Fake it till you make it.

Well, he’s dead and I’m still here. I don’t think he made it.

Maybe he would still be alive if he didn't try to fake his cancer treatments https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/alternative-medic...

You don't have to like Jobs, I never did when he was alive, but shitting on him (as is now a cliche) for his choices of treatment is an awful reason.

The peanut gallery is not to be trusted on how curable his cancer was, and this article says nothing firm about anything.

If someone chooses not to be tortured for their last weeks of life, in order to have those weeks, that doesn't make them unscientific or suicidal.

> If someone chooses not to be tortured for their last weeks of life, in order to have those weeks, that doesn't make them unscientific or suicidal.

Yes, if that's the motivation.

But if the reasoning is "I have a better treatment, [insert nonsense here]", it does.

I remember reading something by Art Spiegelman, whose father was a Holocaust survivor, about how his life felt unimportant because nothing could compare to what his father went through.

But then, he rhetorically asked, if surviving the concentration camp was success, did that mean the vast majority who didn't were losers?

And I think his father said something to the effect, that it was random, there was no "survival of the fittest", so no, matter of factly, the dead were not ones who failed.

A couple of good examples of (much) earlier switching supplies from Ken's site:

1) 1960s-era tech used in the Apollo Guidance Computer: https://www.righto.com/2019/08/reliable-after-50-years-apoll...

2) Mercury thyratons used in 1930s-era Teletype hardware: https://www.righto.com/2018/09/glowing-mercury-thyratrons-in...

Might be some other candidates as well, but those are a couple of the more interesting ones he's gone over.

Journalism doesn't become any less interesting by making connections to the greater outside world, especially when it's timely/contextually relevant.