d4adb33f

Why indeed? Given the pathological situation, I would however take steps to protect my free time, if changing jobs was not an option.

If you do not want to invest or start a company, then your only option is to find a job. With solid programming skills, you should be able to find a company to sponsor you.

I know nothing about you, so I really can't recommend anything.

> if possible.

Aye, there's the rub.

Makes me think of the Foo Fighters song.

Wouldn't the rational thing be to turn off your phone when you take a vacation or even leave it at the office?

It's not very hard, if you have money or skills that are in demand. Top countries depend on what you are looking for.

> After all if you're salaries at a 24x7 operational company, if you want a Saturday off with guaranteed no phone calls, you need to take vacation.

And people put up with this?

That's some serious WTF, unless you were the only person in the company able to do that and it was an extinction event for the company if nobody dealt with it.

I am baffled why anybody would either do or accept any of the above.

About the same according to a quick Google search.

"It usually adds up to five weeks of vacation plus around nine public holidays (plus other possible company paid holidays or additional vacation time)."

Source: http://www.thelocal.dk/20150407/working-in-denmark-vacation-...

Appeasement does not (always|ever) lead to progress.

In civilized countries secular law trumps religious law.

>> You do not need your body after you are dead.

> How do you know? Have you ever been dead? Do you know any people who have died?

As soon as anybody comes back from the dead to object, I'll reconsider my opinion. Until then I have no cause to believe that I or anybody else will need their body after we are dead. The living, however, most certainly do.

>> This is good for society.

> You don't know that either, unless you know the future. In this particular case, you can't rely on the past either.

Of course I know it's good for society: less people die due to donor organs. That's not up for debate. This will not change in the future either, until we can grow our own spare parts.

> This is insane

Is it? Is it really more insane than believing you need your organs after you are dead?

> But please don't advocate for your contempt to be codified into laws

Why not? People do it all the time :) At least my agenda benefits society by any objective measure.

> discriminate against people different than you.

How does it discriminate when it's the same for everybody?

> The default should be made clear and people should be able to easily opt-out for any reason they see fit or even no reason at all.

Isn't this the case in France?

I don't really care that much if people opt out, but I do think it should be harder to opt-out. Akin to conscientious objection in the face of a mandatory draft. Not that I wouldn't mind that the opt-out would be available only on very selective criteria.

I'm good with losing state after death. It's not like people aren't maimed (involuntary) before death also.

I'm also good with door number two. If you are to be cryonically preserved then you should not even need to opt-out as you are not "dead".

Sure, but this has no relation to what happens to your body when you are dead, unless you deed your body in your will.

> Transplants don't save lives, they violate it in the worst possible way.

Wait, what? I don't even know where to begin. That whole sentence does not make any sense.

> And allowing the state to harvest your organs without your consent is bad.

So opt-out and call it a day. Not that I oppose mandatory organ donation.

I'm not even going to touch that cell memory theory.

> From a society's perspective opt-out makes perfect sense." It's very troubling to follow that line of thought. It's also arguably in societies interest to make all your private medical data publicly available for research and all your private communications, purchases and movements available to any government agency to prevent crime etc. How many people would be comfortable with what are considered by many to be fundamental rights being opt-in all of a sudden?

Straw man argument. People don't die with immediate effect for lack of public data.

> "The state isn't invading your corporeal sovereignty". It is, in the most fundamental and intimate way possible. If you support opt-out at least be honest about what it is. I carry an organ donation card but this is a line I think should not be crossed. There are alternative which don't make your body ownership opt-in (like doctors guidelines about approaching families etc).

You are dead. What rights do you really need and how are they violated?

You do not need your body after you are dead. This is good for society.

If anything the opt out should be further restricted. You may opt out, but you'd need a valid reason. Any held superstition should not be grounds.