notch898a

I'm just curious, but have you ever been confined in a hospital because of a misunderstanding? This is something that actually happened to me, it was an awful experience and I was treated like shit and then left with debt collectors chasing me when it was all over (despite being vindicated of the accusation). I'd like to believe humans aren't capable of misunderstandings, but sadly this doesn't match my experience of reality.

It's honestly quite an astonishing revelation that you've said being cautious about these possibilities in this way is a certain red flag. That's basically a "thought crime" where being cynical of the system makes you an even bigger concern than someone who says they have a plan to end their life in the next 24 hours which apparently only earns a "might" be a flagging. Thus I choose not to interact, to the extent I can, with said system.

The whole house of cards you are relying on here is the bank run would not have happened had FF not made the move. The facts presented to not rise to such certainty.

It's a red flag to be worried that you could possibly be misinterpreted and that the misinterpretation (innocent or otherwise) could lead to a red flag? That is some dystopian shit.... I'm not even allowed to be a skeptic about the red flag without being flagged. I think you've proven the case as to why I wouldn't want to see a therapist.

I was taken involuntarily to a hospital.

I was immediately presumed guilty and cursed at by nurses. Looked down upon by cops. Laughed at when I asked for a signed warrant or consent before acting.

Oh yeah, I wasn't there for a mental health hold. A cop claimed there were drugs up my ass. Literally.

They found nothing. Never got an apology. Just a bunch of judgemental assholes that assume if you're being evaluated for something it must be true. Even when discharged they marked "overdose" on my paperwork.... I was stone cold sober and was only there because some officer apparently thought I fit the profile of a drug smuggler. The medical workers didn't want to admit they were wrong so they just marked it as an overdose when absolutely nothing was found, including never performing a tox screen (it would have been negative). On the way out the doctor bragged about how he was monitoring closely to try and find a way to hold me longer, with the implied threat being he had hoped since whatever preconceived notion he had about me being a drug smuggler had no evidence that he could punish me instead by involuntarily committing me.

>>>It's my understanding in some jurisdiction claiming a drug nexus makes you eligible for certain more attractive sentences or diversions...

It's a more attractive sentence. You're simply lying about my original comment.

You've cited nothing at all, so you're upset about a (May 2022 published) study with data from 2010 vs your mere word that opposes it? You're aware that studies look at data for things that already happened right, not the future?

>And I notice you deliberately avoid mentioning that your study was based on data collected from 2002-2010.

I cited it... the date was right on it. Not hidden. What's even your point here? It's not unusual for an informal citation to not include the date as part of the citation. And even were it I marked the publish date next to the citation it would be '22 and you'd probably still be moaning as '22 isn't the data of the data.

>federal crimes

My original comment indicate "some jurisdictions." Not all. But I will note that the vast majority of people in the US are subject in various capacities to federal jurisdiction, so it seems quite relevant. I guess you could argue the UN Headquarters is exempt, for instance.

maslow's hierarchy of useful professionals for dealing with life's traumas

       therapist
      d o c t o r
    l  a  w  y  e  r
  s  t  r  i  p  p  e  r

I'd be curious when adoption started becoming so much more cumbersome, and whether the outcomes for the children have been significantly better. Including taking into account that some children get left to bounce around in foster care because loving parents who want to adopt them get hit as "false positives" as baddies in the onerous screening process.

I would never speak to a therapist unless all the laws regarding mandatory reporting, red flags, FAA and firearms licensing record searches, and involuntary committal are repealed. Until then they are a huge blinking hazard that the slightest misinterpreted phrase will result in serious legal hassles.

>You previously argued that the first movers might be able to get more money out, and nonzero transactions might be processed during the run. Both are very plainly factually incorrect, even for the very first mover, even when that first mover is perhaps the most sophisticated actor in the entire sector, and even when it directly impacts the most important portco in the first mover's portfolio.

The (alleged) 'prime mover' you cite is FF. They (the fund itself) got ALL their money out [0]. FF also gave their portfolio companies a chance to get their money out by alerting them of problems with SVB. You cite a single company portfolio in FF that did not, yet no evidence they would have been able to get their money out had they not been alerted. There's no reason to believe the portfolio was worse off for being tipped off earlier than later, in the quite possible scenario FF wasn't even the first mover.

The claim that no one got money out in the run is plainly untrue. FF got their money out, Hustle Fund brags of pulling the trigger before it was too late. Non-zero transactions were made.

> first movers might be able to get more money out

First movers in a bank run get more money out than those at the end. This is basic principles of fractional reserve banking in a bank run. That you find this "factually incorrect" is absolutely mind bogglingly wrong. There is literally nothing to be gained to being at the end of the bank run, which is effectively where those who do nothing end.

