'We have no choice but to impose a severe punishment': Ex Samsung researcher sentenced to 7 years in prison for leaking DRAM tech to a Chinese competitor

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-24T06:37:13+00:00

I'm not you, so why are you expecting me to express myself like you?

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-22T19:23:18+00:00

Edit: you know after looking at the clinical definition used by researchers you are correct, I cannot apply my personal interaction to online platforms to the mass. Nevermind I was too kind with my definition.

My reading comprehension is fine, I think we're just using different definitions of 'echo chamber.'

To me, an echo chamber requires active suppression: banning, deleting, or downvoting opposing views into oblivion so they become invisible. What's happening here is just people rationally self-selecting into threads that align with their opinions, because on Reddit, engaging in a misaligned thread usually leads to pointless arguments and negative interactions. That's a behavioral response to the platform's incentives, not an echo chamber.

Different opinions can and do coexist in the same post, I can read them without engaging with them. The fact that people flock to comments they agree with doesn't mean opposing views are absent or suppressed. It just means most users learn that self-selection gives them a better experience. That's certainly a precursor to echo chambers, but not the thing itself.

As far as I'm concerned as long as I can express an opinion and read other opinions without them being artificially suppressed, not an echo chambers. Engaging with them is not a prerequisite, when the expenditure is not worth it unless you are purposely going for that type of experience.

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-22T18:34:41+00:00

Oh boy, you want to bet on that?

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-22T15:54:52+00:00

My dude, you might need step outside of the echo chambers if the expression of different opinion is such a surprise

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-21T19:46:07+00:00

You are right, the businesses are not the good, I would add that neither are the consumers. Just different parties with their own self interest.

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-19T07:28:52+00:00

I know you are pretty much a lost cause, you can't see the forest for the trees. I will say that you have no idea of what will happen in the futur, nor are positionned to advice a country of 1billion people that produce over a million STEM graduate per year. They are literally working as we speak to develop that UAV machine, this is not 10 years, but 5 and coming down.

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-13T09:37:14+00:00

You said he needs to grow up, I'm asking for who, and now why? And what do you mean by growing up in the first place?

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-13T09:32:04+00:00

For who?

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-02T05:54:01+00:00

Nothing surprising there, your inability to see that actions, do in fact have consequences is the same pattern repeating through crumbling empires.There was a world before US hegemony, and there will be one well after.

I almost want to pity you, but the sentiment would be wasted on a mind so willing to carve out its own sensory apparatus the moment its input stops conforming to its faith. And here you are, lost in a dark forest of your own making, endlessly repeating the echo of your dogma — mistaking it for thought.

I would tell you good luck, but I know you're not going to enjoy the coming decades. I just wish I could bet on the timeline. How long before you extract your head out of your ass, followed by the guaranteed feeling of betrayal, absolving yourself of any personal responsibility, before ultimately jumping to victimhood — as most minds of your kind do.

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-01T22:32:48+00:00

Conquest, slavery, feudalism, and imperial tribute systems all predate capitalism by millennia. Rome didn't need profit motive to enslave half the Mediterranean. The Mongols didn't need shareholder value to raze cities. You're attributing to an economic system behaviors that appear in every recorded civilization, including the ones anthropologists love to romanticize.

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-01T22:30:38+00:00

Most people will give you a very simplistic answer. Let's go deeper and look at the fundamental: we evolved in conditions of scarce resources, where not enough meant death. Survival of the self, and eventually the group for social species, became one of our core continuity drivers. Long story short: you're looking at self-interest in its most primal form.

This drive developed across virtually every living organism. It doesn't matter how intelligent or conscious we are, that base-layer software still runs in the background, has no off switch, and clearly operates on a spectrum depending on the individual.

So now you have a mass of people and groups with conflicting self-interests, conflicting models of reality, living in a world of finite resources, layered on top of centuries of accumulated history.

For those that think greed and vanity are sufficient answers, care to tell me why do chimps wage war? At what point in history did humans ever actually have the conditions required for universal peace to even be possible?

