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

What we know about CEO shooting suspect

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#921

Post by eadmund »

LetsGetTechnicl wrote: post #752
thegrimmest wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing to pay for medical care is hardly murder. It’s a standard monetary dispute, and we have a due process for these. If you think that so many claims are being unreasonably denied, why not start a company offering bridge loans, and funding legal challenges? Maybe the courts are too inefficient to handle these disputes, but that’s an argument for reforming the courts, not for shooting executives.

> Refusing to pay for medical care is hardly murder. This is crazy. Maybe it's not "murder" in the traditional sense but you are making a choice on whether someone gets life-saving care, or lives in immense pain for the rest of their lives until they commit suicide. Again, this kind of normalized violence is justified when it's a business making choices to increase profits. We are so disconnected from our humanity th…

> you are making a choice on whether someone gets life-saving care, or lives in immense pain

Is the care life-saving or pain-preventing?

There is an additional option: the person pays for it. Or someone else pays for it. Since the 1980s U.S. emergency rooms have been required to provide life-saving care regardless of whether someone can pay.

> normalized violence

It is not violence to fail to reimburse someone.

If someone cannot pay his bills, then he declares bankruptcy, the debts are wiped out, his creditors take a haircut and he moves on with his life. In many/most states he will get to retain his home and perhaps his vehicle. It’s not the end of the world?

Is it ideal? No, of course not. It’s better than dying, and of course it’s not murder.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#922

Post by lr1970 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #765
lr1970 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of your theories answer the question -- how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton (conference venue) and would arrive by foot 1 hour and 15 minutes before conference opens at 8am (CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance). The shooter was caught on camera talking on a burner phone 15 minutes before shooting. Who did he talk to? Was he acting alone or received some help? The…

Find when CEO is going to speak at conference, work backward from there. Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp. Not rocket science at all, just basic OSint Waiting 15min instead of 1hr 15min was probably luck though.

> Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.

In this case it was Hilton. And if the CEO stayed at Hilton he had no reason to be on the street outside the hotel where the killer was waiting for him. Somehow the shooter knew that the target is not staying at the Hilton and will be walking to the front entrance. BTW, the normal practice for high profile individuals to arrive in a car to a service entrance hidden from the public.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#923

Post by Wytwwww »

takinola wrote: post #834
LetsGetTechnicl wrote: post #728

Murder is only justified when it's your business model and behind numbers and profit margins in an Excel sheet are the real people you are sentencing to a lifetime of suffering and/or death.

A quick look at United Health's P/L shows a 6% profit margin. This does not quite support the popular rhetoric of a corporation in search of relentless margin (unless the argument is they are bad at it despite all efforts).

Aren't health insurance company margins capped? i.e. if they are required to spend 80% on medical care so effectively they can only make more money be bloating costs more and more.

It's better to waste $4.75 by maximizing the inefficiency and costs of the entire system thorough extremely overpriced drugs due to various nonsensical middlemen based market structures, administrative bloat etc. and make 0.25$ than to reduce premiums. Of course it still costs $5 to the society. It might actually be better if they had higher margins...

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#924

Post by Wytwwww »

mrtksn wrote: post #902
takinola wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick look at United Health's P/L shows a 6% profit margin. This does not quite support the popular rhetoric of a corporation in search of relentless margin (unless the argument is they are bad at it despite all efforts).

Very interesting, the insurance with the highest rejection rate where the medical spendings are twice the cost per capita compared to European average and the median age is younger, the insurance makes only %6? What do you do so wrong? What is your mechanism of getting rid of those who provide you the healthcare at low efficiency and hight cost? In Europe we have elections and when those don't yield the desired resul…

They are required to spend 80% on actual medical care, add various administrative costs etc. and 6% sounds reasonable. Problem is that this incentivizes them to waste as much money as possible but the whole industry has to "agree" to do that for it to work. So that other insurance companies couldn't undercut them.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#925

Post by jplusequalt »

arkh wrote: post #857
LetsGetTechnicl wrote: post #728

Murder is only justified when it's your business model and behind numbers and profit margins in an Excel sheet are the real people you are sentencing to a lifetime of suffering and/or death.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. How much do you think people should pay for some random person to be afforded one more hour of life free of pain? $1000? $1000000? $100000000? More?

