I know that. I was referring to pre-registration of numerous .si domains in advance of his original announcement.
101,377 karma · joined April 19, 2009
ロボロボロボの幸せってなに ロボロボロボの幸せってなに それは後悔のない非情行為 それは対人リストの Short Cut
Humans display a reduced set of consistent behavioral phenotypes in dyadic games https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451
Community interaction and conflict on the web https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03697
Legislators are cheap to purchase
Obviously, it's hard to judge exactly what was appropriate there because we're being asked to extrapolate from a two word quote about the customer intending to "shoot up" the sheriff's office. Consider the following two statements, which express quite different levels of intentionality.
I got a $200 ticket from a sheriff's deputy today for throwing away an apple core. I'm so mad. I'd like to shoot up their office!
Those sheriff's deputies have exhausted my last reservoir of patience. I'm going to shoot up the department. They'll be sorry when they're sprawled all over the floor bleeding out from saucer-sized shotgun slug wounds. I can't wait to hear the screaming and crying of their miserable families!!"
I'm guessing that the diary entry was a more casual expression similar to the first statement, or they police would have quoted more of the statement to emphasize the apparent severity of the risk but it's hard to say without reading the charging documents.
'Probable cause' should involve a degree of certainty, because 'possible cause' would be altogether too loose of a standard. It's possible that you're intending to shootme and you just mentioned saulpw to throw other HN users off the scent. Possibilities are only limited by the assessor's imagination.
Of course, that could change if there's evidence that she took action in pursuit of a goal, like buying ammunition or repeatedly driving around the entrance to her alleged target.
but trade secrets
I think all data centers and other industrial concerns above a certain size should have to publish that.
reality is more complciated than the simplistic characterization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
It's very clear that there's a tension between soveriegnty and accountability at work here, with the US seeking to both have its cake and eat it. Many of the objections to the Treaty of Rome stated by US commentators are equally applicable to the Nuremberg tribunals post WW2, for example.
In reality, it was established by treaty, and 125 countries have chosen to vest authority in it. Originally that list included Israel, the US, and Russia, who supported the establishment of the court but subsequently withdrew when they perceived that being member states would constrain their strategic ambitions.