781–790 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drugs destroyed his life, and it wasn't glorious. I'm not sure what else there is to say
or did he take drugs bc his life was shit? why did you decide to establish this direction of causality?
Good or bad, what a sad ending to a colorful life. The guy was troubled and had many shortcomings, but he was colorful and also achieved success and arguably was one of the seminal figures in the nascent AV industry. Sad to see his fall from grace and into a world of extravagance, deceit and cheating (taxes) and, if allegations true, even worse; then to end it on the floor of a jail -all by his own hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realise that people can be super nice to you and cruel/evil to somebody else. The serial killer living next door might be a great neighbour. That doesn’t change the facts of what he/she is.
Watch 'The Fall' mini-series for a good example
It would be a convenient front run story to alter public perceptions — and front running would be the appropriate way to classify the death
Interesting tweet by Kim Dotcom... (fuel for the conspiracy theory): https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1407805522175094785 “I wan’t to build an anti surveillance phone Kim. With air-gapped cam & mic, open source OS with VM and the most secure crypto wallet. That will piss the mass spying US govt off. Want to help me?” — John McAfee Shortly after he was arrested on “tax charges”. RIP John.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should absolutely be discounted. There's literally no evidence suggesting he was murdered. He was about to be extradited, the US Government was well on their way to making an example of him. There was no incentive to murder him.
Also of note - suicide in the US is extremely difficult if you've been identified as someone with intention. You get checked on every 15 minutes, including at night (which can be a torture by itself)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a logical standard. You can't prove a negative (ie that you didn't do something and thus are innocent), so the burden of proof must always be on those making a claim to show that it is true. While it might not be as dangerous for the gossip column to employ fallacious reasoning as it would be for a court of law, that doesn't stop it from being wrong.
Outside the courtroom everybody makes judgements based on the balance of evidence, because we can’t possibly know enough facts to pass the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
What a strange life he lived. I'm not going to make a value judgement about whether or not he was a 'good' person, but I do applaud the fact that he dared to deviate from the norm. "There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S Thompson RIP
He’s a murderer and fraudster. You do not in fact have to applaud him for anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, is that 100% true?
Probably (by which I refer to the standard of judgement in the civil suit). https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/20/mcafee_25m_lawsuit_ne...