fountainofage

That's a fair interpretation. Admittedly I've known him long enough that I'm familiar with these experiences of his, so I didn't probe too much into this exact event and what he thought everyone else was doing.

He also at one point pursued a diet in which he'd eat vegan as long as it was the best option available. And it was just like ... that's almost what literally everyone else does? He seemed to believe most people just ignored certain menu options by default, versus ordering the item that seemed most appealing to them. He thought people looked at a menu and thought "oh, that eggplant vegetable medley sounds amazing! Drat, it doesn't have chicken, guess I'll just get the cheeseburger."

You've reminded me of a friend of mine who reached the point in his life where he was going to furnish his home with new furniture. He boasted how he was only going to buy American and wasn't going to be like everyone else favoring stuff from elsewhere. After one day of furniture shopping exclusively American, he said he couldn't justify spending so much just to buy American. And I was dumbfounded. Like he honestly believed people weren't buying American-made because they actually favored stuff from China. The thought it was a cost issue never crossed his mind until he had to spend his own money.

"but not guarantee" is almost the entire point of what folks are pointing out and what the OP meant - you could do literally everything perfect and still it's VERY likely you will fail.

It's basically don't waste your time with corp dev. http://www.paulgraham.com/corpdev.html

You hit the nail on the head that it's way too much work when there's not even a contingent offer on the table. A real buyout would come in with either a stated sum, or a methodology for how that sum will be calculated.

> I'm not sure why there is a stigma to deciding to not have kids.

> It's not as if your decision is going to have much impact on anybody except yourself

That's pretty much every stigma, though, so it also makes sense why this one exists, too.

Why is publicly saying "hey, a few companies are selling shorts of gamestop and trying to drive it into the ground, I think that's bullshit. If you think it's bullshit, too, here's how you could do something about it." such a questionable thing to say and do?

Do you also want cancer charities to stop asking for donations? Should start up founders not be allowed to ask for investor money?

I could totally see the market manipulation argument if this was done in backrooms, with multiple accounts to hide the moves, several shell corporations holding the funds, etc. But these folks are publicly declaring their intent. And the first person to uncover the gamestop shorts has been saying it for over a year. Out in the open with frequent updates.

The short sellers have had a year to get out and leave the company alone, but they were so obsessed with watching a company die that people got pissed and wanted some blood.

The chain of events doesn't start with "we buy a lot and blah blah blah" - the chain of events starts with someone declaring over a year ago "fuck these guys for going all in on destroying a quality company for no reason other than the lulz."

That same page also says

"Investors and prospective investors should be cautious of rumors on chat rooms where the intent of nameless and faceless computer users is in doubt."

So it'd be a question of which is it? Is it don't trust internet forums or is it people shit posting memes is a coordinated attack?

Logically and morally you can't have it both ways. But we're seeing how morals don't matter when you go after the money.

Off the top of my head I recall etrade, fidelity, schwab, and TD ameritrade allowed people to buy GME. I understand being able to buy on margin has been restricted almost everywhere, though.

They will likely lose a lot of their users. The users were never the customers - not even the gold ones.

Honestly, I've typed out a few replies, and I've got nothing.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust cops because they kill 1,100 people a year. That's it. That's my whole argument. Just 1,100 lives. Every year.

You're saying that's not relevant to what we're talking about and let's look at how European countries seem fine with their more lax evidentiary protocols, legal systems, and trusting cops. Even though their cops only kill 50 people a year (at equivalent population rates).

I really don't have a "better" warrant system to propose other than an adversarial one because at the end of the day I don't trust cops, and you're advocating for a legal system that intrinsically does. This is me saying "hey, blue is actually yellow" and you saying "no, blue is blue." Our perceived realities are too far apart.

To my knowledge, much of the rest of the developed world doesn't have a problem with cops being able to lie under oath with no punishment. The non-adversarial systems you reference rely on the confidence that when a cop gets caught knowingly lying to get a warrant, that cop is fucked. Here in the US, it's just another Tuesday morning at the coffee shop with the boys.

On the destruction of evidence, this one has always baffled me - so is there evidence or not? Presumably when I go to a judge saying I need the legal authority to kill some babies at 3 AM because otherwise the evidence will be destroyed... I have enough evidence to justify killing those babies, right?

