Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#741

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

coryfklein wrote: post #684
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is the correct way to handle such things. Yes, with conditions . Bezos himself writes, in the article we're discussing: I asked him to prioritise protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter. - emphasis mine. And that: On that point, numerous people have contacted our investigation team about their similar expe…

But if humanity as a whole enforced social norms that rewarded blackmail-refusals, then the value of blackmailing would drop so low as to be not worth it and extremely uncommon. Essentially we could develop a herd immunity to blackmail.

The solutions to a great majority of the issues facing us begin with:

But if humanity as a whole...

As far as I’ve been able to determine, much to my chagrin, in many of the ways that matter most, humanity isn’t a coherent whole.

And I’ve got no idea what to do about it.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#742

Post by [deleted] »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #741
coryfklein wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if humanity as a whole enforced social norms that rewarded blackmail-refusals, then the value of blackmailing would drop so low as to be not worth it and extremely uncommon. Essentially we could develop a herd immunity to blackmail.

The solutions to a great majority of the issues facing us begin with: But if humanity as a whole... As far as I’ve been able to determine, much to my chagrin, in many of the ways that matter most, humanity isn’t a coherent whole. And I’ve got no idea what to do about it.

[deleted]

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#743

Post by jodrellblank »

sytelus wrote: post #287
kumarvvr wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not commenting on the law. The law says a divorced wife gets half of whatever. I don't care. What I do care is the notion that the growth and success of Amazon is 50% due to the wife. That I disagree with.

Assume you need atleast $100K to start a business but you have only $90K. Your friend comes around and puts in $10K but only if you are willing to offer 50% ownership. Given no other choices, you agree and work your ass off for next 25 years to grow business to $100B while your friend did nothing else for it. Does your friend deserve $50B? I am not asking from legal point of view because that answer would be yes. I a…

"Who can say how much Randi Zuckerberg is worth?"

"She believes she is worth all her money, she believes she is more than Mark's sister, she believes she has valuable opinions. Anyone who disagrees is a hater. You're just jealous. "No, she's a fool!" Then how come she's so rich?

Those who are enraged by her are actually suffering from the same delusion she is [..] The standard criticism of her is that she didn't really do anything to deserve her money-- "she got rich because of her brother"-- but this is a profound disavowal of the reality: she got rich because of timing-- even though her job at Facebook was trivial, she was there from the beginning and got paid in stock options. What's interesting is that no one makes this criticism of her, because that's what her haters believe is supposed to happen to them.

[..] even her haters want the money to mean retroactively they were already deserving of it, this kind of fortune has bypassed reality testing and instead creates a new reality, it uses the truth in order to lie: of course I'm not rich because of my work product, duh, you can't measure a human being's value based on his labor. I'm rich because that's what I'm worth. "Isn't that specious reasoning?" Oh, dear, sweet, earnest, Lisa, I want to buy your rock.*

And so the hatred of her, like all hate, is revealed to be a defense. To her haters Randi is a buffoon, a step above relationship expert, she is too glaringly undeserving of that money; Randi is an obscene counterexample to the logic that the payout mirrors value and self worth. She is a narcissistic injury for everyone else. So she's disparaged in a specific way: she doesn't deserve all that money because she got it from her brother."

- https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/03/who_can_know_how_muc...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#744

Post by dpweb »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #635
malvosenior wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Yes, all presidents and foreign powers do this. Although Bezos doesn't present any proof that it's actually happening here, just speculation.

Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hi…

Espionage is nothing new. Trump or US govt. ordering this is an attractive idea to Trump haters. Self serving for Bezos btw. But I think unlikely. No need.

Like other smear attempts for instance Wikileaks on the Clinton campaign and also why its unlikely Mueller will EVER get the smoking gun on Trump. You don’t need to order these things, your allies will do it without your knowledge. Deniability.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#745

Post by auntienomen »

willvarfar wrote: post #536
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Because he doesn't want everyone to know that he has a penis? The kind of people who care about "celebrity gossip" will have no idea who he is, and the people who do know who he is won't care. There is no market for these photos.

Because he wants to cost them a lot of money? We all hate when the big guys use lawsuits to stifle the little guys, but getting AMI execs tied up in legal worries and costs seems, in this instance, to have popular appeal?

Everyone enjoys watching a bully have their bluff called.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#746

Post by chillwaves »

dpweb wrote: post #744
matthewdgreen wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hi…

Espionage is nothing new. Trump or US govt. ordering this is an attractive idea to Trump haters. Self serving for Bezos btw. But I think unlikely. No need. Like other smear attempts for instance Wikileaks on the Clinton campaign and also why its unlikely Mueller will EVER get the smoking gun on Trump. You don’t need to order these things, your allies will do it without your knowledge. Deniability.

Very optismistic POV considering the indictments in the works.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#747

Post by chillwaves »

_pmf_ wrote: post #713
matthewdgreen wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hi…

The Fusion GPS/FBI collusion comes very close to what you describe.

Collusion? What do you mean by that term?

You mean the FBI hired Fusion GPS for official business? I believe the term you are looking for is "contracting".

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#748

Post by chillwaves »

vict00ms wrote: post #727
creaghpatr wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to read about the measures great past Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, amongst others, took. It's gonna be an eye-opening experience for you if your comment is in good faith.

I agree that Abraham Lincoln took some questionable measures but that smacks of "whataboutism" and has no bearing whatsoever on this situation. I have difficulty taking your comment in good faith because if there is truth to this (i.e. one of our spy agencies or a foreign gov't was spying on and leaking information about a U.S. citizen with the sitting president's knowledge and/or tacit endorsement) it is unprecedent…

It's as if our country being in a literal civil war was a bigger crisis than just trying to cover up the current president's crimes and attempts to hide his crimes!

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#749

Post by chillwaves »

jki275 wrote: post #693
logfromblammo wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impeachment is a political process. The dangerous precedents have already been set, for Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. The former was impeached for firing the Secretary of War without consent of the Senate, and refusing to reinstate Stanton in that position when it did not ratify the dismissal. Acquitted by one vote. The latter was impeached for lying about inappropriate personal behavior, and obstruction of jus…

--"I have little doubt that the current president will be confronted by a stack of previously sealed criminal indictments on the afternoon of the next president's inauguration day. Those cases will be tried in courts with a fixed standard of proof--beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, and preponderance of evidence for civil cases." The precedent has already been set there also -- both Bill and Hillary Clinton…

That's interesting that the political enemies of the Clintons controlled literally ever lever of government but there has not ever been charges.

What world do you live in that you should continue to make such baseless claims and expect to be taken seriously?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#750

Post by chillwaves »

mc32 wrote: post #561
ltc5505 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, you'll still find people (even in this thread) that claim "of course Trump's campaign wasn't meant to be taken literally." With statements like "if you took what Trump said on the campaign literally, then you missed the point." So then if _The Wall_ was figurative, why did he shut down the government over its funding? "No he meant that one literally." Okay... So what about the fact that the wall would be funde…

Like any politician, the "Mexico would pay for it" was an "argument" to get support. Did supporters care if Mexico itself would pay? No. But it fit their sentiment. It's win-win for him because the only people who would "care" would be people against the wall who politically don't matter. It's like when Dems say they want to abolish ICE. That's what their base want to hear. Do they really think ICE is going to be abo…

It's interesting how many words you use to describe what in plain terms are blatant lies and deceptions.
Post reply on HN