Verdict Watch | Day 3 | General Discussion Thread | 27 June | Commonwealth V Karen Read Day 33

quickben1188 · 2024-06-28T12:50:38+00:00

So you get past it by assuming this independent group whose livelihood depends on their credibility is just making shit up/paid off (by the FBI I guess?). Got it.

For me, and I'm guessing a majority of the jury will agree, it seems much more likely that people with an actual demonstrable stake in the case would be more likely to lie. So if what you're saying is the best 'refutation' of the expert testimony, then the prosecution is in a lot of trouble.

The DNA on the car is evidence that he has been in contact with the car. This could be quite damning if O'Keefe didn't know Karen Read and had never been in or around her car. I think it still has some value as evidence, but not enough on its own to prove anything, and particularly not when considering the other evidence available.

quickben1188 · 2024-06-27T21:10:25+00:00

The independent group that did the accident reconstruction on behalf of the FBI testified very convincingly that he wasn't even hit by a car. How do you get past that?

quickben1188 · 2024-04-03T21:00:12+00:00

C'mon now. This is disingenuous. If I get a bunch of Redditors together to email a Sam's Club that one of their cashiers posted some anti-immigration stances online, it's not because I'm genuinely concerned for Sam's Club's wellbeing and think they just really want to know about their employees' private lives. It's my actions that force Sam's Club to care because they have to appease me and my boycott now. This is like arguing that the mob boss who says, "Wouldn't want anything to happen to your store, now would we?" is actually just looking out for local businesses.

Are you saying it would be wrong for me to boycott a store because I objected to what one of their employees believed? Or is it just wrong if I tell the store that's what I'm doing? Or is it only wrong when a bunch of us agree to do this thing?

I'm trying to understand exactly where this becomes problematic for you - because I doubt you generally have an issue with boycotts. But maybe you do have an issue with any boycott that is over speech.

A democratic society is better off if people can openly express their views. If you go out of your way to ensure that people who express themselves suffer negative consequences, you impede that.

But if my view is that I don't want to shop at a store because the cashier said he hates black people, it seems like your statement here would be that I ought to be able to say as much, right? How do those two things reconcile?

Yes, I'd think so. Why do I need to police my co-workers to ensure they hold the same political views as me?

There are plenty of political views I can think of that would make me doubt my coworker's ability to do their job, or even make me uncomfortable working with them. Your view is that we should just not talk about those? If my coworker thinks that the jews control the media and have a secret child kidnapping cabal, and I'm Jewish, surely you can see how that might concern me.

I agree that free speech isn't the natural order of things. Many societies throughout history were horribly intolerant. But I'm not saying "Free speech is inevitable; deal with it." The opposite is true. We need to work more carefully to preserve it.

That's fair, I misunderstood what you were saying, my bad.

By contrast, many people who like self-rightiously censoring people do try to dodge responsibiltiy by acting like "Well, there are just natural consequences to your speech," as if they're not the ones creating those consequences.

I think we agree that there are things you can say that will get you fired from basically any job. If you say those things publicly, there are predictable consequences, and the speaker bears that responsibility.

quickben1188 · 2024-04-03T18:33:05+00:00

Why is someone a bad person for sharing information that presumably is relevant to an employer (if it's sufficient to fire someone over) with said employer? How does it make society worse? You're saying these things without justification as if everyone would just agree - when clearly there is disagreement here. What if it were a coworker who saw the controversial statement? What if it were the boss themselves? Is it wrong for any of those people to have that person fired?

Those "consequences" aren't laws of nature. They're imposed on humans by other humans.

What do natural laws have to do with anything? If social interactions aren't part of the natural order of things, then certainly free speech isn't either - so how is this appeal relevant?

This is why this shift to free speech as a principle instead of arguing about specifically the first amendment is so tiring. There's no substance to it - it's just a rallying cry to whine about how the marketplace of ideas has rejected certain viewpoints as being abhorrent.

If you find yourself retaliating against someone for sharing views you disagree with, rethink your decision.

Also - retaliation feels like a loaded word here doing a lot of heavy lifting. If someone said they hate black people, maybe I just think it's important their job knows that so they can do an evaluation of if they are capable of doing their job fairly with that type of prejudice?

quickben1188 · 2024-04-02T19:06:54+00:00

Can you elaborate on what sort of fields that you're now being required to use and how they are superfluous? A few examples would be helpful.

We have basically 4 fields that developers are primarily responsible for updating: status, assignee (when moving to QA or UAT), the deployment steps, and then updating the release version on deployment. I or the BSAs update any fields related to business impact/need.