... So this begs the question... Why do I need authorization to kill babies at 3 AM? In case the suspects destroy more evidence? What was my evidence to kill babies to begin with? Just a hunch? Because a judge should absolutely shit on that, and it should be adversarial. A judge should laugh when evidence for a warrant request is "oh, I need the warrant because they'll destroy the evidence for me to request this warrant."

From my rough observation of the news for the past 20 or so years, the evidence of these crimes these babies died to protect has never been worth it. Maybe you know of a few where the death of a few babies were worth it because the crimes were so heinous. Every time I'm aware of - it's just been drugs, which could have been done in daylight hours, with no dead babies.

Now maybe this is your point about unarmed police. I'm not sure. But a warrant tends to be a fuck ton of latitude (as I've said in prior comments - judges just hand them out like candy), so just send in cops who want to kill with their bare hands and you'll get the same result, in my opinion.

I agree I'm being extreme, but that's where we are today. We tried the whole "let's just all get along and try to fight crime together" method, and it turns out cops will just lie to judges and go kill kids. This isn't me doing a slippery slope "what if" scenario. This has already happened. A bunch of times. Too many times in my opinion.

So now it's time for us to take away everyone's toys until they can show us they can all be good.

That's my point - not that a judge should grant a warrant to a crackhead, but that they should act as if they're granting a warrant to a crackhead. So basically the opinions, social standing, and claims of the entity requesting the warrant are irrelevant. Only the actual evidence should be considered by a judge when granting a "right to wantonly kill" because that's exactly what a warrant is at the end of the day. It should be taken very seriously, and unfortunately, it's not.

I'm mainly commenting on the way up parent here:

"They got a warrant. Judges aren't going to issue a warrant based on asking a bunch of people if they sent a message."

Judges absolutely issue warrants all the time just for the hell of it. The very up parent seems to be indicating that some sort of due process was done because "oh, a judge issued a warrant" and I'm emphatically stating: a judge issuing a warrant means as much as me saying the sky is made of M&M's - just the ravings of irrelevant madmen in the face of actual facts.

Edit: I will say - the warrant process should absolutely be adversarial. Justice is to be blind. Which means if a crackhead and a cop come to a judge and requests the legal authority to break into a home with lethal force, the judge should weigh both requests the same. That's the intent of our legal system - the executive does what it thinks it's supposed to do in light of what the legislative has passed, while the judicial watches them to make sure they don't screw up.

Instead they all get together as buddies and stomp their collective boots into the skull of their fellow citizens.

The issue is: the evidence they gathered was that her home was specifically NOT part of any drug rings. The judge went ahead and issued a warrant even though all actual evidence said her house was not involved. Cops lied and said it totally was, and the judge just said "sure thing bros, we're all such buds."

My point is just because a judge issues a warrant doesn't actually mean anything at all. It has the same factual basis as me saying the sky is actually made of M&M's and judge granting a decree that it must be true because I said it.

Yeah, I bet if someone came over and beat the shit out of you for only an hour a day, you'd be correcting people that the person is only sometimes an asshole.

Read up on Brian Miller in the Parkland shooting. Let children die because he ran away. Still working as a cop. They tried to fire him but can't.

They have no legal obligation to be there or do that job. If they refuse, there can be no punishment. This has gone to the federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, several times. Cops have absolutely zero legal obligation to enforce the law. There's no sense in you even trying to disagree with this because the highest court in the land had consistently declared it as the law.

On your second point... I agree? Cops are forcing themselves into people's homes with the express intent of fucking shit up, that's why they enter armed and dangerous, the same as a thief. Is that what you're saying? Because that's what I'm saying. Do you sympathize with the thief? I don't, the same as I don't sympathize with the cop.

Edit: to clarify - the cop could be entering the home as a neighbor and a friend, and that's what everyone would prefer. Unfortunately, cops decided long ago they'd rather hold onto their right to kill with no questions asked, so now they're no better than a methhead busting down a door. It's ultimately their fault for this image, and they're the only ones that can fix it.

But the chance of getting away with killing a few people becomes non-existent if you actually try to do something sane.

Eh, don't side with cops. They have no legal obligation to do anything. They know this. So they pick their battles where they know they can kill a few people and get away with it. When it comes to actually having a chance at saving lives, they run away and hide, and get rewarded for it.

