Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s funny how we treat these things. Kill a bunch of people by putting lead in their drinking water and it’s a shrug. Occasionally you might lose your job over it. In extremely rare and egregious cases you might end up with a minor criminal conviction. Kill one person by putting lead in their heart at high speed and now it’s a serious crime. If the victim is Important then you get a massive manhunt and national news…
Accidentally kill someone with your car because you're distracted, no problem. But if you're drunk? Crime.
What we know about CEO shooting suspect
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#982Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems he wanted to be found. I talked to someone personally who at some point had committed a series of crimes, and at some point they started doing things that were more and more likely to get them caught; they told me they thought to themselves, "What am I doing?" But they didn't stop, and eventually got caught. In a different story, a few years ago I dropped my wallet on the sidewalk outside my house, and som…
Welcome to Jungian Psychology and the wonderful world of enantidromia. As humans are General Intelligences, we're capable of entertaining contradictory courses of action/thinking at the same time. At some point our conscious faculties "meet" our unconscious faculties, and the period of time when the two start to integrate into a whole individual is a bit of a wild ride that practically no modern practitioner of psych…
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#983Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#984Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not surprising. Most people don't comment. The tiny minority that comment likely have extreme views. Sorting algorithms that drive engagement makes this worse. https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...
So everybody online can be dismissed, except the people posting online that everyone who posts something online can be dismissed? How does that work? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371412 It's everywhere. You're simply wrong. Sort by date, sort by score, look on any broader news story and check out the comments. They're not "extreme", either. Even if their content was, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be ext…
This only holds for opinions. If someone posts a link to a survey that says out of a representative sample of Americans, 70% of them support abortion or whatever, you should believe that (assuming there are no issues with the organization conducting the survey). Same with other forms of argumentation. You shouldn't distrust the top answer on stackoverflow just because it's from 1% of the population, although you probably not think the average person is some sort of expert on every programming question either.
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#985Back in June, an innocent Latino student was shot in Dolores Park around 10pm. (Dolores being one of the most popular parks in SF, with people walking their dogs and playing tennis late into the night.) His family put up fliers all over the neighborhood begging for any leads. I've barely heard a peep from the media or authorities about the murder since it happened. In contrast, how many man-hours went into investigat…
I understand the fear of living near such a heinous crime, but you have to see the difference between the two situations. Random crime is scary, but is random. All signs point to this being an assassination . Brian Thompson wasn't the victim of a random criminal, nor was he murdered by some person he has a connection with. He was assassinated. So the right question is why do we investigate assassinations differently…
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#986Earlier quoted context omitted.
More or less lays out his motive right there. I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.
Tell that to the Syrian rebels.
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#987The manifesto posted on X and other social media is a fake. The actual manifesto he had on his person has not yet been made public aside from a few lines.
Supposedly this is the real one: https://t.co/fbjBtDDIkS
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#988I just think it’s great that for a short time, we got to live this fantasy that being a rich CEO is no guarantee that someone couldn’t easily just walk up to you one day, kill you off, and then disappear without a trace as a hero to those you did wrong. The fantasy of jury nullification is still alive, but very unlikely to happen. If someone can turn the guy in, then someone could easily find him guilty.
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#989Earlier quoted context omitted.
His followers count keeps going up every time I refresh. It’s not like he’ll be pushing commits for a while haha.
It's too bad: they really should give prisoners like this computers with some limited access so they can work on coding projects. What else are they going to do with their time, after all? Perhaps they could spend it contributing to open-source projects and helping society.
ONE OF the main functions of the prison system today is access to prison slave labor, so I imagine they'll keep him busy.
Re: What we know about CEO shooting suspect
#990Usually I don't tend to get caught up in stories like this. But one thing has me completely fascinated, is how far off the deep end the internet went over the last few days. A murderer became a cult hero online. I saw many posts even suggesting "the snitch" should be hunted down and get what's coming to him/her. I try not to overreact to stuff online, but this took me a bit by surprise. Things really feel like a melt…
Now, you might be surprised but America also has problems under the surface. America likes to project the good impression, but certain problems exist, aren't addressed enough for some time, got accumulated and it's harder to gloss them over. And since those problems are decades old, you have some parts of generations quite familiar with them. And we have Trump - first winning in 2016 and then even more triumphantly winning in 2024 - and those "normal", "good" sort of decidedly lost this November to those who's combined message might well be "things aren't well". Maybe we need to look at what's normal, as in if we have that state? Should we consider normal something only 40% think? 50%? 70%? That is, if 30% have long running reasons to think things aren't normal - is it enough for you to pause?
To the melting pot. What would you think if, looking into the pot, at the extreme you'd see the whole pot is full of that pent up anger, and nothing - or almost nothing - of what's "normal" here? Do numbers matter here? And, if they are suddenly too large, what you're going to do with lots and lots of those who'd think, figuratively, that lynching is still a good idea? Or in other somewhat known words, what would you do the good from, if the only thing you can do that is from evil?