What is the level of unconsciousness during anesthesia? Is it "sleep-like" unconsciousness or "neurons do basically nothing" level? Whenever I read about anesthesia I am wondering if we are not accidentally killing people (and creating new ones) like in teletransportation paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox
Just anecdata, but I was under a few times as kid. It was like teleporting into the future. Last memory was being told to count backwards, next memory was waking up in the recovery room.
Apparently I had a small anesthetic overdose in the hospital as a kid and woke up a day or two later than expected, but from my perspective, nothing happened and I just went to sleep then woke up.
Depends on the "kind" of anesthesia, on the medication used and on the specific reaction of the patient to that medication.
For example there is stuff like Ketamine, which in some cases can live up to its other use as a recreational drug and give the patient very colorful dreams. There are sedatives that just take away the capacity to form memories, but leave you awake and aware, just calmer. In cases like some knee surgeries, it is possible to leave the patient fully awake, just paralyze and numb the legs.
To add to the examples others have given there is also some that makes you not feel pain but you do remain semi-conscious and when so can still form permanent memories. This is called conscious sedation. They can adjust your level of consciousness as they go, so they can make you more aware if they have to ask questions or need to you do something like move a body part for them and make you less aware when they don't need any interaction.
It combines a sedative from the benzodiazepine family with a synthetic opioid painkiller. This is the most common sedation for colonoscopies. I had a colonoscopy using this, with fentanyl as the opioid and probably midazolam for the benzodiazepine (if not that probably diazepam).
I was aware of the doctor starting the procedure and felt something cold. I could feel pushing sometimes. But nothing hurt or was even annoying (except that cold right at the start). I remember being asked how I was doing and answering. I remember the doctor talking about the quality of my prep--the laxatives had not been as effective as they could have been--and noting that it was still good enough to allow them to continue.
There are some gaps so I think at some points I was more out of it.
I had an earlier colonoscopy with deep sedation using propofol. Here's the experience with that: (1) they start it and I have maybe 10 seconds of memories after that point. At this point I wasn't even in the procedure room. I was in a bed in a waiting area. (2) My next memory is waking up, in the same waiting area, with a nurse telling me they are done, putting the basket with my pants and glasses and phone on the bed, and telling me I could put my pants on.
I've got no memory of being wheeled into the procedure area, or of anything that happened there, or being wheeled back.
That doesn't necessarily mean I didn't feel anything during the procedure. When we were going over the sedation options when arranging for that colonoscopy I asked if deep sedation means you don't feel anything at all, and all the doctor would say is that I would not have any memories of anything.
That isn't exactly reassuring.
If someone offered to pay me a large amount of money to undergo a couple of hours or horrible torture with a guarantee that they would give me a drug to prevent forming long term memories of that torture I would not accept. I would be too worried that there could be other negative persistent effects of such mental trauma than just the formation of long term recallable memories and that the memory preventing drug would not stop those other effect.
In my last company I had like 10 product managers above my head. Each one was managing a bunch of new features ordered by different clients. As a developer you could work with different product manager every day because every task was linked to specific product manager. Do you think any of them would care about such bug that do not block their precious feature for which they will get bonus if it's done in time? Of course not. And if you tried to speak with someone higher about that issue you would hit the wall of "And which client will pay for us fixing our own bugs?" As if better product would not have better marketing and bring more money in the future. Everything is always about money now. Monkey sees money - monkey has neuron activation.
I'm also programmer and such bugs immediately reminds me of all my managers demanding exact time it would take me to fix such bug and me telling them it could take from 1 day to 1 year was never taken seriously :(
If the law is unethical then you may be pushed to do "bad" things. For example if you are a Jew living with family in a Nazi Germany and someone know your secret and he feels he need to disclose it to the authorities then you may consider... murdering him. Would you really be a bad guy?
What if instead of Rectangle class we would have ReadonlyRectangle and Rectangle? Square could then inherit from ReadonlyRectangle, so code expecting only to read some properties and not write them could accept Square objects as ReadonlyRectangle. Alternatively if we really want to have only Square and Rectangle classes, there could be some language feature that whenever you want to cast Square to Rectangle it must be "const Rectangle" (const as in C++), so again we would be allowed to only use the "safe" subset of object methods.
I think what you mean is that if a Square that is also a Rectangle can't be made to be non-square, then inheritance works. Which, fair enough, but I think there's still other good reasons that inheritance is a bad approach. Interfaces (and traits) are still way better.
What is "ReadonlyRectangle"? Is it just an interface that only exposes read-only methods; or is it an explicit promise that the rectangle is immutable?
Perhaps we could go with even more classes. "Rectangle" and "Square" for the read-only methods, without any implications about mutability. "MutableRectangle" and "MutableSquare" for mutable implementations; "ImmutableRectangle" and "ImmutableSquare" for immutable implementations.
- "Rectangle" has methods "getWidth" and "getHeight".
- "Square" has a method "getSide".
- "ImmutableRectangle" implements "Rectangle".
- "ImmutableSquare" implements "Rectangle" and "ImmutableRectangle" and "Square".
- "MutableRectangle" implements "Rectangle"; has extra methods "setWidth" and "setHeight".
- "MutableSquare" implements "Rectangle" and "Square"; has an extra method "setSide".
...or you could just give up, and declare two classes "Square" and "Rectangle" (mutable) that either have nothing in common, or they just both extend some "Shape" class that can paint them and calculate the area.
Would never happen. I was working for a company which for C++ projects used open source CMake package manager called Hunter. Thousands of packages (ours and third-party) for multiple platforms were causing building and linking problems constantly. Literally every day devops would waste hours on those issues. Many of the problems come from our not-understanding of the build processes and some were Hunter bugs so we were happy to jump to every new release. And one day the Hunter maintainer make announcement that he will abandon the project if someone would not help him financially. I pointed this out to my manager. He said that it's very unfortunate but he would need to talk to his manager who would need to talk to next manager and so on, some finance department would need to allocate funds for that but they would not do that without the approval of some other department and so on. So my manager said we must wait, see what Hunter maintainer would do and if he really abandon the project then we will think what next. Ruslo (Hunter maintaner) abandoned the project so I told my manager that we should simply contact Ruslo and try to hire him as he clearly would be the right person to solve all our building problems. Guess what... My manager would need to contact his manager and so on, and so on, so nothing was done.
I recently read a lot of Microsoft "The Old New Thing" blog where a few times were mentioned "Le Chatelier’s Principle as interpreted by John Gall: Every system resists its proper functioning". It was the first thing I thought of when reading about assigning quality of service, and here is your comment :P
I personally consider FreeCAD very far from stable. All I need to do is to open random example projects to speedrun to some warning/error/exception/segfault.
I knew I was in for a bad experience when I opened it up for the first time and I couldn't even select some components of the screen because the high resolution DPI monitor made some things unclickable because the pixel boundary box was impossibly small.
