There was lots of evidence of a crime, just not evidence of the defendant doing it.
This is most likely super common for criminal trials outside of highly professionalized police and prosecutors.
5,842 karma · joined December 29, 2013
This is most likely super common for criminal trials outside of highly professionalized police and prosecutors.
In the US public defenders don't have time to try cases. They are basically plea bargain assistants.
In practice, "the system" is a lot of humans. The police in rural Canada aren't used to challenging the word of Wisconsin police. Police and prosecutors need to have an incredible discipline to hear "we have a suspect in your community who preyed on a pre-pubescent girl in our neighborhood" and remain neutral and dispassionate during the investigation.
The stupid part is that the prosecution is supposed to be competent and ethical (but one of those failed). Then the defense attorney is supposed to be competent and ethical (but one of those failed). Presumably the jury got access to all of the facts of the case and simply ignored the lack of evidence tying the defendant to the offending Kik account. A chain of 3 errors shouldn't happen if everybody is diligent, but in practice "won't somebody think of the children?!?" Turns off cognitive skepticism and encourages moral panic.
Apparently the appeal leading to the acquittal just happened last week.
I think everyone is rightly questioning why the defendant's lawyers failed to tear apart the prosecution's case. This generally requires that the defendant have money, the defendant hire a competent criminal defense attorney, and the attorney hires a team of experts to rigorously challenge all of the evidence.
Here is some additional Canadian news coverage: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/how-a-single-unde...
Police generally have to send faxes to companies for subpoenas, except for the few mega techs who have digital portals built specifically for police subpoenas. Source: I worked for a company who received subpoenas via fax.
The lawyers aren't supposed to be technical, but they should know their limitations and hire technical experts. But that also assumes the defendant can afford the defense, which is insanely expensive.
Chinese structural advantages: monetary policy, lower cost of living, better infrastructure (electrical and transportation are all new within the last 20 years), lower cost of {concrete, factory machinery, metals, electrical} due to economies of scale.
Chinese EV manufacturers advantages: they don't sell ICE cars, so they don't have any legacy customers, factories to retool, or brand migration issues. And they mostly stole their technology from hiring Tesla factory workers to moonlight for them and share the design, technology, tooling, and RE the Tesla finished product.
Major Western legacy car company disadvantages: Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, etc... all have significant reasons why they can't or won't make the super risky attempt to go all-EV. They all have $10s of billions in debt they are still paying off for their current capital improvements. Those debts assume they contribute selling ICE because EVs last longer so they would sell fewer units per year. It's simply less risk to avoid making any EVs and pay politicians to protect their businesses than to try to compete with 10 year old Chinese phone-companies-turned-EV companies. On top of that, the worldwide demand for EVs is only about the volume of the single most popular model of Toyota. They would have to go into massive debt on a giant risk that consumers will want more EVs (and that the EVs they design/build will sell better than the current ICE cars they have meticulously crafted for 50-100 years).
This memory stock popping on IPO has nothing to do with how well/bad capitalism provides in the USA. This is entirely about Chinese investors speculating on this company's ability to grow and undercut some Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron. Nobody knows on IPO day if a company will grow into the expectations of the investors.
And China's population mostly invested in Evergrande real estate, not stocks. Lots of workers in the US are at least invested in the stock market via their 401k/IRA, but the same isn't true of Chinese workers.
Also worth reiterating that most US stocks aren't doing great. The top 10 by market cap keep dragging the indexes into growth, but success is heavily biased towards the monster caps.
I lived through the crash of 1989, the Dot Com crash in 2000, the GFC of 2008, and whatever the crash and WSB speculation in 2020 were called. None of them had a tiny blast radius like you suggest.
What country has perfect government policy?
The US has atrocious government policies. Costs of college, cost of healthcare insurance, the reason so many uninsured people use the ER as their primary medical usage, tax policy prioritization of capital reinvestment over wage earnings, caring for the environment over affordable housing, etc are all problematic policy outcomes which make the average person poorer.
They are also unsustainable.
The core points are:
- we can't trust a connected GoPro device any more than a connected DJI device
- Just because a device is developed in China doesn't make it a vulnerability.
- Just because a device is made in the US doesn't make it resistant to vulnerabilities.
- US politicians don't have any incentive to tell us the truth. Because of the nature of national security, they could completely lie about any accusations of Chinese involvement and we would never know, especially now that the US president fired anyone who resists his demands for fealty.
- GoPro was first to market but stopped adding value once they IPOed. US public companies depending on IP protections / rent seeking rather than cutthroat competition is the core reason DJI is beating GoPro, not Chinese government subsidies to the sector.
- China's middle and upper classes are far larger than the US's. Similarly, they are training more college grads. China also has more companies being created and more creative destruction than the US. It doesn't matter if we build a better v1.0 product because their innovation engine is moving at least as fast as ours.
- the US has had a 70 year head start on "a near zero cost of capital". Being the west's financier after WW2 and later the world's reserve currency.
