241–250 of 320 posts
if you fancy a potential career as a whitleblower, you should consider writing what you know when you know it and secretly publishing commitment hashes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commitment_scheme ). it's much more credible and unassailable when the charge that the claims were made long after the fact for specific purposes is impossible. keep the relevant info in a dedicated password manager vault. a way to secr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.
[flagged]
See the second definition.
It’s not a common usage these days, but it’s absolutely valid, though probably unknown to most ESL folks.
if you fancy a potential career as a whitleblower, you should consider writing what you know when you know it and secretly publishing commitment hashes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commitment_scheme ). it's much more credible and unassailable when the charge that the claims were made long after the fact for specific purposes is impossible. keep the relevant info in a dedicated password manager vault. a way to secr…
> if you fancy a potential career as a whitleblower,… Most people don’t fancy a career as a whistleblower. They get their morals pushed further and further until they finally decide it is too much and they take the risk to their life and prosperity. > it's much more credible and unassailable when the charge that the claims were made long after the fact for specific purposes is impossible. If someone actually joined a…
Yeah, I mean that's just espionage and should raise your standard of evidence for any claim made. The credibility of whistleblowers comes partly from the idea that they basically believe in the org's mission and were working sincerely to achieve it until they discovered information that they had a higher moral duty to report on. If they came in already believing it was illegitimate and their goal was to find dirt to expose, then you know they were already comfortable with one act of deception and you should consider that they might be comfortable with a second. It's the same heuristic that says not to take Project Veritas videos at face value.
My guess would be - there is way more primitive explanation than setting an example etc (which is also a good reason, from their point of view). It is just plain ego and pettiness - we see it everywhere, even from a manager who has 3 people reporting to him. Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game , of all things? That too in private? It might just be as primitive as "I have more money than God, therefore I am bett…
The only things this man and his companies produce are subpar software products, which I personally do not understand. How is that even possible for a company with that much money? Their best app is the one he bought, then filled with a TikTok copy.
For me, the surprising part is not just that he is obviously an evil piece of shit. It is that he is an evil, rather incompetent piece of shit. The amount of money he has thrown out the window just to promote cringe, nonsensical ideas like the Metaverse or their botched AI only confirms how surrounded he is by chronic yes men who keep approving his ridiculous ideas.
In some time he began to be caricature of it selves and make it all more even more bizzare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article's theory is similar: > But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because: [...] c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.
Surely if it was that bad someone would reveal it anonymously to the press.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Most British people don’t respond well to attempts to cow them. They refuse to be cowed! To allow oneself to be cowed would be cowardly. To do so would have one accused of cowardice, of being a coward.
In the UK, the losing party usually pays the legal costs of the winning one, and libel litogation can cost millions, far exceeding whatever damages are awarded. Few newspapers or publishers can afford to defend such lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am assuming you are referring to Nick Clegg. The British are very easy to cow and bankrupt thanks to egregious libel laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant. They also have super injunctions allowing wrongdoers like Trafigura to silence whistleblowers and journalists.
[flagged]
So what happened with the 11m fine that the whistleblower was asked to pay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how much this applies to cheating at Catan. Regardless of social standing, few people are going to stop you from cheating at Catan because it helps everyone's goal - to be done with the game of Catan. Although perhaps repeatedly making people play Catan is itself that social power move.
> everyone's goal - to be done with the game of Catan Is it possible you're confusing Catan with Monopoly or Pictionary or any party game ever?
I think most people who like board games would choose pictionary over it. At least that can fulfill a quick warmup role to move on to something better.