Yes this isn't prisoner's dilemma for a variety of reasons, but since we agree it is not (and I never claimed it was) we'll not belabor that point.

The point is this. It is anything but "swift and extremely stupid" to see deteriorating bank financials that suggest you are at risk of a bank run or failure and transfer your money to a different bank. Doubly so for the second and beyond actors, who find themselves in a run and nothing to gain by letting everyone in front of them in line. Anyone who thinks otherwise is going on my "personal docket of people who are too stupid and impulsive to trust."

final note regarding 'participation.' : Once the bank run starts you have no choice not to 'participate.' You are a participant who can either try to get the money out before it's all gone or you are a participant who chooses to exercise the superior game theory or whatever of letting everyone else suck up the remaining liquidity.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-11/thiel-s-f...

I agree the best action is to not say anything to the public until all of their money is quietly taken out (if possible). The question is if FF had done nothing, would they have been better off? That's a hell of a bet to make, to assume that no one else is part of the run and that given the deteriorating financials that it won't be coming soon (even if inadvertently in the normal course of business).

I think there are a lot of details missing and presumptions from this model that could change the calculus, and it would be swift and stupid decision to bet that 0 withdrawals in a bank run are going to complete, or that the first actors are expected to lose a significant share of their money if a run is triggered.

It would be a lot cheaper and probably less risky for the safe deposit box to be numbers in an account like it is with fractional reserves, except the part where they lend it out privately. Even better if those reserves can be kept at the central bank overnight to earn a bit of interest.

I also can't do an ACH or wire transfer from a safe deposit box.

I had to parse this a few times to understand. I think your thesis is that an investor has multiple ventures in their portfolio. And many of those ventures park their treasuries at the same bank. And by telling them a run is happening, your thesis is some or none of those ventures pull their money out faster than others, and the stragglers of the portfolio can't due to the bank run started by the investor and/or other companies in the investor's portfolio?

Wouldn't this not be prisoner's dilemma then? If I pull my money out, I'm in the same spot as before with my money parked at a different bank. If I don't pull my money out, I'm either in the same spot as before or even worse off.

In this case, starting from the perspective I have a choice (and thus the bank is still liquid), I can only do at best the same as I would have done if I pulled out.

So not only do you now acknowledge you were lying about these programs (not) existing for non-drug offenses, now you're expecting me to take on your (shot) credibility that only drug-related offenses make it into the program. This is WRONG as evidenced by BOP's report which shows significant underlying offenses for RDAP participants in fraud, immigration, firearms, and "other" offenses.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

>he dependent defendant will never get a meaningfully shorter sentence

Up until the BOP report showed to me you were lying about the programs, I probably would have take your word on this. Now I'm not so sure. Would be interested in seeing the evidence that this never happens.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding me operating off of "memes." They may exist, but they're not something I've looked for nor noticed.

There's definitely a question to be had, depending on the non-operable chances of the person and the availability of surgeons, whether it is worse to have one sleepy surgeon do more work at greater the risk or a fewer surgery at a lower risk.

I am very sorry about your father. I guess my question would be, given our shortage of surgeons, would we be better off if they did less surgery with the tradeoff of lower per-surgery deaths but greater deaths from waiting too long / never / rising unaffordable prices due to scarcity. This seems like a case of an awful reality where some individuals die due to even greater shortage of surgeons or fewer die from shortage but more die due to lack of sleep/etc. The answer is clear at your individual level, less clear at the population level.

To be clear, I'm not saying that was a good representation of the tradeoff in your family. But it did seem to become a real problem of tradeoffs during COVID when medical personnel were overworked. It definitely takes a certain kind of personality to make peace with "I can operate on two people who are do-or-die today and save an average of 0.8 of the two of them, or operate on one person today and save an average of 0.6 of the two of them." You'd have to go in knowing the population is better off while the per-surgery stat is worse off...

Agree, which brings me full circle. Offer her a short course followed by her fate in the Bahamas. "USA DoJ isn't in charge of other countries" -- too bad so sad, what happens in fox hill stays in fox hill.

Maybe there is some way she can avoid extradition from the US, I'm not sure, but I have a feeling such a greedy soul could be lured to some other country in promise of riches only to be escorted by men with badges for a nice cruise for a Caribbean vacation.

