41–50 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this an issue?
For an institution that claims to be an engineering leader, there's no real excuse for not having TLS everywhere with proper redirects today. It can prevent ISPs from seeing what you get or injecting their own code into webpages.
Engineering leaders generally have the skill of choosing the right solution for the problem at hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you believe MIT would have this information?
I don't, it's just the most frequently asked question.
Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."
Kind of impressive, and nice in a way - - since it is so obviously corrupt and we become aware of it because the case is so high profile. Makes you wonder who pulled it off and how often things like it occur.
This is besides the point of the article, but the link is in HTTP (no TLS but available with a correct certificate), and the report site which has the information linked in the article is also in HTTP (but has a bad TLS certificate).
Why is this an issue?
This is besides the point of the article, but the link is in HTTP (no TLS but available with a correct certificate), and the report site which has the information linked in the article is also in HTTP (but has a bad TLS certificate).
Why is this an issue?
Epstein didn't kill himself. Video footage "accidentally" deleted and the backup footage also lost due to "technical errors." His death and a cleanup so slovenly and brazenly done in front of the public eye is a mockery of America as a nation of "liberty and justice for all."
The world is not fair. There is little justice. But it's more fair and just than it's ever been before, by far. Maybe we've taken a step back in the last 10 years. It's hard to say. But compared to even 50 years ago, we are so far ahead it's unbelievable. 100 years, and it's basically a different world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and a well-known Harvard Law School professor. almost certainly Alan Dershowitz, who is up to his eyeballs in epstein dirt.
Yes, and the LinkedIn co-founder is obviously Reid Hoffman. Here's a series of Tweets from Aanand Giridharadas talking about discovering some of this information and how they reacted to it: https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1169947031806365696
> Why are the people not connected to Epstein leaving this orbit, while people connected to Epstein remain?
> Shouldn't it be the other way around?
This isn't true, right? MIT knew about those engagements from as far back as 2013. This is the first sentence in the first answer to the first question and it just isn't correct. What _actually_ happened in September is a bunch of fucking terrible press for MIT. This whole thing is just so sad and at the end of all this is a bunch of human beings who were treated so poorly by some, and in some ways almost worse, treated indifferently by so many others.
Why they hired a law firm to begin with?
Often times outside law firms handle investigations like this. MIT clearly had some failed policies where they were laundering the reputation of a despicable person for donations, which shouldn't happen. An internal investigation would be strongly biased to find no wrong-doing. Ostensibly, an outside investigation is more neutral (even though MIT is still paying for it so they're clearly biased to be soft too...)
Yes, if there is a bias, it needs to come from somewhere? If feel it is like saying "If you haven't made a crime, you don't need an attorney." This doesn't make sense for most of people on your side of Atlantic, but try to get the rationale behind that.
Similarly, if they began talking of settlement fund, then for what they set it for to begin with, if this is a complete BS?