which causes more pain.

If you can comfortably sleep with ear plugs with no adverse effects, you are lucky.

Are you unaware of China's Belt and Road initiative? Confucious Institutes at U.S. universities?

The common theme in your writing is projection and hypocrisy.

"You are not fit to make decisions regarding your own life because your are broken. Live is awesome, accept it."

People are broken. Life is not always awesome. We live, we suffer, we die. Along the way, we cause suffering for others and ourselves. Do you deny this?

Yet, that is not the totality of human existence. We have the capacity for good as well as evil.

What you should accept is that circumstances can be interpreted and handled in many ways; some are productive, some destructive. The choice is yours.

You are never going to reach anyone suffering from a mental illness with that attitude. You simply will not.

I hate to sound petty, but must I direct you to the post from "sad-throwaway" in which he indicated that I did? Perhaps your beliefs do not encompass the entirety of human experience. [1]

Let's first address the fact that you seem to be addressing me as if I'm the one currently struggling with suicide (I'm not).

I'm glad you're not suicidal.

I did not say that you were. Unlike you, I did not make such unfounded assumptions. I said that it was a possibility, which, not knowing you, it was.

You're telling me that my opinions on the subject are invalid and dismissable simply for that reason.

No, I said that your reaction to my comment was objectively irrational, which it was.

Not only does that break HN's guidelines, but it's a complete non-sequitur and a poison pill to the debate.

Had I taken all the poison pills you have deposited here, I'd be dead many times over.

This is why people who actually need help won't listen to you and others like you, regardless of how well-meaning your intentions

See #1.

because you are not actually interested in listening to them which is what they need most

As I said, you have conjured an image of me in your mind. That is irrational. I am not the other people you have dealt with in your life. Stop treating me as if I am. [2]

You want them to stay alive, but

"Yeah, you want to save their lives, but you don't actually care about them!"

beyond that people don't really give the depressive much thought. I have to wonder how much they just want to stop something they find deeply uncomfortable, not for the sake of the depressed person, but for themselves.

See #2.

Nowhere did I say they should definitely commit suicide so I'd appreciate it if you didn't heavily imply that.

I need not imply that; your other comments in these threads have shown that you don't actually object to suicide when you think it's justified. Why you think you're qualified to make such decisions is unknown; regardless, you are not.

you telling them that their problem is temporary is not going to help as much as you think. Simply pointing out the obvious to these people isn't the profound insight you think it is. They've heard it a million times before and it doesn't help.

See #1.

There are many truths in any circumstance. Depending on one's state of mind, some are more acceptable than others.

So what is your argument? Should there be a decision tree, used to decide which truths to present to which people, depending on their state of mind? Who will make it? You?

Or is your argument that, if I present one of those truths in a case in which you, personally, don't think it will be effective, that it is proof that I don't care about other people and their suffering? Such an argument would be plainly illogical, yet it seems to be what you're getting at.

I suggest you stop wasting time--write your dissertations and journal articles and books, and get yourself on the DSM committee, so your profound insight can start benefiting the mental health community. Or you can keep pontificating on the Internet.

And then there are the people for whom the problem is simply not temporary, but chronic.

Such profound insight. I have never experienced nor thought of such a thing. Thank you for sharing!

Again. Awesome way to completely dismiss what I'm saying.

It is awesome, because your reponse to my comment is objectively irrational. It's amazing, actually, because rather than deal with that problem, you double-down on it, accusing me in your next sentence of your own irrational behavior:

Address what I'm saying, not the reasons you have invented in your head for why you think I might be saying them.

See #2.

And be charitable with your interpretations of what I'm saying. It's an HN guideline.

Practice your own admonitions.

When I said 'you' here I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant you as in people who try to reason with depressives in this way by telling them their problems are temporary.

Stop saying "you" when you don't mean me. Stop attacking me for what other people do. See #2.

If you want to address "people" who do something you don't like, go write a blog. Don't respond to me personally complaining about other people's actions.

Even if that was true (which you acknowledge in some cases it simply isn't) I'm, just telling you that it is a seriously unhelpful and often condescending manner to take with such a person.

More profound insights from you! Thank you so much!

Meanwhile, see #1.

Also, lose the weasel words. "Often condescending" means that it's not always condescending, which means that it can be helpful. See #1.

What is condescending is your attempting to assume a position of authority, presuming to instruct others as to what is and is not universally helpful--in direct contravention of the evidence staring you in the face. See #1.

Open your mind to the possibility that your experiences are not universal, and things that you haven't found helpful may in fact be helpful to others.

> But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding rationally.

You keep attacking me rather than the points I am making.

No, I attacked your response, which was irrational. I then drew a conclusion about your state of mind based on your making an irrational response. Your words and yourself are not the same thing.

You are really not coming across positively by doing this.

Do you mean that you don't like me? Or that I won't get as many upvotes as you unless I talk like you? Thank you for telling me! I'll be sure to adjust my performance for our audience.

It is completely toxic to a debate.

So we're having a debate? Well then, what is actually toxic to a debate are these things you have done:

1. Ascribing to me thoughts, beliefs, and motivations which I have not exhibited. 2. Attacking me for other people's actions. 3. Doubling-down on those mistakes rather than admitting and correcting them. 4. Refusing to account for evidence which contradicts your assertions.

In fact the next four paragraphs are more the same dismissive crap without subtance. You've broken at least two of the site guidelines regarding charitable interpretations of another user's posts and addressing the point of their posts instead of shallow dismissals in the form of ad-hominem attacks on their character.