This is a purposefully disingenuous hypothetical. There are people who have real shots at a better life, or continuing their life for that matter, who get denied the insurance they pay for! It isn't only people who are already on death's door.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#926

Post by MichaelRo »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #912
nostrademons wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks like a case of "suicide by revolution". Various media reports (including this one) suggest that he had a back injury in 2023, has not worked since 2023, started losing touch with friends in 2023, has been reading books about back injuries and chronic pain, etc. If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live. Likely h…

> If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live I'll confirm it for you right now. For me it's not just the back, it's areas along the entire spine. I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it. My lumbar spine has many herniations and "schmorl's nodes" (where it's chipping awa…

Spinal problems are definitely on the list why seemingly "not terminally ill" people might want to take the option of euthanasia. Healthy imbeciles will scream with outrage "it's a sin, one must keep them alive at all costs" but that's because it's not them tortured 24/7 but other guy. And people are able to do monstrous things to other people without as much as loosing a night sleep.

Overall, the options for severe chronic pain are: heavy painkillers, physical therapy, wait-and-see (hope they improve) and if not ... dignified exit.

If they improve it takes years. And painkillers are ABSOLUTELY a must during that time but the innocent monsters (largely the rest of the population that is) will cry out "opioid addiction!!!", cut them off and sadistically (in their mind, gently) advise to get over it.

I have no words how much I despise this world. It's all fine and dandy until you lose your health, afterwards you really see it for how it is.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#927

Post by bag_boy »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #898
bag_boy wrote: post #76

His x posts read like he was on an adderall bender. I wouldn't be surprised if he went into psychosis after losing a lot of sleep and never really got back to stability. Adderall and a passion rabbit-hole like societal change are a dangerous combination. The more deep you dive, the more disinterested people become with you, and the more disconnected you become with other people.

Have you, perhaps, had an adderall problem before? I have, and I used to say things like this a lot, but really I think its projection. How could you possibly know?

Yeah, speaking from experience, unfortunately.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#928

Post by llm_nerd »

goatlover wrote: post #791
llm_nerd wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>media really over-estimated this persons competence It is a bit of psychological blindness where we convince ourselves that random murders aren't as easy as they really are. The truth is that almost anyone -- including people with lots of security theater -- can be nullified by random people. This is quadruply true in the era of drones.

How rulers like Putin survive so long though?

I did say almost. Putin is kind of the extreme example.

If someone is willing to live like an absolute hermit in basically a police state, hiding behind layers and layers of security apparatus, engaging lookalikes and only allowing the loyalty-tested anywhere near him, survival odds improve quite a bit.

But for anyone trying to live anything remotely approaching a normal life, or with any real freedom, your continued survival is completely due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in your world have a personal breaker against murder.

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#929

Post by tristor »

3a2d29 wrote: post #730
LetsGetTechnicl wrote: post #728

Murder is only justified when it's your business model and behind numbers and profit margins in an Excel sheet are the real people you are sentencing to a lifetime of suffering and/or death.

Only the CEO or everyone that works there?

The entire argument for high CEO renumeration is that they take on total responsibility for all actions of the company. The buck stops with them. So, why do we think it's acceptable for that not to be the case when the company does something bad?

Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect

#930

Post by oldsklgdfth »

mcshaner1 wrote: post #353
breadwinner wrote: post #156

He gave the Unabomber’s manifesto four stars on Goodreads, and described Unabomber as a "political revolutionary". Excerpts from his review: "It’s easy to quickly and thoughtless write this off as the manifesto of a lunatic, in order to avoid facing some of the uncomfortable problems it identifies. But it’s simply impossible to ignore how prescient many of his predictions about modern society turned out." "He was a v…

For anyone reading stuff like this, read Ellul’s Technological Society instead. Optionally followed by “The Meaning of the City.” I haven’t read the manifesto and don’t plan to; it apparently cited Ellul a fair amount and Ellul seems like a saner guide.

+1 on Ellul’s work. Though it is quite long.

A book with similar sentiment that is more approachable is Neil Postman’s Technopoly.

Post reply on HN