31–40 of 58 posts
How is this hacker news?
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I found this interesting, therefore it is on topic.
The guy employed parolees so they wouldn't turn to crime and he himself didn't have a criminal record. Sad he took his life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. The bees were just a ruse for them to raid the factory. Tragic ending indeed.
The bees weren't just a ruse for them to raid the factory. They investigated him for illegal runoff based on speculation in the New York Times that that was how the bees were turning red, even though the cause of the red bees had already been determined to be something else . Usually, when you have a pretext to do something, at least the pretextual reason is, you know, true.
Which is a worse kind of lie that directly lying (as it cheapens truth into a mere pretext), and which he correctly characterized as a "ruse".
How is this hacker news?
Straight from the HN guidelines: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." I found this interesting, therefore it is on topic.
If the plants were the reason the bees were coming to the factory, that would be more interesting.
> You have to think that were it not for the instantly accessible gun in an ankle holster, the moment of panic and perhaps shame might have just passed. He might even now be producing cherries with the method that became prevalent after Prohibition made alcohol as illegal as pot has been. Of course the anti-gun Daily Beast couldn't go an entire article without blaming a gun for something a person decided to do.
edit: never mind. judging by the downvotes, I guess people really enjoy their endless gun debates!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't get is he had a very successful cocktail cherry business. So he didn't need to run a million dollar illegal business which was a tiny fraction of the legal business.
Some of the profits from the cherry business may have actually been laundered money from the cannabis business. The cherry business might not have been "very successful" on its own. Besides that, the larger legit business provided a great cover for the smaller illegal business. He didn't need to run the grow op to run the cherry factory, but he did need the cherry factory to run the grow op more easily. There's no wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't get is he had a very successful cocktail cherry business. So he didn't need to run a million dollar illegal business which was a tiny fraction of the legal business.
Some of the profits from the cherry business may have actually been laundered money from the cannabis business. The cherry business might not have been "very successful" on its own. Besides that, the larger legit business provided a great cover for the smaller illegal business. He didn't need to run the grow op to run the cherry factory, but he did need the cherry factory to run the grow op more easily. There's no wa…
It's quite common and is called parallel construction[1]
Strange that the article sounds puzzled at why he took his life, when it's clear that a drug kingpin would get a 'rest-of-your-life-and-more' sentence. Even if he got a 'lenient' sentence, the guy was 57 and would spend the rest of his healthy days behind bars. Not much of a mystery there.