941–950 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really know, but Elon Musk has been known to buy media companies that don't give him a good ROI, and he was making noise about putting a bid together on this one.
> and he was making noise about putting a bid together on this one. The list of things Musk makes noise about but does not do gets a little longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I also spend many hours per week and haven't seen something like this in months. I don't think you're being honest, especially because you're on a new account and likely are an alt of another poster here. You're definitely stretching the definitions of "plenty" and "at every opportunity" at the very least, if not outright misrepresenting the situation as more common than it actually is. If the comments made are downv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42385079 ? I have zero idea what the technicalities of the bankruptcy judgment are or should be, but what I do know after an embarrassing number of years doing this job is: (1) there's no such thing as "clear bad-faith" - to decide that would require knowing someone else's inner state. We don't have access to that about each other, and people are far too quick to draw…
> people have often felt over the years like HN has changed since $X, but at most there are fluctuations that revert to the mean. Whatever the real trends there are, they're longer-term than that, and determined by fundamentals. I think it is generally agreed upon that the volume of shared misinformation and individuals believing misinformation has been dramatically increasing over the last decade as preferences in m…
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I just mean that whatever macro trends we're subject to, they're longer-term than discrete events like an election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a non-sequitur. Justice departments don't go after presidents or president-elects in order to prevent a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the remedy in that case. This policy is entirely unrelated to presidential pardon power.
You're not going after a "President". You are going after a law breaker. He can be President all day long in jail. The reality is that we've codified that Presidents are largely unable to be investigated and or held to account by the legal system. There was no carve outs in the constitution at any point for anybody in government. This is a new, and probably fatal invention.
They can be investigated and held to account by Congress. That's what impeachment is. That's the whole point of having impeachment in the constitution.
If Congress fails to exercise its constitutional duty, then the problem lies with the specific representatives that place party above country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No the judge stated he believes it could be sold at a higher price not that the deal wasn’t structured properly. There’s been confusion on the math. Because one party was forgoing a portion of their share everyone else not just the other victims would be better off financially. ps: Economic maximization alone isn’t relevant here. The underlying economic value matters when individuals aren’t voluntarily participating…
I think the word "preferred" has been a bit overloaded in this discussion. There is a sense of economic advantage that you may be using, and this deal in that sense is "preferred" for everyone. There is the other sense of stated preferences, and this deal is clearly not in the stated preferences of one of the parties (hence the appeal to a court). I think if the creditors unanimously wanted this to happen, it probabl…
I’m simply agreeing with independent 3rd parties who state that The Onion’s bid was larger and better for the creditors. Alex Jones clearly doesn’t want his life’s worked turned into such an obvious mockery, but while he’d love to sell these business to his parents for 1 dollar but the courts are acting to maximize the transaction’s value. Thus he can only object in terms of monetary value not his personal preferences.
It is clear that Jones and his relatives have moved money and assets around in order to shield them from the verdict. Now, money that should have been already given to the victims is being used to steal back the megaphone that caused harmed in the first place. The end effect will probably be even more subscribers and money for Jones which he will use with even less restraint since he knows there are no consequences.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The poster suggested that Jones actions on Sandy Hook were an outlier. One 'bad' action. They were not. He built his business on Sandy Hook and similar actions, and that's clearly what my original post intended and I stand by it. I think it's intellectually dishonest to suggest Jones faced consequences because of one bad action. I have stronger words for it honestly but I'm trying to stick to the rules of this forum.…
You claimed: "He built a business out of attacking and re-victimizing parents whose children were murdered." This is false, as he obviously didn't build his operation solely on his claims about Sandy Hook as you claimed. The other comment pointed this out, so you changed what you were saying without admitting what you said was inaccurate. Now you are bizarrely claiming that you didn't say what you said, even though e…
I sure could have been clearer. But what exactly are you saying? That he didn't build his business this way? Or are you just trying to attack the words I used.
What are you hoping to accomplish by parsing my words technically?
>> Whatever you think about Jones, it doesn't do anyone any good to portray the Sandy Hook case as being about other things.
What do you mean? My whole point is that Sandy Hook is not different from what Jones did every single day, and you don't seem willing to disagree with me. You just seem to want to parse my words.
Why? What exactly is your point here? Why are you arguing this specific turn of phrase? Unless you think that Alex Jones is a voice you want to hear and protect. Why don't you just say that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The two sibling commenters spend hours per week on HN and haven't seen this. I spend an hour or so a week looking for this --- you can see it in my comment history --- over and above the probable hours per day I spend on HN (I am on HN professionally). It's an open-access site, so if you go looking for this stuff, you will absolutely find it. But it tends, strongly, to come from throwaway accounts, and is virtually a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Hunter Biden pardon literally set historical precedent. It followed a long-established historical precedent. Clinton pardoned his brother ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controvers... ). The Bushes pardoned their Iran Contra cronies ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby_clemency_controv... ). Trump pardoned his son-in-law's father (and now appointed him to be the French ambassador; h…
I promise this is an honest question: has ANY president since the civil war reconciliation blanket pardoned someone for an entire decade for all known and unknown federal crimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it a little strange, though, that the system notionally decided that the families are owed an enormous amount of economic power as compensation for the nasty behavior of Alex Jones' media company, but at the same time it's obliging them not to use that economic power to prevent the sale of the media company to a "new owner" still affiliated with an unrepentant Alex Jones, who will undoubtedly continue the nasty…
$1.5 billion is more than Exxon paid for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Alex Jones must have been really nasty.