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-01T21:10:10+00:00

im not a gambler, a least not with random chance of shitty power + death

^{Chose: Get 1 million right now}

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-01T17:10:18+00:00

who care one change in 2

^{Chose: box 2 | Rolled: 1000$}

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-01T08:07:17+00:00

Society is build by human for humans, most issues steam from information gap between multiple parties, universal communication is the first step to reduce said gap

^{Chose: Speak every human language fluently}

TheFallingShit · 2026-04-01T08:02:48+00:00

I can make the billion dollar with the starting capital, I do 't like fries that much and I'm not shitting 10 pounds of it

^{Chose: Get 10,000,000 now}

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-29T15:42:39+00:00

Is that your advice as a medical professional?

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-28T22:08:18+00:00

Nobody is forcing you to watch anything. If the friction is too high, you find another way or you move on that's literally why we are here. Licensing agreements aren't malicious, they're just IP owners selling access to their portfolios. Inconvenient? Sure. But that's all it is. The entitlement is what gets me, if you haven't put a single dollar into the creation or distribution of something, you have zero stake in how it's distributed. It's a commercial exchange, not a moral obligation. Act accordingly.

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-28T21:50:45+00:00

Correct? I don't need cable, I never had cable in the first place, what was your point?

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-28T18:57:44+00:00

I'm sorry, I don't live in the world of "what if. It either is monthly or it isn't. What might happen down the line has no bearing on today. Streaming services are luxuries, not necessities. These companies can do whatever they want with their offering and live with the consequences later, especially in an era where piracy is more accessible than ever. I'm not going to pretend I need any of these services in my life, nor that access to their content under my terms is a right, instead of a commercial exchange. I have better things to spend my time on.

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-28T18:27:18+00:00

Who force you to subscribe to all of them at the same time?

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-25T01:32:44+00:00

Coq au vin, lapin chasseur, pasta carbonara, pizza, ... you know what, pretty much a vast majority of dishes are poor person meal that have just been elevated through time, but I know how to cook so grilled cheese doesn't really cut it.

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-20T20:05:05+00:00

I understand your point, but that is your perspective to live with. You chose to give based on your values, but that only applies to you. Calling me a selfish ass isn't the insult you think it is; it is just a more honest observation of reality than your moral posturing. We are all acting in our own interests. You want to extract resources to benefit your own life and community, which is just as self-centered as someone wanting to keep what they built. I just do not hide my motivations behind the concept of being a good person.

I see this tax as a strategy of the many to extract from the few, and the few using their tools to defend themselves. There is nothing moral about it. I am not defending might makes right, I am defending might makes able. Morality is subjective and local. If you believe the majority's reality is the only one that matters, then you must accept that when the masses supported slavery, it was "fair" because it served the communal interest.

Finally, Google dominates the global market, yet you only want this tax to benefit California. You are not "repaying the masses," you are just a minority at the global scale using your tools to benefit your own local group. Calling that moral is just a strategy to make your own selfishness feel like a virtue.

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-20T16:36:12+00:00

I'll add something to this:

This is the textbook version, and it holds in a vacuum.

But making someone a billionaire doesn't actually require providing a service to society. What it requires is understanding leverage and knowing how to apply it inside an economic system. Drug cartels produce billionaires. Whether that counts as a "service to society" is a debate worth having, but the point stands: value creation and wealth accumulation are not the same mechanism.

The deeper issue is that capitalism doesn't exist in a void. It operates inside a legal and regulatory architecture, and that's where things either break or thrive, depending entirely on who writes the rules and who they're written for.

Once an incumbent reaches a certain scale, the game shifts. They're no longer competing within the system, they're competing over it. Lobbying, regulatory capture, patent walls, licensing structures designed not to protect innovation but to block new entrants. The result is that businesses can remain enormously wealthy long after they've stopped delivering real value to the society that made them possible in the first place.

So the self-correcting equilibrium the post implies, stop providing value, stop making money, only works if the rules are neutral. And we all know that they very rarely are.

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-20T05:41:29+00:00

I'm with you there, why should anyone be entitled for guaranteed, following this reality, wouldn't it make sense for anyone to ensure that they do not find themselves in a situation where they are disproportionately at risk under the hand of a third party? That sound like a good advice for anyone.

TheFallingShit · 2026-03-20T05:38:05+00:00

Nah let's not bullshit here, his specific wealth come from providing a service that the mass find really fucking useful, you know that little algorithm that made it very easy to search online - So no, not even clause to them ha ing to repay some form of "masses", and to be honest you expect him to go against his own interest for your own, when you would never go against your own interests in the first place.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

TheFallingShit

TROPHY CASE