That said, I wouldn't bet (if I were you) on something without clearly defining the terms. If Stripe simply homogenizes contractual rules that match their contracts with Mastercard, etc, which side of the bet would that fall on?
No, chargeback rates are not the only reason banking companies like Mastercard are dubious about adult content. In 2021 they added contractual terms to ensure that adult content uses age verification, has the consent of the participants, and to remove illegal content before it is published at soon after it is reported.
But also, the financial industry has a history of discriminating against their customers based in moral reasons (or at minimum bowing to regulatory pressure which stemmed from upstream morality decisions).[1]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa8xy9/is-the-doj-forcing-ba...
You seem to care more about the aesthetics of the sentence than the meaning behind it. We know that a company is not a person. It doesn't have a consciousness. It doesn't have a singular morality to work with. It borrows the decision making of its employees and contractors. We know that the "morality" of a bank or credit card company is really just a layer of abstraction for a group of decisions it makes to avoid bad press/sentiment/oversight/regulation. But if you analyze why people have morality, it's not that different; there are LOTS of things people would do that they currently don't if there was no underlying consequence.
This is the perfect use case for a skill: one person takes the hit to create the skill and then anyone else who wants the tool can use the skill.
There are lots of signals that the sector has been overinvested and that corporate customers are pulling back on spending as the cost of the APIs is revealed.
Once the hyperscalers start struggling to bay their debts (it will happen, just a question of time), there will be a supply glut.
So the only question is: do we share the same definition of “short term”.
My money is on small companies or affluent programmers experimenting with some new hobby / business model.
The model of this boat:
It assumes that RAM remains supply constrained and that none of the existing RAM contracts are cut short.
But Meta and xAI putting A TON of AI compute onto the market. OpenAI and Anthropic are raising the costs of inference (by reducing how much inference users get via subscriptions). And we haven’t seen Oracle / CoreWeave struggle to pay their debts yet, but they will be selling assets once they get close to that point.
USPS makes people who live too far off their normal routes (and presumably the homeless) use PO Boxes to receive their deliveries. That seems equivalent to the website owner using “graceful degradation” for those website features that 2% of browser users can’t use. The article is about website owners who don’t know or bother to use graceful degradation.
Yes, obviously each website owner has to make their own choices about cost/benefit. Except in practice, each product manager doesn’t actually know the cost or benefit of each feature they choose to use which doesn’t have 100% browser compatibility. It’s worth the occasional discussion to highlight these issues, hence the article.
It turns a complicated phone into a much more simple one. Both kids and the elderly can benefit from it.
My only issue is that the was only introduced in 2024, so older iPhones can’t benefit.
(1) The article is talking about how dissatisfying 2% of your market is not a small issue. And the 2% of the market the website dissatisfies are unable to express the feedback reliably.
You are talking about cooking in the same room/ship as your customer, which has a fast and reliable feedback cycle. Your scenario has the advantage of being able to learn about and fix the issue on the current meal or perhaps as slow as 1-2 days. The article is about something which you may never know about so it may never get addressed.
(2) In my experience, each complex feature is its own circle in a not-perfectly-overlapping Venn diagram, so the 2% compounds and far more than 2% of your customers suffer failure from any one of the failures. This is more analogous to each ingredient in the food you select has a 98% chance of working and each dining utensil has a 98% chance of working for that meal.
(3) you are playing sleight of hand with that 5% figure. Your 5% are self-selecting people and highly affluent. This is a very narrow niche of the market and the attitude you take of “you can’t please everyone” doesn’t really work when our target customer is used to getting exactly what they want and you depend on repeat business from a small pool of customers.
(4) I’m guessing you didn’t simply ignore important adjustments like deadly food allergies, hence you aren’t really making a fundamentally different argument than the article. You simply worked in a field where mistakes are far more visible/obvious and the feedback cycle is faster so you learn not to make the same mistake (or people stop trusting you with their meals).
If instead of looking at the 98% figure in the article and thinking “I can’t please 100% of people”, but instead consider “what happens to my customer satisfaction if I move that slider up a little and what else happens if I move it up a lot?” You might actually learn something.
He made an pinned Instagram post about his association with this group (link to his account, not to the post):
In a society where everybody is already driving to school, work, food, shopping medical appointments, gas stations, kids sports, etc this is just a marginal additional trip for the consumer.
Having redundant logistics companies (USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, Amazon, WalMart, Uber, etc) all making deliveries optimizing for something other than _minimum distance traveled_ means they aren’t optimizing for the same thing the consumer would.
Also, there is the game theory aspect. When a consumer mentally thinks they can just make a $5 purchase on Amazon and get it delivered the next day “for free”, they are less likely to take care to shop in bulk / batch their purchases. Nobody goes to CostCo for a $5 trip (except for the weirdos who go there just for the hot dog / pizza lunch). I personally don’t like the hassle of CostCo for less than a $200 shopping trip.