Ah damn. Is RDAP just a scam? I had thought for instance non-violent federal crimes are often eligible for reduced time, often even if they weren't drug crimes. (you're only eligible for this program if you had substance use)

  Federal law allows the BOP to reduce the sentences of non-violent offenders who complete the RDAP program by up to one year. The RDAP program is voluntary and takes 500-hours, nine- to twelve-months to complete. The RDAP is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3621, which directs the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide residential substance abuse treatment for all eligible federal inmates.

Guessing the feds just lie and don't actually take the time off then?.

>only applies to drug possession or drug use cases

Yeah but these are pretty common charges no? Seems relevant. For instance, my understanding is in some instances if you have a drug disorder with possession you're in a better position than merely found in possession and don't even use drugs (or use them without having a "disorder"), as the drug-nexus'd disorder might make you eligible for some programs.

I gotta say I didn't realize these programs were just memes, must be a lot of attorneys lying to their clients.

I could make the argument treating them the same means legalizing tobacco advertisement.

Of course the risk profile of marijuana is arguable closer or more favorable than that of alcohol, so tossing it into the alcohol advertising bin or better makes more sense.

OK so it's fine for DoJ to admit into public record admissions of criminal activity that can be prosecuted internationally, so long as it will be used at some point in the future and it hasn't yet been done? Apply this to Caroline. They can put it into the record so the Bahamas can use it. You say it hasn't been "already done" once they do that so everything is good. Appears we agree.

Allow Caroline to testify in exchange for lenience. Share that... so that at some point in the future she can be extradited. All good now! As far as I can tell your criticism has no practical bearing on achieving these ends.

If doing it once means they gave up the ability, that's already done. DoJ did this exact thing to Paul Le Roux. Got him to admit to murders in exchange for immunity. Now he's subject to extradition to the countries they happened in. His next stop is the Philippines.

The DoJ doesn't typically claim as far as I know that they will stop prosecution in other countries.

It's my understanding in some jurisdiction claiming a drug nexus makes you eligible for certain more attractive sentences or diversions, such as going to a treatment facility in lieu of jail.

Could it be that some of your clients would have, say, benefitted from claiming a drug triggered nexus to take advantage of this?

Give her a great deal to make her spill every last detail on camera after rejoicing her sentence will be tiny. Then pass all the details and recordings to the Bahamas and let them extradite her back to fox hill prison to rot for decades. That's what I'd do. "The deal was with the DoJ.... not the Bahamas!!!"

Our constitution is supposed to relegate intrastate trades to the states via the 10th amendment.

This was nullified in wickard v filburn, where they decided growing your own plant and consuming it on the spot is interstate commerce. Obviously this is nonsensical, but the courts don't want to shake the house of cards and you'd have people screaming about the "end of the civil rights acts" and various other popular laws that depend on an extremely fudged version of interstate commerce and the 10th.

The field sobriety test is merely a way for police to make up signs of intoxication. It is a subjective test. If you're there you've already lost. At least in my state you can refuse it without losing your license.

I'm not a lawyer, but I view it as akin to speaking to police without a lawyer. It has no upside for me, therefore I refuse to do it. I do submit to chemical testing due to that being a requirement of my license (in my state the portable breathalyzer is not admissible in court so I'm fine with taking that too).

>Also consider: what are laws for?

Whether laws are here to protect and/or ensure prosperity of society, or whether laws are there to maximize freedom seems to be a huge source of contention in our modern society. Ultimately I think the two ideals, while overlapping many places, are incompatible. Hopefully we can rewind the consolidation of federal powers to allow people with different ideals to move to different states to achieve something closest to their desired way of life. Federal drug laws controlled by unelected beuracrats are an example of making this selection impossible.

Where I live they just test your urine for metabolites. If you pop hot and have smoked anytime in the last month, DUI. No fucks are given whether you are currently intoxicated, as that's too hard to figure out. In theory this yields a result of higher DUIs than actually intoxicated drivers.

The biggest issue with going to a regulated outfit is there are cameras and possibly recording of license/ID information to ensure they don't sell over 1 or 2oz limit to you.

~30-50% of people have constructive access to a firearm at home, which means you're subject to going to prison for 15 YEARS of federal prison if you have a single joint. State legal weed is a no go for me until I can hunt squirrels without going to jail for 15 years.

Hopefully someday the federal laws will be fixed to allow retail outfits to put money in the bank rather than get robbed by violent organized crime, and to remove pot users from the prohibited person list.

The standard of proof in non-criminal US traffic courts is usually "preponderance of the evidence" and the various problems that entails. For license revocation it's even lower as that's administrative. I've been fined near 4 figures on the basis that "the cop says he counted the lines and time it took to pass them."

Fix the courts before making the fines higher.

Revolving treasury bills