How many people generate novel ideas? When I look around at work, most people basically operate like an LLM. They see what’s being done by others and emulate it.
Yeah, extradition treaties are a thing, and I believe he wasn't a citizen of New Zealand so the US actually could make the request. The hypothetical above can be narrowed to "you are doing something completely legal in your country of citizenship or some other non-extradition country but illegal in the US" if you want to get more precise about it.
> I might have a talk with David. I might say, ‘Listen, I’ve figured out it was you. Do I not seem approachable? Why are you and I not having a conversation about this?’
Talk about an absolute terrible way to approach someone who went public about a sexual harassment claim. From just this article I don't think I'd feel comfortable talking with this dude about anything serious going on.
absolutely terrifying power play from someone who wants you to know both, that they can identify your anonymous activity and that they're unhappy with you. It just stifles further whistleblowing
100% that even if that situation were to arrive, it would never go down that way anyway. It's a complete fantasy they have in their head about how they're not the corporate stooge they actually are along with everything else this guy views about himself.
Yes, that was the line where my bullshit detector went to over 9000.
"Obviously, my job is to protect the organization, but ‘protect the organization’ takes on different meanings to different people. To me, ‘protect the organization’ has always meant: protect your people from bad things."
I have no words to express how far from the truth this is. The only lawyer who protects you is the one you hire. The company lawyer protects the company from you.
And that’s why we have such long sentences in the US. A few years of prison is quite a strong deterrent already. But voters say that they deserve more than that.
The AG's legal team in Illinois can issue binding or non-binding rulings. So, even though they gave a detailed legal breakdown of their ruling and why it applied, and (bless them) having read through the entire 800 page manual, they still only issued a non-binding ruling which the Sheriff's office just laughed at.
For some reason they only issue binding rulings in a tiny fraction of very contentious cases. It sucks. It doesn't make any sense to me. It can take two years to get a non-binding ruling on a case just for the public body to ignore it.
There does seem to be some genetic variability at play here. I've known people who were able to quit a benzo cold turkey after taking it for significantly longer than a week.
So let me get this straight, you want me to give you money so that you can build and run a business, and you also want me to have no control over how that money is used, and for me to get no benefit from the whole thing?
Democracy means representing the will of the people. Do democratic processes produce better outcomes? Because the last 10 years of America would seem to indicate polling for the collective will is no promise of good outcomes.
> So why didn’t they take this action against US citizens when the US government attacked Iraq?
Because silly, Iraq had WMDs. /s
This reminds me of someone at my office who tinted his Slack avatar with the colors of the Ukrainian flag. It’s a meaningless, empty gesture. Why didn’t he have Palestinian colors last summer or the Afghan flag for the last two decades?
Frankly, this is punishment of ordinary people who have no say in what their country does (plus maybe some monsters who run the state, but with collateral damage) as a form of virtue signaling. If my DNS was shut down for crimes the US committed despite my objection I would feel very mistreated. The intent may be noble, but it doesn’t feel helpful.
I agree, it is not helpful. I think a lot of Russian civilians are completely against this invasion. They also have zero leverage in this situation. The ones that even think about speaking out face years of hard labor.
I was unconvinced Iraq was an imminent threat at the time, and always considered the invasion a violation of the U.N. charter. But these are qualitatively different invasions.
There were around a dozen U.N. resolutions directing Iraq disarm, stemming from their prior invasion of Kuwait. Which, interestingly, Iraq complete their last reparations payment to Kuwait just last week. Saddam Hussein was consistently evasive and uncooperative with the U.N. inspections regimes. None of these are adequate justifications to invade Iraq, in my opinion. But they are some of the legal ones.
Neither the U.S. nor U.N. questioned the borders of Iraq, or the right of Iraqi nationalism. Russia categorically rejects Ukraine's right to exist as an independent country. Keep in mind this invasion started in 2014 with the taking of Crimea. Something the west wrongly accepted, and let Putin get away with it. That was clearly a dress rehearsal for what is happening today. How would things be different if meaningful sanctions were levied on Russia for that? How many lives would be saved? We will be getting some idea.
Also, U.S. attacking Iraq had no chance of starting world war three. Russia invading Ukraine could. At what point does Russia consider western countries arming Ukraine a reason to take a much bigger retaliation, not against Ukraine? And at what point does one of those trigger NATO article 5? The risk here is very different than it is was with Iraq, as wrong and terrible as that was. Putting an end to what's going on in Ukraine is important for everyone, because unlike Iraq, everyone globally has something to lose. World war two took nearly 100 million lives, 1/3 due to famine.
Iraq was never going to be a world war three. And I will never understand the legitimacy of that war.
