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

Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 353 posts

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#71

Post by akersten »

shadowgovt wrote: post #18
aneutron wrote: post #6

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?

Aren't you worried that a statement surrounding a person who is the subject of a possible international cover-up, might be a prime candidate for MitM-type tampering? Without HTTPS, how do you know what you're reading hasn't been subtly changed from the real statement MIT put out?

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#72

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

Ohn0 wrote: post #55
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens MUCH less today than at any time in the past. Only 2 generations ago, stuff like this was happening on a daily basis everywhere in the world. This was basically what justice used to be. 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 a…

"America" is different than "everywhere in the world"

Where?

Germany today definitely seems better than Nazi Germany -- copy that for almost all of Europe.

Japan today is definitely better than Tojo.

Russia today is probably better than Soviet Russia. Maybe it's worse. It's still bad.

Copy that for China, but I can't imagine it's worse than Mao. South East Asia seems a lot better off without the Khmer Rogue running around.

Isis is fucking up the middle east and MBS is terrible, but at least women have some rights and their courts aren't an absolute complete joke anymore.

I don't know much about India -- but it definitely seems like it's improving vs the recent past.

I don't really know anything about South America or Africa or Australia -- but if you think there was more justice in the Aztec or Inca Empires than there is today, you're mistaken.

Sure, things are way worse in some pockets I guarantee -- see Syria.

The world as a whole is getting better and fairer. And if you think anywhere in the world wasn't killing people on a regular basis for political motives and getting away with it Scott Free, I think you should read about Kingdoms and Empires and Slavery and Feudalism -- you know, the things civilazation ran on until relatively recently. And if you think "Modern Day Slavery" is anywhere near as bad as "Real Slavery" -- again, you're completely mistaken.

Go back 300 years, and you could kill your wife almost anywhere for almost any reason. Nevermind "Royalty" being able to get away with anything.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#73

Post by Waterluvian »

ericfrenkiel wrote: post #24

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."

Great claims require great evidence. Your claim makes me increasingly skeptical, but I require a lot more.

What is the best, least crackpot looking resource to dig into the _facts_?

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#75

Post by gumby »

sxcurry wrote: post #66

1) Negroponte responded: “I know him quite well. The person who is his closest friend is Marvin Minsky, who even visited him in jail. I would take Berlusconi’s money, so why not Jeff.” (By March 2013, Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, had been accused of hiring underaged prostitutes and dating underaged girls.) 2)“I’ve also talked to Nicholas [Negroponte] as well who had met him and he also agrees that…

I'm really surprise Marvin visited him in jail. It's not out of character of him (he was really a kind human) but I'm surprised he had that close a relationship.

I like Nicholas a lot but some of his remarks do surprise me.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#76

Post by [deleted] »

root_axis wrote: post #43
dr_dshiv wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The attorney general confirmed it was a suicide, so if we're to believe it was actually a surreptitious murder, it goes all the way to the top.

[deleted]

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#77

Post by alias_neo »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41
djsumdog wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are either of those a risk that's practically worth guarding against for this information? Engineering leaders generally have the skill of choosing the right solution for the problem at hand.

The problem is a matter of trust.

The information therein is potentially bad for their reputation, and not "signing on the dotted line" leaves scope for them to come out in the future and say "that's not actually what we said, must have been MitMd" (for example).

An institution of this calibre should be considered viable to pull off something this obtuse to your average person, and thus should not be given the benefit of the doubt. This is just one of many possible effects including SEO penelties amongst others.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#79

Post by gumby »

thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: post #48

> In September, in response to revelations about engagements between MIT and Jeffrey Epstein... 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…

The point is revelation outside MIT. The report is pretty clear that Epstein's presence was discussed frequently internally -- and okayed.

The amount of money he donated is infinitesimal by MIT's standards. They must have been convinced there was tons more to come.

Re: Jeffrey Epstein and MIT: FAQs

#80

Post by ergothus »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #20

From the report http://factfindingjan2020.mit.edu/files/MIT-report.pdf Professor Lloyd's dealings look very, very shady: > Professor Lloyd remained friends with Epstein after his conviction in 2008. He visited Epstein at his office in Florida during the period of Epstein’s criminal sentence. Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch, and he has acknowledged Epstein i…

> Professor Lloyd also visited Epstein’s private island, though for only a few hours for lunch,

I live a fairly privileged life as a U.S. West Coast techie...and stopping at a private island for a few hours sounds crazy. Do non-billionaire people (active academics at that) really lead lives like this? `

Post reply on HN