Rabbi, what is the meaning of those people's lives in your understanding? And more generally, what does "meaning" mean in your view? Something defined for you from the outside, no?

I didn't understand the question. I don't keep my own private dictionary, and I don't see the importance of what this or that word means in my dictionary. Why does that matter?

And I already referred you to the relevant column.

If a person defines for himself (or finds) his purpose, then he will not have a problem of meaning even if other things are missing. But not everyone can get there. Usually this involves unmet needs or unsatisfied drives. (Purpose too is a kind of need. A person needs to feel that he is contributing something to the tribe. Or that he belongs.)

If the honorable Rabbi does not keep his own dictionary, why did he ask the questioner how he defines meaning?
In any case, as far as I understand, I know that you hold it to be objective and relative to some external axis.
In any case,
I would be glad to know what the meaning is of those examples the questioner gave here:
"a small child who died of illness / a premature baby who died / someone in a vegetative state / a person with very severe illnesses who cannot do anything"
about whom you answered, "although I really do not agree with that" (that they have no meaning).

K, I can't understand what you're talking about. I'm asking him what he means because without that I don't know how to answer. What does that have to do with the question of what my dictionary is?
The lives of the people described here could certainly have meaning, at least for the others who care for them. In some cases also for the person himself (if there is something that he himself can decide and carry out).

Okay, never mind. I thought that to understand your view I should ask you, but I think I know it. You just mentioned the dictionary.
In any case,
That's a somewhat sad meaning, that someone's whole existence is only so that those around him will care for him, like Rabbi Akiva's words to Turnus Rufus about the poor. Doesn't that make them different, then, from other beings that are not human, like animals? And as for them, you do not hold that they have meaning, or that it is forbidden to kill them for some purpose. As with causing suffering to animals, which was permitted for a need. So can one say the same about such people as well, theoretically?
Second, if someone has very little power of choice because of his difficult life, does that also mean that his meaning would be very small relative to another person? Because I assume that meaning is derived from the range of possibilities in free choice, according to this.

Correct. Although the prohibition against murdering him is not necessarily connected to the meaning of his life.