nf8nnfufuu

Do modern notebooks still have vibration sensors? I think old ones had them in the hard drives, to protect them from damage. But SSDs wouldn't need that anymore.

In any case, I wonder if detecting vibrations and recognizing the boss via machine learning wouldn't be more elegant.

"Why two beautiful young women though - that seems not to be likely due to chance and surely enough to make any rational person wonder what they hell is going on?"

What if a person likes to work with beautiful young women? That's generally part of why people are being called beautiful - because people feel elated in their company.

Let's not pretend that looks don't matter in this world. If you have two equally qualified candidates for a job, perhaps you take the prettier one.

Maybe there is also an effect on meetings. Haven't there been studies on how men behave differently in the presence of attractive women? Maybe it is strategy to bring attractive women to business meetings, to change the dynamics.

Just saying there could be any number of reasons.

Personally I feel it is OK to act according to one's preferences (within bounds of no coercion and so on). If you prefer to be surrounded by attractive women, you should be allowed to act accordingly. I know not everyone agrees. (and please, I am not defending Epstein, I don't think sexual exploitation is OK - I am talking here about the general setting of hiring young assistants).

"By implication that anyone not held directly against their will couldn't be a victim."

I never said any such thing. I said the opposite thing: that it is possible a young assistant to an old guy is not a victim. That's an important distinction.

I think establishing a rule in society that young women can't work for old men would be wrong.

While I think in general it is also important to understand how such things work - how young girls are being exploited.

However, here I didn't even talk about his sex exploits. I only asked about a paragraph about perceiving a man with young assistants.

I'm in no way defending Epstein in any way. It is horrifying how many people in this thread seem to be unable to understand that. I hope nobody of you works in the legal system. You have a prejudice, and you can only see what confirms your prejudice, despite nothing of it being there. You think I defend Epstein, but I never did.

I asked a question about a paragraph describing a scene of a guy visiting MIT Media Lab with young assistants (not teens, they were described s young women), and Media lab staff being concerned.

I did not have the context of Epstein already being convicted as a sex offender.

There was nothing in that paragraph about Epstein having sex with teens, and I didn't mention that, either.

I am merely of the opinion that in general, young women from Eastern Europe should also be allowed to work as assistants for old men. That doesn't imply I endorse older men taking advantage of teens.

The women could simply lead a normal life without Billionaire perks, like Billions of other women do. They are not forced to sell their bodies in exchange for a Billionaire lifestyle.

That's not what it is about. It is about the story at a certain point of time in the past. Nobody is assuming Epsteins innocence today.

Paragraph said nothing about the girls being under 18. It says "young women". Also didn't say anything about his reputation (at the time the story took place).

My interest here was in how people judge other people, not in Epstein's exploits specifically. I don't see what I would gain from reading that article.

I would be interested in what made the Media Lab guy do it.

I suppose many people are confronted with an opportunity for "unethical gains" some time in their lives. Maybe the Media Lab guy simply weighted things in his mind and thought it was worth it, to keep the research going, finance his researchers, or whatever.

I would be interested if it would be wrong in all cases. Like maybe (hopefully) Bill Gates is clean, and via shady Epstein MIT could get clean Gates money. OK or not OK?

I have no issues with him being forced out of his position. I have an issue, in this sub sub thread, with people mandating that I should have considered that head of Media Lab would openly meet a convicted sex trafficker.

Sorry, but 1) is really the only valid indicator here (and it wasn't mentioned in the story). Otherwise you are denying attractive young women from Eastern Europe the ability to get work in the US.

Even young East European models have to work somewhere (at least some of them). (Paragraph called them "young women", not "teens", btw).

Should young women only be allowed to work for poor people, if they are attractive? Or maybe only for other young people? I don't think that would be a good rule.

I don't think it would be enough for an accusation. Of course with the background that Epstein was already known as a sex trafficker, it is a very different matter.

I know about Epstein (superficially at least), I wanted to know what was damning about the quoted paragraph. Those are different things.

I read the first half of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/business/mit-media-lab-je...

That is the original article this while comment thread is attached to. It doesn't mention existing convictions in the first half. I didn't read the article the comment I replied to linked to.

I am not a robot. I can not simply recursively read the whole internet.

I was curious about the supposedly "damning paragraph", not about the whole article. The paragraph was quoted in the comment, so why should I read that article?

What exactly are you implying, anyway? What game do you assume I am playing?

Because my comment was about the cited paragraph, not about Epstein. I had no reason to assume Epstein was already known as a sex trafficker when he visited MIT. It would be a very weird assumption - why would the head of MIT Media Lab meet with a convicted sex trafficker?

Misogynist: because you tend to assume negative things about women.

No, this wasn't about Epstein, but about the general claim of rich old men having power over women.

So you assume every time young women are staying with an old rich man, they have been extorted to do so?

Sorry, that seems extremely unlikely. I find it shocking that you think that way.

Just because somebody is rich also doesn't mean they can simply destroy other people's lives at will.

Btw I have personally witnessed for example young women courting old professors, who certainly didn't have any power to destroy their life. They did have some power to further their career, though.

Expect: yes, I think in most cases it is simply that the young women expect some advantage from the rich guy. Maybe just material things, or maybe just more fun. Maybe they enjoy riding on yachts more than riding on skateboards, or whatever.

Picking vulnerable girls - OK, manipulative.

14 year olds, too - but those "assistants" presumably were older.

Threats - threats are threats, going beyond "manipulation".

Like what - what should I have googled for? "Why did MIT staff suspect Epstein's assistants to be sex trafficked"?

I was replying to the comment about the "damning paragraph", so I assumed the damning parts would be in the paragraph, not in the back story. Therefore, I didn't see the need to Google.

I've read about the first half, which didn't mention that Epstein was already convicted for sex trafficking by the time he arrived at MIT in that story.

It didn't occur to me that he would be walking around freely doing deals if he had already been convicted.

I didn't have the information that he was let off the hook and there was also no indication I should google for something like that. What search term should I have used?

If you have rarely been able to actually find the answer, why do you assume prostitute? Sounds rather misogynist to me.

"psychologically manipulate" - isn't that just a loaded way of saying "convince"? Did he actually do all those other things, beatings, threatening? Or is it such a stereotype that it is just assumed that it must have been this way?

Some of the things you mention are different from the others (drugs, maybe lies). But overall, in my opinion you are taking away too much agency from the women. It is too easy to blame somebody's actions on "manipulation". That would be a wildcard to accuse anybody of anything you want.

No I mean you have to try to recognize the face. Otherwise you can not decide whether the face is from a person who wants to be identified or not.

I don't see how it could work any other way.

In general, old rich men have no special powers over young women. It seems conceivable that usually, they choose to be around him of their own free will.

Otherwise, please explain what special powers old rich men would have over young women.

Why was he running around free then? Had he already passed his time in jail?

I haven't looked into his case. What was his method - what did he do, so that the girls couldn't call for help?

I think classically they are made to be illegal (no passport, have perhaps committed crime of prostitution, so they think they can not go to the police). Is that also what Epstein did?

I was specifically referring to the "most damning paragraph" claim, not an assessment of the situation in general.

I guess it could be seen as damning that his staff thought that way, implying some unhealthy context - as you said, if I understood correctly.

Or in other words, the damning part was not the young assistants, the damning part was MIT staff worrying about young assistants.

Having young girl-friends is not the same as sex trafficking, though, or is it? I thought sex trafficking would be luring girls out of their country with false promises, then burning their passports so that they can't flee.

I wouldn't consider it overly weird if rich guys have young girl-friends. Maybe it is just because Hollywood has groomed me to expect it, I don't know.