See the recent-ish school shooting in Florida where the on-duty cop ran away like a baby and let children die. Brian Miller. Still has his job. No one gives a shit.

Cops in the US are cowards who don't deserve to arm with a super soaker.

The law actually isn't different.

Cops just have qualified immunity and have shown they throw hissy fit little tantrums if a DA holds them responsible for being the worthless sacks of shit that they are.

Have you even bothered researching the Breonna Taylor case? The judge issued a warrant in spite of evidence clearly saying she's not guilty, and she's dead now.

Judges routinely issue warrants just because the good ol police officer man says it's totally ok and he'll get a nice lollipop for doing it.

You are aware cops have absolutely no obligation to enforce the law, right?

So you or me entering this woman's home with guns drawn - we have the same obligation to be there as a cop.

This whole "oh but the cops are scared for their life" crap needs to stop. They have no obligation to do anything, so anytime they do, it's their choice. Just as much their choice as you or me busting into a home with guns drawn.

You wouldn't be sitting here sympathizing with how a random burglar is totally justified in entering a home with a weapon drawn because the homeowner could be armed.

Why do you do the same with cops?

Edit: to summarize my point: cops have no obligation to be there, so if their solution is to enter with guns drawn and barking orders, we shouldn't try to sympathize with that behavior. We should tell them to stay at home and cuddle a teddy bear instead. A lot more people would be alive today if we quit making excuses for why cops are so eager to kill people.

Theoretically, these businesses are already priced to maximize profit. So it could be that increased wages increases the cost to the consumer. It could also mean lower profits for the business if they've already priced at the max their customers are willing to pay.

My point is that my experience has been that assholes are going to be assholes regardless of how much you educate them. We see this now where those with no education and very little wealth are out there saying "Trump isn't hurting the right people."

It doesn't matter the level of education someone has in that scenario - they've already decided on an "us vs them" mentality and will believe what they want to justify their actions.

There are very well-educated, well-informed, and critically-minded white supremacists - they use that knowledge and intelligence to further their racism. No amount of education will help them.

They've already decided they want to hurt other people, and just take all evidence and back it into either "supports my stance of hurting others" or "this is fake."

I think we're spending too much time on the pity party of the uneducated. That if they just had the chance of the college dream, they'd open their eyes and want to help others. I think the vast majority have already decided on their tribe, and we as a society need to be aware of this and structure accordingly rather than insult these groups by saying they're just stupid or misinformed. They know exactly what they're doing and are more than happy to achieve their goals because the ends justify the means.

Are you saying we need even more education than what doctors currently attain?

Or are you agreeing with my underlying point that education doesn't matter and won't help here?

I'm very inclined to believe, but I personally know a couple of medical doctors who are 100% into the theories. And I imagine lots of other people also know well-educated individuals with the same beliefs.

I don't know if education is enough. People seem to decide at some point what they believe, and then back all evidence into either it supports their beliefs, or the evidence is fake.

Could you edit your original statement with this clarification? It's not at all obvious or clear, and I think it says quite the opposite - you are emphatically stating it's ok for that legacy / non-legacy gap because legacies have way higher test scores, which seems a very dubious claim given how unbelievable the score gap would have to be to account for a 30% difference.

Someone said "these schools admit 30% more legacies than peasants" and you said "yeah, but legacies get better test scores than the peasants."

And your clarifications really don't address that, and you even seem to back away from it now. Why even make the absurd claim about the intellectual and test-taking superiority of legacies over the peasants if it isn't significant - as you're now claiming?

Are you saying legacy's have an ABSURDLY higher average test score? Could you share a source on that? To explain a 30% gap in outcomes for two demographics solely by test scores would mean the test score difference is absolutely insane.

The examples cited are how the courts pierced the LLC veil to satisfy someone's personal liabilities. This seems like it's unavoidable because no matter how you split it up, the courts will seize your assets to pay that liability - the effect would be the same if the courts just grabbed the owner's stake in the LLC's.

Your example is what most people think of - LLC's shielding each other and the owners.

I'm mostly pointing out that the parent comment's link is a bit of a boogeyman in that you could have a perfectly structured LLC system, and if you are personally criminally negligent and liable to pay, then the courts will still get your stakes in the LLC's.