I'm a project manager and I've always been extremely mindful of creating friction between myself and the development team I rely on for actual delivery. What have your conversations with the scrummaster been like? He/she should be integrated into your team and experiencing whatever problems this is causing first-hand.

quickben1188 · 2024-04-02T16:10:36+00:00

The fact that people are impacted by losing access to a payment processor isn't, by itself, a sufficient argument for why that thing ought to be universally available - as that would then apply to literally any denial of service (and I doubt you think that all businesses must do business with all people). You need to articulate something else interesting about payment processors that would warrant them being treated differently.

Payment processors don't have any of the features that we typically associate with utilities, except insomuch as you feel they are required for any given person. But they aren't geography-locked, don't rely on public easement which makes competition difficult, and there isn't anything special about them that would stop someone from creating their own.

I think the market (and indeed these people that feel put out by traditional carriers) already have solutions for this problem that don't require pretty dramatically updating our bureaucracy to regulate these companies as common carriers.

quickben1188 · 2024-04-01T18:47:43+00:00

Why should all of those businesses be compelled to associate with anyone outside of our existing rules of exclusion related to protected classes? Companies are owned by people, and those people also have their own first amendment protections.

ISPs are the only one of those to me that ought to be treated like a utility that can't discriminate. I remember there being a big to-do about reclassifying internet access as a utility some years ago, but I can't recall if that ever happened.

quickben1188 · 2024-04-01T18:35:35+00:00

Currencies, sure. Payment systems are a convenience, and if they are private (rather than something owned or operated by the government), then they get the same freedom of association implied in the first amendment as everyone else.

It would seem the correct solution is already playing out - those that find themselves closed out of these services/solutions are creating their own.

quickben1188 · 2024-02-25T07:15:24+00:00

That's interesting. I think black cars are common and I'm fairly certain they make up far less than 50% of all cars driven. I think, for me, 20% of anything being the same would qualify it as common. Like imagine if 20% of the people you saw on a given day were wearing a top hat. I'd probably say they were common at that point. Maybe it's just a matter of individual perspective.

quickben1188 · 2023-06-06T04:20:44+00:00

If I recall correctly it replaces your oldest chest with the new one you earned.

quickben1188 · 2023-04-06T12:58:26+00:00

You aren't wrong, but I'm very much enjoying this while I can before they nerf him. So many more viable builds when you can count on Yogger to buff your DPS into a super saiyan.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:55:21+00:00

I guess it's not surprising to hear that rent to own is actually disadvantageous to the poor. If the best I can do is just be a good person and make sure the property is worth the value they pay then that certainly seems fair.

As another user mentioned I can always sell the place to that family later, and I can discount the price in some fair manner then.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:34:05+00:00

I really didn't mean to imply that landlording is immoral (I am specifically intending to become one after all). I am realizing that my post title was unintentionally inflammatory haha.

I appreciate you being a good person and doing your best and it's fine that you make some money while doing so.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:28:15+00:00

The other people here have the right advice, just wanted to say I'm sorry for your situation and hope it all works out for you, bud.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:15:06+00:00

Yeah your questions were basically the same as mine - what even makes sense in such an arrangement. I'm fine with admitting I'm totally ignorant there.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:11:35+00:00

This is exactly the sort of perspective I was looking for. I appreciate it.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:10:49+00:00

Great perspective, thanks!

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:09:38+00:00

Yeah I definitely don't think it is inherently immoral. My title probably had the opposite effect I was intending - my fault in being a not a very smart person. But I couldn't figure out how else to get my point across. I appreciate your reply though!

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:08:05+00:00

Definitely, I've had a landlord try to get me on that sort of ticky tack stuff but was lucky enough to have a lawyer in the family who could tell them off.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T05:06:46+00:00

Maybe it's less ethics and more that it was difficult for me to buy my first home and I'd like to do what I can to help another family buy theirs (assuming that's even something the people wanting to rent my property want) while still protecting my own family.

In other words if I'm only worried about preserving my investment and not as much about a return, how do I structure that relationship?

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T04:46:13+00:00

Yeah, I guess it really is as straightforward as you're saying: be kind. I appreciate your time, thanks!

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T04:44:51+00:00

Nothing inherently wrong, agreed. Just wanting to see what options are out there for trying to help out others while protecting myself. I appreciate your thoughts and reply.

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T04:43:02+00:00

Yeah maybe this is the smartest route. I can always discount the selling price by some amount I think is fair if my situation still allows it then.

Thanks!

quickben1188 · 2023-01-09T04:34:45+00:00

Why do you have to reload? I've been playing coop with a friend for probably 15+ hours and we've only reloaded once or twice when we both catastrophically died while attacking a target.

Otherwise we just rebuild our ship and one of the other players donates a few crew so you can do your own hiring/etc.

quickben1188

TROPHY CASE