I could also cite you for multiple violations of The Guidelines. I'll settle for admonishing you for the general "charitable interpretation" one, which should cover things like attacking your made-up image of me and blaming me for others' actions. If you stop breaking your rules, then you can complain.

You are only interested in being listened to, not in listening. That there, is the crux of my argument. You suck at reasoning with depressives, and apparently people who disagree with you.

So you finally admit it: according to you, the crux of your argument is based entirely on your mind-reading me through the Internet. And you think you are an authority on reasoning with people! I rest my case.

By the way, telling me that I suck is definitely against The Guidelines. It's also an ad hominem. I'm only telling you because, apparently, you aren't aware, otherwise you wouldn't have said that, right?

And in spite of me knowing nothing about you or your life, I'm comfortable making the assertion that you know nothing about this subject and have had very little exposure to people who do.

If this were a debate, why would I need to argue after your saying this? Of what value is an admitted argument from ignorance?

And why would I bother, since it shows that you are not arguing with me, but with your preconceived notions.

By the way, it's not merely an assertion, it's an assumption. See #2.

That much is clear to me simply because you clearly have not the first idea of how to actually talk to someone with these kinds of issues.

"I favor a different approach, therefore you know nothing and have no experience." Solid argument. Definitely a winning line in this "debate."

If there's any rational part of your intellect available for talking to, that doesn't have a preformulated response ready, please pass this along: Notice a key distinction between us: I have never assumed your experiences or lack thereof. In fact, I have explicitly admitted my ignorance of them. In contrast, I have lost count of the number of times you have accused me of ignorance and assumed my experiences or lack thereof. You are not being rational, nor logical, nor (to the extent relevant) scientific You are simply regurgitating attacks against people who are not myself.

Quite frankly, it's a waste of our time. Either step up to the plate, or go back to the dugout. Standing outside the batter's box, saying, "The pitcher made a face at me," swinging the bat, and circling the bases, doesn't count as a home run.

Your comment may be an example of what I'm talking about: it's not a rational response to what I said, so you may be inhibited from understanding my comment rationally. Let's look at each part:

The problem is that for some people, that 'drunk' state is chronic, never-ending and for all intents and purposes, permanent.

There is undoubtedly an element of "talking past each other" here. There are degrees of despair, of depression. There are permanent circumstances and temporary ones. But you have generalized to one extreme while ignoring the other, which isn't right or fair.

There are many people who want to commit suicide and even attempt it due to truly temporary circumstances. It is absolutely true that in such cases, the real problem was the state of mind and not the circumstances. So it's absolutely right to remind such people that they are contemplating "a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

And it's absolutely wrong for you to lump such cases into others, as if they were right to consider or actually commit suicide.

Beyond that, there are many people who live fulfilling, meaningful lives despite debilitating, permanent circumstances. What is the difference between their difficult yet livable lives and those who choose suicide? The difference is state of mind. This does not belittle their suffering--it honors those who carry on despite suffering. Their example edifies us all--if we are willing to see it.

Depression isn't just the low feeling after a bad breakup, or a job loss or some other life hurdle. Sometimes it's a chronic condition that may not ever end because it doesn't have any of those typical 'triggers', it's clinical and relentless.

When you understand that, you'll see why that in telling someone their planned suicide is merely 'a permanent solution to a temporary problem' they look at you with nothing more than contempt.

Because you don't understand what its like. You never will.

That is definitely an irrational response to my comment. You have no idea who I am and what my experiences are. You have created an image of me in your mind and are misdirecting your anger toward it.

I have no idea who you are or what your experiences are; I don't know if you are seeking escape from your own problems, or whether you feel guilt about others' poor choices that you weren't able to prevent.

But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding rationally.

This is not necessarily something to be ashamed of; it's part of the human condition. We all suffer this at times in our lives.

The question now is whether you will remain angry and in denial, or whether you are willing to recognize the problem and seek help to grow. Maybe you are going through the stages of grief, in which case you should recognize that and give yourself time; recognize that what has happened, has happened, and what remains now is to adjust your state of mind and move on.

In any case, what is clear from your comment is that your current state of mind is unfit for interpreting and judging rationally. You absolutely can see circumstances and past events differently in the future, if you will allow yourself.

There are people who make it their life's work to help people in need like this, to solve serious problems, to adapt, to grieve, to grow. This does not promise solutions to all problems, nor permanent ones. But life remains livable and worth living. Let those people help you find a way forward.

One of the most important things to understand about depression and suicide is that those who are in the middle of it are in an altered state of mind. They are locked into thought patterns that are self-reinforcing and prevent rational understanding. A person who is depressed and suicidal is literally unfit for making such decisions about their life. When the suicidal thoughts and depressed state abate, it's as if the person is suddenly a different person, of a different mind. Problems that once seemed insurmountable are no longer so. Positive things that seemed irrelevant or invisible before are suddenly there again and meaningful. It doesn't mean that all of one's problems go away or don't matter; it means that life seems livable again--and the only thing that has changed is one's thought patterns.

It's almost like the mind is drunk on despair. And just like a drunk person is unfit to drive a car, a person who is "drunk on despair"--depressed and suicidal--is unfit to "drive" their own life.

If you recognize that you are in a state of mind like this, you must use whatever rational part of your mind that remains to reject all of the thoughts and impulses of the despairing part. Don't give the drunk the keys to the car; he will kill not only himself, but likely harm many others as well. And don't ignore him, because he'll probably get drunk again tomorrow and want the keys again. Go, take him to get help, now, while you can.

There are people whose entire life's work is to help people in need like this. Let them help you.