He's been a turd that any reasonable person would endorse stripping of his wealth for years.

Hasn't affected the bottom line one whit.

He’s working on it. Never let a narcissist know you figured him out. They will continue.

Their humanity does not serve the bottom line.

You can both test your code for correctness, while also letting the compiler enforce correctness, and communicate important information to people reading your code.

It's the complexity and domain knowledge that gets you at work.

The world is quite fine taking long-term Ls for short-term gains. That's the zeitgeist of the 21st century.

The end result of that is a shit society to live in, but overall welfare is not what we optimize for.

100% agree. I see some of the less dogmatic religions like philosophical Taoism and you could imagine some of them being plucked from a thousand years ago into today and they would just be like "Yeah, this is the road to ruin but you choose this."

The law wasn't in the state that you ascribe to it for the other 99% of its history if you were, say, African-American. Other less-extremely obvious examples also abound.

Liberal democracy with sometimes-fair application of it is the aberration.

By that reasoning any advance is an aberration and thus hopeless, but we've had liberal democracy for a long time. Again, certainly not perfect.

Advance or regression is not the way you probably want to look at it. There isn't a lot of evidence for historical inevitability.

And no, we have not been a liberal democracy for 'a long time'. We have been an illiberal democracy with very limited suffrage and distribution of rights for a very long time.

> There isn't a lot of evidence for historical inevitability.

You're the one arguing for that; I'm saying it's up to us whether we advance or go backward. Generations before us have moved us forward, so it's definitely very possible.

The definitions are just a distraction.

The courts are stacked against the defense, but that statistic in itself is not proof of it.

The courts are stacked against the defence as the bigger the fight, the more defence lawyers can bill.

The legal profession is incentivised to not seek to change rules that disadvantage their clients…

International attention has been on him before that debacle.

Anything to prevent us from looking up, I guess.

Microsoft is in a better position (as their b2b ecosystem can realistically be made LLM-agnostic), but Google will be fine.

In a country where not attending a protest gets you 30 years in prison, and attending a protest where you set off a firework gets you 70, and where a government thug can pin you down and execute you on the sidewalk, and get recognized for his heroism and bravery... you tell me.

Hey if anything we should keep protesting. You should read about what the British did to Indians protesting for independence. Protest in spite of consequences is a singular act of bravery. The cops want people to give in.

In what country did those things happen?

The United States, the first two in Texas and the latter in Minnesota.

In that bit, an unarmed man was murdered, the killers scatter like roaches, the federal police is covering for them, while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial and a swift sentencing and imprisonment.

(What they did is a state crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and also a federal crime that carries the death penalty.)

> ... while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial

Interesting.

Anyone with eyes can see that those killers are guilty. You don't need to split hairs on that, you can look at the video yourself.

As anyone else, though, they constitutionally deserve a fair trial where the onus is on the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before they can be sentenced. My assessment of their guilt has little bearing on the state's ability to do that.

Proving that guilt would be trivial if the federal government weren't actively complicit, by preventing such a trial from taking place. There's no need to cover for it, it's behavior is unconscionable and treasonous.

So, a jury convicted them of not going to a protest?

I’m trying to understand your original claim.

There was a protest in Texas. Some protestors set off fireworks into the air. One protestor brought and shot a gun at a cop. He got 100 years in prison. Everyone else who was there got 70.

One person in their signal group, who didn't even show up to the protest... got 30.

This is Soviet Russia, or Putin Russia-level insanity. Punch a fascist, go to a camp. A fascist punches you, he gets a medal.

I’m not really aware of any country when you can expect to shoot at cops, or be part of a group engaging in that activity, and not expect a harsh response from the state.

Shooting at cops is not a good way to protest. I don’t think any of that is comparable to Soviet Russia, though.

Do you think 70 years for an unarmed person going to a protest where some other asshole shot at a cop is justice?

That is five times the average American sentence for murder.

In the US, someone got 30 years in prison for moving a box of zines. The zines were used to charge the person as a terrorist. Here are the zines that were moved:

https://pnppl.cc/prairieland/

In the United States