This is a perfect example of someone telling the truth in such a way to completely mischaracterize what really happened.
I’m sorry that you didn’t like my factual summary of events, but I provided direct references that were very easy to click on and read more about and I’m glad that you availed yourself to those resources.
You obviously feel very strongly about pontifier and his past, given the amount of time you spent digging into his background, what is the point you are actually trying to make here? Be as direct as possible, please :)
I did not spend much time “digging into his background”, I clicked a link and read a few posts.
Why do you care? Be as direct as possible, please :)
I invite you to not read questions directed at people other than you if you find them to be obnoxious.
No, why would I?
As for the weird threat of embarrassment… what? I literally just asked if he used the same username on both websites.
As for why I asked, I’ll answer again: his post on HN had a different tone from his posts on the bird site, and I wanted to know if they gave context to his post or were unrelated. For example, I do not own “braingenious” on twitter, and I wouldn’t want someone to mix me up with whoever that is.
I initially found this thread because someone mentioned it on Twitter. Spoiler: I did not go out of my way to gain any information.
As for how this relates to politics, I’ll refer to his own recent post about local politics affecting his project.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32474436
This has been a courtesy post because you have not answered “Why do you care?” and have failed to be direct. I will not engage with you any further.
Always a losing strategy in my experience.
:-(
So, we always want to help - I mean, FFS - people who develop tech/sw/hw/etc are actually looking at giving the fruits of their efforts out to the world, social support is no different...
But at times quick to help without judging the requestor past (HELLO PAC contributions :-))
None of this negates anything I said previously.
I feel for this guy. He is getting screwed by a high-violence region. But his approach to solving this problem makes the world worse, not better.
A criminal came to his private property and attempted to steal. He was able to keep the person there - for less than ten minutes - until that person was arrested. Presumably that person is in jail now or at least on probation.
Please explain how just letting this person steal leaves the world better than having him get punished for his actions. When victims of crime shrug their shoulders and just say "aw shucks" it incentivizes more crime, which makes the world objectively worse.
What is the alternative? Paying people to track down criminals is how law enforcement works almost everywhere.
did i get that right
the guy confronted him and held him there until the authorities arrived.
are you implying people should not protect their livelihood and let trespassers loot even if they could stop them?
why should those property owners who are fully in the right morally and legally do that when the trespassers are flagrantly breaking the law?
Seems no different than crime stoppers, it's usually just a reward for information leading to an arrest, it's not an actual bounty. It's not excluding that, but he's most likely hoping someone who knows the person who stole it will rat for the money.
And I think you'll have to provide examples of the "terrible outcomes caused by private vigilanteism".