Of all the claims Esperanto has, I think "one can easily learn it" is the one that has most ground to stand on. It's been a while since I've dabbled in the language and I can still read and listen to it without much trouble (save for having to look up some of the more specialized vocabulary).

"Going into Happyland" sounds like a great euphemism. I'm going to steal it if you don't mind.

And that's perhaps the most peaceful peace. A‌ peace only nothingness can bring.

There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.

From the article:

She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.

Whether we agree with her or not, it's her decision.

And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.

Indeed, that's not what exactly what I meant. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

My main point can be summarized in that second to the last paragraph, which I doubt has communicated things adequately.

To reiterate: it won't be initiated by the medical professionals. They're simply there to ensure that someone applying for this procedure are indeed "proceeding of their own accord and have made sure options have been considered". The waiting period is there to make sure that not only they've arrived at this decision after careful deliberation, but also to force them to consider and try out the options available to them. The process can be terminated at any point by the patient, and the final step will not proceed without their permission.

My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved.

I accept this point. This is why I‌ put the emphasis on the decision of the patient. And this is where I think our positions fundamentally differ. Promising treatments may or may not be there, may or may not be there in the immediate or far future, but it's on the patient to consider. The medical professionals are there to ensure that the patient has considered available options, and have exerted reasonable effort to improve their situation. Whether or not the patient has made "the correct decision" isn't the point—but rather whether or not the patient has made an informed and well-thought-out decision.

I share your opinion that in an ideal world, this shouldn't even be needed. That even though the option would be there for anyone to take, no one will take it in an ideal world. But we are not in such an ideal world. We can strengthen our social safety nets to help people suffering from the debilitating effects of mental illness (among other sources of suffering), and that will do a lot of good, but until we arrive at a society which no longer needs a dignified exit because no one ever wants to exit, I am of the opinion of giving them that option.

I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:

People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?

And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.

She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”

Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That's not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.

We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.

In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they've tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn't have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn't have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one's condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they've been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.

If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.

Oh, sorry, I've been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don't have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there'd be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they're in) can sign up.

The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they'd ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I'd be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I'm completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I'm lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I'm continuing the process, then I'd choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!

Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn't even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can't be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.

EDIT: Some proofreading.

I find it more difficult to read text that are short, concise, but using lots of specialized vocabulary. However, a problem about the second choice is making it simple in words, but structured in such a way that ensures both attention and comprehension.

The problem with walls of text, and a problem I also encounter in stuff I write myself, is how there's just a wall of text. A string of lengthy paragraphs consisting of long sentences that just go on and on without providing the reader a place to pause. That is: a point in which the reader can stop, check for comprehension or just a breather.

Reading such a block of text can be tiring.

I've been taught to employ a variety of sentence and paragraph lengths, and try to apply them to my writing. However, this can run the risk of making the result disjointed and rambly. I am guilty of this myself. I realize that this just means I didn't take the time to collect and organize my thoughts before typing things out. It can be as simple as thinking about what I want to say in the first place, or it can be as involved as thinking about the main point and any supporting points, and how I can lay them out such that they flow neatly in the result.

Longer texts can be improved with just a bit more care in their composition, and without it, walls of text are definitely a chore to read.

EDIT:

I should proofread before hitting post.

In one campaign, we started out using tokens of some kind on a battle grid. However, as the campaign went on, we stopped using it. For most part, it went okay. However, keeping track of where everyone can sometimes be too much. In particular, my character, whose modus is either hiding or healing, sometimes both, lead us to a situation when even I forgot to inform of our DM that I was hiding behind a huge statue that fell over. I was too busy keeping the rest of the party alive that I forgot where I was. Thankfully, when it was brought up, our DM just asked me to do an acrobatics check to confirm that I managed to roll out of the way and another check to see whether or not I kept myself hidden.

Keeping track of everyone's positions also became less important because our DM got a bit more lax about imposing those area of effect rules.

You know what, yeah, that makes sense (that OP didn't really need convincing, but was just looking for a good rolling release distro with NVIDIA support). I was thinking that some of the replies were kinda harsh on OP too, hahaha.

Agreed. Though in the context of trying to convince someone to commit to Linux, suggesting that they buy new hardware would make them have second thoughts (about Linux, given that their stuff works okay with Windows).

Sure, it's better for them to have a better idea of what they're getting into (NVIDIA and Linux mixes like oil and water), but that might be better off stated as "If you're intending to upgrade your hardware, better stay away from NVIDIA." (Or something along those lines.)

I'm now way more willing to switch to hardware that'd play nice with Linux now that I've made the jump. In fact, if I have the money, I would have already ditched my graphics card for something better (looking at getting an RX 6650 XT).

I have the same graphics card as the OP, due to circumstances beyond my control, and I can see where you're coming from (looking to replace this video card sooner than later with an AMD one--seeing how troublesome NVIDIA is with Linux, I just don't want to support them). However, this "just buy better hardware, lol!" line of reasoning is counter-productive to convincing someone to make the jump to Linux.

One of the things that convinced me to make the jump is the argument that Linux can run on any junk machine destined for e-waste. Seeing the argument about buying better hardware, or buying the right brand of hardware just pains me (despite being true to some extent).

Most often 1st person POV, but very rarely 3rd person POV.

As far as I can remember, I've had only one 3rd person POV dream scene. It was a scene where after we reached the bottom of a seemingly endless spiral staircase we started exploring the huge, but almost pitch-dark, mall-like expanse we found ourselves in. At this point, the POV changed to third person, and showed us forming a circle, our backs towards the center. We then inched "forward" a few steps at a time, being very cautious and scared of what we might find down there.