171–180 of 472 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because not being able to freely communicate with the larger society is part of the punishment? I dunno, always seemed like an obvious thing.
Why should prisons be about punishment rather than rehabilitation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly, I don't have a problem with the quote. I just don't want to face the inevitable "Hans Reiser? Isn't that the one that..." quagmire that pretty much everybody is going to step into.
Just attribute the quote to Voltaire or Franklin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tl;dr https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea If you don't want to accept it, that's more on you, refusing to understand it is weird though.
Recklessly drinking when you know you are going to drive immediately afterwards means that there is mens rea. Perhaps not for murder but certainly for deliberately increasing the risk of harm to an innocent party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to believe redemption is possible, especially given how eloquent he is, but his demonstration of calculation over emotion in her murder makes me strongly question his change. I think it would be ridiculous for me to presume that I can possibly have any view into whether or not someone has sincerely changed, but why should the fact that someone was calculating once affect whether they have changed? I could se…
I consider it a Bayesian approach to understanding potential internal drivers. Someone who is not cold and calculating likely has less capacity to completely present the appearance of redemption whereas someone who is calculating has that capacity. So, someone who is demonstrated to be calculating has higher odds of faking a behavior if it is beneficial to them (e.g. leaving prison). It's for him to know, but I don't…
My reference to ridiculous was to the ridiculousness of my thinking that I have any insight into Reiser's character—a disclaimer at the beginning that I was not presuming to offer any. I was in no way meaning to call you or your statement ridiculous.
> I consider it a Bayesian approach to understanding potential internal drivers. Someone who is not cold and calculating likely has less capacity to completely present the appearance of redemption whereas someone who is calculating has that capacity.
Yes, that was exactly what I was meaning to say. Someone being known to be calculating should create a higher evidentiary bar—they need to do more to convince me that they have changed. But I don't think that it offers any evidence against their having changed. And maybe this is what you were saying:
> I want to believe redemption is possible, especially given how eloquent he is, but his demonstration of calculation over emotion in her murder makes me strongly question his change.
I read this as "the fact that he is calculating makes it less likely that he has changed." But maybe you just meant "the fact that he is calculating means that I require stronger evidence that he has changed"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two users in the network: A and B; one connection: AB. Three users in the network: A, B, and C; three connections: AB, AC, BC. Four users in the network: A, B, C, and D; six connections AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD. Metcalfe's law says value increases as 1-3-6-... instead of 2-3-4. In graph terms, users are nodes, connections are edges, and in a fully-connected graph edges are in order of the square of nodes.
Yes, I see I had completely misread and misunderstood the original law. But ethernetworks aren't fully connected (they tend to have lots of local connections that then are connected to each other through routing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s “Stupid thing”. And then there’s murdering your ex, hiding her body over two days, lying to your children that she’d left for russia and they’d been abandoned, and only revealing the location of the body so you could plea down to second degree murder (a good 18 months later mind, we’re not talking quick change of heart). Oh and then filing a civil suit against pretty much the entire legal system, including th…
That he still wrote "in prison for killing my wife Nina" when she wasn't his wife anymore at the time indicates IMO that he still doesn't get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He planned the murder of the mother of his kids, I'm pretty sure he can plan well in advance for a parole hearing. I wouldn't put anything past the likes of Hans Reiser or Peter Madsen.
Was there something I missed? I just reread his wikipedia page, and it seems to confirm the crime-of-passion narrative that I remember from 15 years ago. That said, I would not disagree with your character evaluation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I see I had completely misread and misunderstood the original law. But ethernetworks aren't fully connected (they tend to have lots of local connections that then are connected to each other through routing).
I think the difference between logical and physical connections is what drives the confusion here. If two nodes can reach each other somehow then for Metcalfe's law they are connected, even if there is no direct connection between them.
Realistically, the only metric that I can think of that makes sense here isn't proportional to |V| or |E| but to the betweenness connectivity of the graph and the average distance between nodes.
That was fascinating. It sounds like he’s done some real introspection during his lockup, and I hope he’s able to apply those learnings to future situations. I felt bad for him[0] while reading. He was a brilliant young person with a big dream, yet without the interpersonal skills to help him realize it. I’ve seen that so often. Maybe this will help me look past the next person’s challenging communications, and think…
Maybe he wants to learn, or maybe he's a psychopath trying to upgrade his human emulation software so he can get out sooner. Even experts find it hard to tell.
The biblical advice to "judge not, that ye be not judged" seems relevant here. It's pretty obvious to me that it refers to a person's heart, that is, their internal desires and motivations that no one but them can truly know. If that motivation leads to a person acting the way I'd like them to, and they claim it's for reasons I agree with, and I'm not on the parole board or one of their family members where I have a need to look deeper, then fine.