101–110 of 167 posts
The main thing I would like to know is why did he hire the lawyer he did? His defense basically sold him up the river, as can be seen from the scathing comments from the judge. Is it still a fair trial if your lawyer is incompetent?
"I felt relieved: gone was the posturing so obvious in the previous candidates. They worked in advertising, at startups—Twitter employees who talked about how much money they made and the exotic locales where they took their vacations. Ross was a techie, but he didn't act like one. He seemed eloquent, optimistic, down-to-earth. He seemed trustworthy." As an aside, that's a sad little bit of commentary on the tech sce…
"I felt relieved: gone was the posturing so obvious in the previous candidates. They worked in advertising, at startups—Twitter employees who talked about how much money they made and the exotic locales where they took their vacations. Ross was a techie, but he didn't act like one. He seemed eloquent, optimistic, down-to-earth. He seemed trustworthy." As an aside, that's a sad little bit of commentary on the tech sce…
What an absurd statement by the author. These people were interviewing for an apartment in a notoriously tough housing market - they were probably just "posturing" (mentioning their good jobs and money) because they thought it would help them get the apartment. He sounds like an outlier of a landlord who prefers a sketchy semi-employed roommate to one with a guaranteed salary.
"I felt relieved: gone was the posturing so obvious in the previous candidates. They worked in advertising, at startups—Twitter employees who talked about how much money they made and the exotic locales where they took their vacations. Ross was a techie, but he didn't act like one. He seemed eloquent, optimistic, down-to-earth. He seemed trustworthy." As an aside, that's a sad little bit of commentary on the tech sce…
What an absurd statement by the author. These people were interviewing for an apartment in a notoriously tough housing market - they were probably just "posturing" (mentioning their good jobs and money) because they thought it would help them get the apartment. He sounds like an outlier of a landlord who prefers a sketchy semi-employed roommate to one with a guaranteed salary.
I know this is converse to the way the "professional" world is and also converse to people who play along the rules of professionalism.
But dammit, it ain't real! And it needs to stop! Be who you are! And then change it from the inside out, if you need to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an absurd statement by the author. These people were interviewing for an apartment in a notoriously tough housing market - they were probably just "posturing" (mentioning their good jobs and money) because they thought it would help them get the apartment. He sounds like an outlier of a landlord who prefers a sketchy semi-employed roommate to one with a guaranteed salary.
... and they posture to get jobs, friends, romantic relationships, to feel good about their place in the social pecking order... I know some such people well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh c'mon, he ordered a hitman inside a play the FBI fully staged for him. There was never any harm done to anybody. I'm not sure this line of reasoning makes a lot of difference. We judge criminal intent, not simply outcome, and it's pretty clear that the intent in hiring a hitman is to have someone killed - staged or not. It's surely different from pulling the trigger yourself, but I think it's quite fair to expec…
Did he send any money to the hitman?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really victimless? I'll admit that for something like pot, that is responsibly grown and used, there is no victims (well maybe with second hand smoke, but you get that just as much from cigarettes). But many drugs being sold do not come responsible producers. Instead, they come from groups that cause a lot of harm in order to acquire the money from selling those drugs. Yes, legalizing responsible production wou…
> Instead, they come from groups that cause a lot of harm in order to acquire the money from selling those drugs. Yes, legalizing responsible production would largely fix this problem, but a current purchase still funds a horrible group. So basically, to rephrase, the existence of the law is what makes the law necessary. It's almost tautological. IF it were treated as a public health problem (Portugal apparently did…
Does anyone honestly believe this is how he was caught? Or is it just parallel construction[1]? I wouldn't be surprised if Tor is completely compromised by the United States Government, and this fact is just being hidden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Godwin's law is rubbish. The Nazis are a strongly and consistently disavowed extreme group. They're a perfect tool when you need to cut across cultures and remove any chance of ambiguity. Their actions so despicable that comparing X performing Y1 to the Nazis performing Y2 is a good tool for reasoning about Y itself and the difference between Y1 and Y2.
Nazis had state sponsored scientific research and a national healthcare system (with certain, obvious exclusions). It just seems nonsensically reductive to go 'the nazis did it! therefore its bad!'
The first poster essentially said "this is so normal, even Nazis do it".
We consider Nazis to be abnormal, so if a behavior is common many groups inclusive of Nazis it can be used to imply that the behavior is something inherent to human beings or human governments or human societies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If darknets are profitable, what's to stop existing drug cartels from becoming involved with them?
Existing drug cartels have a great competitive advantage in violence, intimidation, and smuggling. None of those skills are particularly useful in competing with anonymous rivals on Silk Road.