Oh there you go again. Keep blaming the people for not voting for a candidate with weak values. It’s their fault, not hers, and definitely not the DNC’s. Will you blame them again in 2028, just like you did in 2016 and 2024? Or will you go get a decent candidate?

That’s true but don’t fool yourself. There are younger dirty politicians waiting to replace them if we aren’t careful, and probably in some places even if we are.

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!

The way to do that now is to send them abroad to disappear or die. That’s the deflection. Otherwise there are dead bodies in the US and state murder charges with no statute of limitations.

Not true, though. We already have videos of people threatening to use 2A if ICE breaks in, and then of ICE leaving… In other words, you can scare them off. Do you think the average ICE agent wants to risk their own life to fuck someone up? No, of course not. They want to risk another ICE agent’s life, not their own.

And how many people know or care what C does for them, anyway. It’s cool, though.

She was working for them, knowing they were evil, and happily getting a paycheck. But she knew that the judge would eventually regulate things, starting with her. You can get only stonewall for so long, before you either quit or start lying.

Shit, we don’t know, but did she already lie and was worried that it would be uncovered? Wouldn’t surprise me.

And with them, the entire US tech economy… Of course Europe would get going quickly enough, whereas US tech would never recover… So it’s an interesting kind of leverage to disfigure oneself.

You can call them that if you’re painting a positive picture of the future, like encouraging them because soon enough they’ll be voting. That’s a reasonable time to do so.

If you do so here, when the whole point is there were massive horrible crimes on kids committed, you’re covering up the badness.

To be clear, we do not have one single system. Branches of math are built on axioms, and different branches include different axioms. Some branches are simple enough that we can prove consistency. But what if you find an inconsistent one? Then you remove one of the axioms that helped demonstrate inconsistency, and then you move on.

If she stays on and the federal court holds her in contempt and punishes her, maybe Donald will pardon her, so she still gets her money. So no, it’s not moral.

What could she do? She could say what exactly the feds are doing wrong, for example, with federal officers’ names and dates and details. Create the record. She could refuse to file motions supporting the feds. Then the people would win those uncontested cases. Those would be relatively moral. But she made it about herself, and that’s hogwash.

Basically you don’t understand. Investors sell when they think the companies will fuck shit up. That could be because they think the product is obsolete, or it could be that they think manglement is going to do dumb shit. Take your pick. Remember, it’s gambling about the future, not about what’s right or reasonable.

What you’re positing here is a view of life that Margaret Thatcher loved. The idea is, “There is no society. There are no laws. There is no oversight. Everything, all responsibility, all of it is 1000% individual.”

Of course in reality that’s nonsense. We live in a world with laws that are sometimes enforced, where governments sometimes protect us, because we want them to, because that’s good for us all.

But even if you believe in Thatcher’s view, then you have the problem of corporations. You can’t seriously argue that we should be responsible for everything ourselves, as individuals, and also that corporations should exist, because they are anti-individual.

Of course we shouldn’t trust anything blindly, but we also need to use common sense. Have we seen proof that what’s claimed to be true is in fact true? No. But it might be true, and it’s consistent with what Meta would do. So if your cautious minded, you should assume it’s true for now while you go through the next few years of your life waiting for discovery.

If companies are lying in their advertising to the general public, then that is something the companies are responsible for. You can blame the victims, but that’s kind of stupid because there are so many people in the world who are not technically savvy. They don’t have the resources, background, knowledge, and skills to evaluate whether what the company is telling them is true. That’s why there are laws designed to protect consumers from lying companies.

Would it be great if everyone was an expert in everything? Yes. Are they? No. They never will be. That’s why we have laws.

To be accurate, there’s plenty of evidence. Look on Wikipedia and it’s all listed there. Do you think that evidence is reliable or meaningful? That’s your choice, and maybe you have a good reason for your stance, but the existence of said evidence is not in doubt.

I think shrugging is the right response. He’s a known cheater, he got caught, and it damaged his reputation a bit. Meh, good, that’s normal. If you wanna be universally praised, probably better to play the game by the rules.

There are many reasons why the executive branch (pigs, DAs, presidents, etc.) often don’t comment. It all depends on the details of what they might say, though.

If they say “he’s guilty!” or “she’s guilty!” then there is a higher chance of corrupting the jury pool. This is especially true for national-level leaders (e.g., Luigi’s case).

If they discuss specific facts, but it turns out those are contested claims, then the same issue comes up, but it’s usually less of an issue, if they phrased everything properly.

If there are details of the current investigation status that might tip off potential criminals, they probably don’t want to say those. If they do, there’s some risk that they could face civil suits, depending on the exact details (e.g., Karen Read’s lawsuit).

Of course they can comment on things, and often they should, because the public sometimes really ought to get information on a given topic. In those situations, they need to do what Trump’s people never do, which is write their script and then triple check it for the above points, and only then read it out loud for the camera.

And above all, if they want to avoid negative consequences, they should definitely avoid outright falsehoods. It can be acceptable to say “Our agent reported that [situation]…”, for example, because then the leader is talking about what they heard happened, and not about what the situation actually was.

It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. It looks like the claims are based on specific aspects of California law (put simply: wiretapping, privacy, and deceptive business practices). Do they have a strong case? I don’t know, not worth my personal time to research state law on these issues.

Is there enough to go to court? Certainly the lawyers think so, and I agree. If Meta is claiming E2EE (which it is) and then immediately undercutting that by re-transmitting large numbers of messages to itself (which is alleged), that sure feels deceptive to me, and it’s easy to think that a jury might agree.

It’s not quite that bad. Accessory after the fact for murder can result in the same sentence as the murder itself. So some of these ICE pigs, they could face life in prison if they have destroyed evidence poorly.

Of course it depends on the details.

Well no. The disappearance is unlikely. But they are largely outnumbered, so if it turned into a gun fight, they would definitely lose. Well, the feds would lose too, but not as badly as the state pigs.