Fortunately, having a discussion does not appear to be the goal of this blog post. The author is relating a story including their feelings on the matter. It’s not really about us, unless you’re working for a pump company or could possibly address the structural issues that have led to this situation.

Honestly, I found it illuminating. I don’t depend on a machine to keep me alive directly, but it made me think about how much I would resent dangling at the end of a line held by a company that would cut me off if investors thought it would make them slightly richer. One that cuts every corner they can, and doesn’t actually care about you. I imagine that resentment over years, a quarter century of things getting worse on the “caring whether you live or die” front, might lead to the feelings the author expressed.

It’s pretty clear that discussion is not desired, unless you have the cure for type 1 diabetes in hand before you send the first reply.

Retired manager, been in my share of tense meetings.

I appreciate it when someone recognizes that they're struggling with conflict and emotion, and lets me know that they know this. It's better to acknowledge the emotion and put it on the table as its own valid topic of discussion, than to tiptoe around it or try the "I'm sensing that you're dealing with some internal conflict" approach that risks embarrassing them or worsening it.

The choice is whether to acknowledge the emotion, not whether to have it.

It honestly might be helpful if we framed more conversations that way, when talking about the creeping dependencies on tech firms that fill our lives.

Those of us without a medical dependency are lucky that catching one of the many tech failures modes won't actually kill us - but you'll still want to throttle more than a few folks if you ever have to recover from your Google/Apple ID getting banned, or PayPal running off with all your money, etc.

Not every blog is written to be discussed on Hacker News. That being said I enjoyed it and found it illuminating. It could be a regional difference, but I’m from the South East US and didn’t mind the direct communication style at all. I much prefer someone to speak their feelings rather than being nice for the sake of nicities.

First, let's acknowledge that when the actions of some people lead to endangering a human life, it's natural to be angry about it.

Personally, when anger is justified, I feel more comfortable with people who clearly and openly express it.

I find them more reliable, more honest, and usually better people to be around.

By my standards, I'd even consider the style very mild, considering a life is on the line.

I would also consider it normal to be on the receiving end of such language if my own work resulted in such a situation. That would cause me to pause and reflect.

The intensity of feedback is information. If everything is bland, it's harder to know how important something is or not. Logic has a limit because you don't have all the parameters from the other side.

It works the other way around. The overuse of superlatives and day-to-day outrage is equally unproductive.

This is not the case here, IMO.