Korolev's forum posts

#1 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -


Also, this is not going to end well for the adventurous doctor or his patient. Granted, I am not a surgeon - I am merely a medical student. But even as a Medical student, I foresee a horrendous number of potential complications and issues with this surgery. For starters, leaving aside EVERYTHING else, this is new territory for humans. Yes, there have been Russian experiments in the past involving dogs, but this has never been done in a human, and I can tell you that the dogs did not experience a satisfactory outcome in the long term (they survived for a few days). Granted, technology has improved immeasurably, but this is still uncharted waters.

Now, of course, just because surgery hasn't been performed before isn't a reason to never do it - if we adopted that rule, we'd never innovate at all. But usually when someone ventures forth into hitherto untested surgical waters, they 1) Have a DAMN good reason for doing so, and 2) Are likely to achieve a satisfactory outcome. This doesn't appear to be the case this time. This surgeon is a maverick who, from the grape vine, isn't particularly skilled - he's probably decent, but he's certainly not world-famous (he certainly wasn't before this announcement). And the honest to goodness truth is that the patient 1) Unlikely to survive, 2) Even if they do survive, they may have horrendous complications and 3) Best case scenario they live but are attached to a useless, unmoving body that serves as little more than a life-support machine, given that I highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt he has the skill or the technology to attach a spinal cord to another spinal cord.

And you may ask the question: "Why not try this? What does the patient, who is dying, have to lose?"

Well, let's see:

1) The remainder of his life. He's dying. He is not Dead. If this surgical adventure takes place and progresses in the likely direction, then he won't be dying any more, true enough, but that's because he he'll be stone-cold dead. I don't know, and I cannot predict how much time this patient has left, but if he's being considered for surgery, that implies he has an adequate physiological reserve to survive the surgery (provided that this doctor isn't totally incompetent and/or unethical). If he was on Death's door literally, he wouldn't be a candidate. So he almost certainly has time left on the clock to lose. That's not nothing.

2) If by some miracle this surgeon manages to successfully carry out the transplant, the patient may be better of dead than alive. He'll almost certainly be put on a cardiopulmonary by-pass machine and they are notorious for causing brain damage (sometimes very severe brain damage). Now, Cardiopulmonary by-pass is important - sometimes we have no choice but to put a patient on it, but it's risky and patients can come off with significant neurological damage. He may live - but he may either never wake up, or wake up with bits of his brain infarcted. What's worse - to die in a few years, still largely yourself with your mind intact, or to live for a decade or two longer attached to an unmoving body, potentially with catastrophic brain damage, on powerful anti-rejection medication stuck in a hospital bed forever? I've seen outcomes for patients who have had catastrophic brain injuries and strokes and I can tell you that personally, I would rather the plug be pulled than to live in that sort of medicalized limbo.

This is, honestly, unethical. I have not met a single doctor or surgeon who thinks this is a good idea. I have no idea how he will manage to get a team assembled to help him carry this task out.

#2 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -

His fans have also said that the BBC WANTED to fire him!

That's ridiculous! He was a golden-bloody-goose! You think the BBC executives are blind? You think they do not know PRECISELY how much he is worth? Come back to reality, mates. The BBC did NOT want to fire him. If anyone had done what he did, he'd have been fired within hours, at most days. The fact that he lasted weeks speaks to the BBC's absolute reluctance to fire him. They didn't want to fire him. But they literally had no choice because he absolutely crossed the line in no uncertain terms.

The BBC employed him for ages. He's been Top Gear presenter for, what, 16 years? 16 years. And his fans are claiming that the BBC always hated him and wanted to fire him!? Whatever his fans are on, it must be some pretty strong stuff.

#3 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -

I won't deny that Top Gear was a great show. I won't deny that Clarkson was a good presenter. But he had to go.

I can't understand the mindset of those who defend him. What if your boss smacked you in the face for not getting him the food he wanted (because the chefs had gone home for the day)? He did something wrong.

The worst excuse concocted by his fans goes something like: "In the past, other BBC presenters did similar/worse things and THEY weren't fired!" Oh, so you're saying that because the BBC failed to do the right thing in the past, it shouldn't do the right thing now?

The mental backflips his fans are doing to justify his actions are staggering. You can't defend his action, from a logical standpoint. You can only defend what he did if you're a raving fan who has lost all perspective.

#4 Edited by Korolev (1786 posts) -

I played it on the PC in December, and for the most part, it was fine. Didn't experience anything that Vinny experienced.

#5 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -

Oh hell.

#6 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -

Well, GBeast is actually doing a LOT of quicklooks - go into the archives and take a look. They're doing as many as the main office, I think, which is pretty good considering they're just two people.

As for Dan being prominent - he's enthusiastic, that's all. He's willing to put in the hours and put his face out there. Sorry, but Jeff and Brad seem permanently burnt out these days - probably due to all the admin work they do! The reason you see more Dan is because Dan simply.... does more stuff, to be honest. He's enthusiastic, trying to prove himself and fit in. He's the new guy who is on the ground while Jeff and Brad are doing important work off camera.

#7 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -

Currently the thing that interests me the most is the world and the look of the game.

#8 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -

Half life 3. Valve will make it eventually. I have the feeling we'll see it in 4 or so years. Valve is financially secure, stable and has the freedom to do whatever the heck it wants.

The Last Guardian may never come out. Team ICO are not financially independent, and they aren't resting on an enormous cash pile. Direction on the project has changed time and time again, and it's not like there's a giant popular fan base championing its release. There is a very real risk of it never coming out. EVER.

#9 Posted by Korolev (1786 posts) -

And I think I agree with most others - there is just no need to be THAT hostile.

Sure, hold the developer to account. Explore the issue. Don't back down from asking tough questions. But there is a way to ask tough questions without being incredibly rude and hostile. Tough questions are not necessarily hostile questions, and even if you ask a "hostile" question, there is a way to say it without it being personal.

It seems like John Walker has spent a bit too much time on the internet and forgotten how to interact in a normal manner.

#10 Edited by Korolev (1786 posts) -

That's the risk with Kickstarter isn't it? You need to hit big, so you over-promise, and then if you fail to meet every single one of those promises, you get torn apart by your backers. This isn't private-sector, investor-driven backing - this is fan-backing, and that comes with all the rage and emotional backlash that comes along with anything fan related. With proper investors, you can sit down with them, talk it over, adjust your plans and move on. That doesn't happen with fans.

Peter Molyneux isn't a bad man. I suspect he wanted to achieve all his stated goals. But, in a characteristically Molyneux fashion, he overreached. Now, he's floundering.

He needs to learn from his mistakes. It's not the first time he has done this. I know visionaries are needed to push the boundaries, but visionaries have a high risk of flaming out and crashing. I don't want to see Molyneux fail, but he's the one who keeps getting himself into these situations.