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

My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

quinnnorton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#21

Post by cma »

tomjen3 wrote: post #18
danso wrote: post #4

> When he was 20, he carried me through my divorce. We promised each other a year. I apologized so many times: that I was better than what he was getting, that he got me destroyed. Still, what a year. Later, I tried to take care of him while he was being destroyed, from inside and out. I struggled so hard, but not as hard as he did. I told him, time and again, that this was his 20s. It would be better in his 30s. Jus…

Then go tell that to the murder. I hope the prosecutor burns in hell. Fuck that monkey and all she has ever done.

Maybe she was told to do it from higher-ups, and was fighting for the right thing piece by piece but it just wasn't achievable in this instance without maybe a resignation--which in her estimation would only lead to replacement by someone who would follow orders and not even give her own level of push-back.

It is perhaps even more likely that that isn't the case, but don't assume things.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#22

Post by benesch »

"There are no words to can contain love, to cloth it in words is to kill it, to mummify it and hope that somewhere in the heart of a reader, they have the strength and the magic to resurrect it."

This is perhaps the most profound statement about love I've ever come across.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#24

Post by jplewicke »

tomjen3 wrote: post #18
danso wrote: post #4

> When he was 20, he carried me through my divorce. We promised each other a year. I apologized so many times: that I was better than what he was getting, that he got me destroyed. Still, what a year. Later, I tried to take care of him while he was being destroyed, from inside and out. I struggled so hard, but not as hard as he did. I told him, time and again, that this was his 20s. It would be better in his 30s. Jus…

Then go tell that to the murder. I hope the prosecutor burns in hell. Fuck that monkey and all she has ever done.

Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist, and I think you might want to take a minute or two and think about why you said that.

From http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis :

"Looking at ourselves objectively isn’t easy. But it’s essential if we ever want to get better. And if we don’t do it, we leave ourselves open to con artists and ethical compromisers who prey on our desire to believe we’re perfect."

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#25

Post by Resident_Geek »

jplewicke wrote: post #24
tomjen3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then go tell that to the murder. I hope the prosecutor burns in hell. Fuck that monkey and all she has ever done.

Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist, and I think you might want to take a minute or two and think about why you said that. From http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis : "Looking at ourselves objectively isn’t easy. But it’s essential if we ever want to get better. And if we don’t do it, we leave ourselves open to con artists and ethical compromisers who prey on our desire to believe we’re p…

> Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist

How so?

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#26

Post by LukeShu »

Resident_Geek wrote: post #25
jplewicke wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist, and I think you might want to take a minute or two and think about why you said that. From http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis : "Looking at ourselves objectively isn’t easy. But it’s essential if we ever want to get better. And if we don’t do it, we leave ourselves open to con artists and ethical compromisers who prey on our desire to believe we’re p…

> Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist How so?

To many people to call someone a monkey is to say that the race they belong to is less evolved; biologically closer to monkeys.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#27

Post by Resident_Geek »

LukeShu wrote: post #26
Resident_Geek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist How so?

To many people to call someone a monkey is to say that the race they belong to is less evolved; biologically closer to monkeys.

Sure, but what indication is there that the comment is referring to her race?

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#28

Post by djt »

Resident_Geek wrote: post #25
jplewicke wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist, and I think you might want to take a minute or two and think about why you said that. From http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis : "Looking at ourselves objectively isn’t easy. But it’s essential if we ever want to get better. And if we don’t do it, we leave ourselves open to con artists and ethical compromisers who prey on our desire to believe we’re p…

> Calling her a monkey is unbearably and unquestionably racist How so?

Google it

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#29

Post by hyperbovine »

philwelch wrote: post #13
hyperbovine wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt. If this sounds shady, that's because it is.

Compelling testimony isn't "shady". Besides, the defense has the power to compel testimony as well. It's in the Constitution.

Call it what you like--this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment seems about as much in line with what the framers intended as the supposed right of every man, woman and child in our well regulated militia to own an AR15.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#30

Post by philwelch »

hyperbovine wrote: post #29
philwelch wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compelling testimony isn't "shady". Besides, the defense has the power to compel testimony as well. It's in the Constitution.

Call it what you like--this interpretation of the Fifth Amendment seems about as much in line with what the framers intended as the supposed right of every man, woman and child in our well regulated militia to own an AR15.

I was talking about Sixth Amendment, which explicitly gives the defense the power to compel witnesses:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The subpoena ad testificandum, the process by which the prosecution may compel witnesses, is a feature of the English common law that was well familiar to the founders. Its use in the United States comes directly from English precedent.

Post reply on HN