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

The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 653 posts

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#551

Post by anigbrowl »

mulmen wrote: post #490
anigbrowl wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't use of the internet to facilitate crimes commonly cited as a reason for federal prosecution, on the grounds that all internet communications involve interstate commerce?

That would be strange because not all Internet communications involve interstate commerce.

They absolutely do, because packets regularly bounce across state boundaries even if I am just sending a message to my next door neighbor. For example, my phone service provider is headquartered in a different state, so using their network to send an SMS message automatically creates an interstate nexus. If a US attorney wants to take over a case for reasons of professional or political advancement the argument is trivially easy to make.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#552

Post by jMyles »

mulmen wrote: post #490
anigbrowl wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't use of the internet to facilitate crimes commonly cited as a reason for federal prosecution, on the grounds that all internet communications involve interstate commerce?

That would be strange because not all Internet communications involve interstate commerce.

From the dissent in Gonzales v. Raich:

> Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#553

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #264
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted. The operation of the revolving door would seem to imply otherwise. You set up a situation where politicians are not just expected but required to leave office and then need a job in the private sector. Are they then inclined to do things while in office that make it more or less likely that they get a lucrative gig as soon as their term…

Campaign finance is another piece of the puzzle to avoid revolving doors. Cutting it slows down the initial introduction phase. Group A invests millions of dollars into your campaign. You go into politics in a debt to Group A that you feel obligated to repay. You give favorable treatment to Group A in your political career. Group A provides a lucrative contract to you after you leave politics so that they have a good…

> Group A invests millions of dollars into your campaign.

The problem is elections aren't just about donations. Suppose you're not a fan of Zuck/Musk/whoever, or pick your least favorite media conglomerate. Is limiting their financial contributions to a campaign going to meaningfully reduce their influence? Of course not, because it mainly comes from controlling the feed or the reporting, so limiting money is primarily to the detriment of their opponents. This is one of the reasons you hear some talk about "campaign finance" from the media industry -- it lets billion dollar media corporations pretend they're defending the little guy when they're really trying to cement an asymmetric advantage in influencing politics because they can de facto donate airtime rather than money. But they have a mixed incentive, because they're also the ones getting money from the ads and don't actually want the spigot closed, which is probably why it's more talk than action.

And then there's this:

> Group A provides a lucrative contract to you after you leave politics so that they have a good reputation with the other politicians they finance.

Which isn't campaign finance at all. It's also kind of a hard problem, because after someone leaves office, it's reasonably expected that they're going to work somewhere, but then how are you supposed to tell if they're getting a fat paycheck because they're currently providing a valuable service or because they were previously providing a valuable service? It's not like they're going to put "deferred bribe" in the memo field of the check.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#554

Post by anigbrowl »

mcherm wrote: post #519
anigbrowl wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't use of the internet to facilitate crimes commonly cited as a reason for federal prosecution, on the grounds that all internet communications involve interstate commerce?

No, not that I am aware of. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it is my understanding that the majority of prosecuted crimes involving the Internet in the US are prosecuted in State courts, not Federal.

I wouldn't call myself an expert on this topic, but I think you're severely missing the point: virtually any case involving use of the internet can be federalized under the interstate commerce doctrine.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48764

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#555

Post by matthewdgreen »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #532

This is interesting to me as it demonstrates that a normal person at the time could see for themselves that Epstein was someone you didn't want to associate. I've wondered if Epstein put up a good smoke screen that confounded ordinary judgements (rather than moral judgements). IMO this demonstrates that a normal person could see him for who he was, even in the midst of one of his charm offensives.

As far back as 2008 a quick Google for Epstein's name would reveal Wikipedia and mainstream news outlining the charges. He was convicted for soliciting a 14 year old, but the charges covered many other girls and sexual assaults.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#556

Post by timschmidt »

anigbrowl wrote: post #550
timschmidt wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Term limits incentivize a deep state exactly one layer removed from those to which the limits apply, as a repository of institutional knowledge about how things actually get done.

This seems rational. We on't have term limits int he US Congress and it doesn't seem any the better for it. Japan, a heavily bureaucratized country, systematically moves junior and mid-tier staff around in some departments to minimize the possibility of nest-feathering and empire-building, although I would not say it's perfect by a long way.

We do have term limits for positions like the presidency, and what we see is a perpetual power structure one layer removed, in the party system, which effectively chooses who we're permitted to vote for.

Introducing term limits only forces the wealth and power to change it's face periodically. It is addressing a symptom, not the cause.

At least one constitutional scholar has argued that campaign finance reform strikes closer to the root of the problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootstrikers ) by enabling interested regular folk to afford to run for office. I would add some form of ranked choice voting to that, which permits folks to vote for a third party candidate without "wasting" their vote or throwing the race to an opponent. As well as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#557

Post by direwolf20 »

cogman10 wrote: post #296
direwolf20 wrote: post #192

The most surprising name in the Epstein files is Rebecca Watson also known as Skepchick on YouTube. She has been a thorn in their side for years and years.

She was supremely harassed at one point (see: elevatorgate). Now I have to wonder how much of that was Epstein powered.

According to her videos, the timing lines up perfectly

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#558

Post by com2kid »

sobkas wrote: post #350
JuniperMesos wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's only hard if you don't want to help anyone and your only goal is to push charter schools(by any other name) by any means necessary. Why are charter schools bad? What is the ostensible easy way to improve US education that you know for sure will work?

Easy way is not doing charter schools. Why are they bad? Charter school can choose what children they will teach when public schools don't have that choice, then people point at charter schools as having higher outcomes. In essence charter schools are a tool to discriminate students from poor families.

It is complicated.

I am a big supporter of public schools, but I also understand that only allowing rich parents to opt out of public schools can lead to some very bad outcomes as schools don't have to respond directly to public pressure.

Recently the Seattle public schools reverted some very bad decisions because so many parents in Seattle pulled their kids out of public schools to go to private, at such a high numbers it started to cause budget issues.

That was only possible because the so many parents here can afford to do that.

Another example is with how many schools stopped using phonics for reading and an entire generation of kids ended up with poor reading skills. No marketplace of ideas means even if parents wanted to have their kid learn phonics, only rich parents could afford to switch to private schools. Even today Seattle schools is just slowly switching back to phonics (my local school is a pilot for returning to phonics! Year later!)

Same goes for 1:1 laptop usage. Evidence now shows that every school that moves to one to one laptops (a dedicated laptop for every kid in every classroom) has educational outcomes plummet. It will take years of concerted effort by parents to get those laptops out of public schools (to be fair, took years of effort to get them into the schools....) and break the contracts to school district has with technology providers.

Having all the kids in the city go to a single School district has many huge benefits that lift everybody up, and a well-funded public school system is essential to democracy.

But there are also issues with putting all your eggs in one basket.

I don't think anyone has a good solution to these problems.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#559

Post by direwolf20 »

rawgabbit wrote: post #549
direwolf20 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

biology is all about thermodynamics. Why do you think we eat?

Not the same. We eat to get macro nutrients: fats, protein, and carbohydrates.

Why do we need those? Oh right thermodynamics.

Don't let the label fool you. Thermodynamics is the study of energy flows at the fundamental level, not only heat.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#560

Post by etothepii »

BrokenCogs wrote: post #524
etothepii wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this defined?

1 if you've been emailed or mentioned (cited) by Jeffrey Epstein. 2 if you've been emailed or cited by someone who has an Epstein number of 1, and so on.

I ask because writing a paper with someone is a non secret operator.

I suspect there is no way to establish, if one has an Epstein number >2, what it is.

Post reply on HN