towelr34dy

"Tipping Policies"

"deceptive tipping policies"

Huh...

Somehow I think if I set up a tipping jar for the government and kept the majority of the funds, it would be quickly called 'stealing'. Actually, I think in California since the amount is over $10k, it's grand theft.

Welcome to the era of legislative capture, when the criminal activities of a corporation are discovered, "journalists" frame the situation as "big company make mistake, people get upset, people should figure it out and want transparency" and then seem to want to compare this to our outrage culture.

lol

What transparency could you trust from someone who stole from you?

Outrage seems to carry a connotation of being a bit of an overreaction. And a strong reaction.

People aren't hurling insults because of this.

They are angry. And rightfully so. They were stolen from. The article makes no sense unless you believe it was a 'mistake of deceptive practices'.

There's not even a single mention of restitution or ANYTHING that wouldn't have been approved by a corporate PR team in an effort to appear 'unbiased'.

If crack dealers had this type of coverage, we'd be hearing about 'Possible loud sounds that could be confused with guns that happen when certain issues arise. Maybe we should ask for transparency to see what is going on?'

Personally I'm surprised.

Whenever I've heard of the arrest of high profile suspects , there is almost always some smart plan to get the person before they can engage in violence.

This is done to get them to cooperate and get the network that supports the high profile suspect.

I'm not sure why it went down as it did. But I know reality is complex, so I'd guess they were aiming for better but things went badly and they preferred to take him out for sure than let him get away. That would be my guess. That or someone wanted him dead, but the latter is less likely (stupidity being more common than malice and all) - There are probability other probabilities I'm not considering and the fact that multiple factors could be at play... it's hard to tell, the article was short on details.

I'm guessing they probably didn't have any instances where they didn't pay themselves by 'accident'.

Read the other apologists. They quote a 3% deviation from sentencing guidelines.

Sentencing guidelines for Aaron were 6-7 years. A single wire charge on max penalty could be 20. All you need is one judge who saw WarGames to want to make an example out of the kid.

I don't know what the probability is. You don't either. Likely no one did. But that probably has weight.

It's disturbing: the callous indifference to that weight by those who question the exact kilos from an arm chair expert point of view.

This whole thing has parallels to other situations:

A Powerful Group is responsible for a system that perpetrated an injustice.

Members of the powerful group are confronted with the injustice. Members have the following reactions:

Denial (high dissonance)

Disgust

Apologists

Apologists do the same thing: They minimize, deny, question and speculate.

What apologists of all kinds don't realize is that even if they are right, they are wrong.

The callous indifference shown, instead of the guttural understanding of something wrong being needed to be made right... is what is so hard to understand. Even if your argument that the official numbers are overblown by x%.

As a fellow pessimist, I thank you for such a well written piece.

To add to this: I'm pessimistic that any of my individual efforts will succeed... I have 0% doubt that if I keep trying eventually something will work for me.

I see everything else the same way. 99% of the time people are wasting their time. Though I'm not a Debbie downer, I tend to keep this opinion to myself.

In general it is harder for me to cut loses than it is to join new projects. So I guess that's also why pessimism works for me.

As someone once said:

You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em Know when to walk away And know when to run You never count your money When you're sittin' at the table There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealin's done

>0% != 0%

Ah tzs again. Let me quote you:

"lot of reporting said he faced 30 years... Actually, he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors."

So let me ask again, last time you didn't answer: Is the chance of a 35 year sentence for Aaron 0%?

No? Then do the intellectually honest thing and admit you are wrong. Your correcting somebody by saying wrong things. And then doubling down on it.

Low probability is not 0%. Whatever the probability was, it was real that they could have given him 30 years. Unlikely? Yeah. But I'll bet you wouldn't play Russian roulette at those odds; whatever they may be.

Remember the original comment only said that people plea because of the big threat. It is a big threat. And given the fact that you probably wouldn't take a 1:33 chance on Russian roulette, it seem it is a big threat to you.

But not when it is on others. Then it's fine 'because low probability'. In fact, many of the apologists for what happened go as far as to conflate in a single post low probability with no probability.

The double think is amazing.

Your 6-7 years is 'probably'. PEOPLE DO GET MAXIMUM. It happens. Therefore you saying it doesn't won't change anything. Your equating low probability with no probability. This is a false equation.

Have some intellectual honesty and admit you were wrong.

So you are saying: Judges never convict people to the maximum sentence? I'm sorry, your point isn't very clear. It's a bit muddled.

Or are you saying that his probably of being sentenced to the maximum was low? If so, how low? And when does it stop being 'intelligent' to consider a small probability with a horribly outcome? I mean, in your intelligent opinion.

When you say "he was looking at maybe 6 or 7 years if things went as favorably as possible for prosecutors"

Do you know this for a fact?

Because the way I understand it is, he was facing multiple decades in prison IF all charges stuck. And once you got to trial, all charges can stick. It has happened. So he was facing 35 years. So saying he wasn't is just wrong.

Your 6-7 years is 'probably'.

I think what your saying is: The federal government doesn't threaten you with 35 years, they threaten you with 10x3.5 years, and since it is possible that not all 10 will stick... it's not really a 35 year threat?

I mean, if I threaten to punch you 10 times but I might stop at 1,2,3 or any number and I probably won't get to 10, but we can negotiate before I start, is it not a 10 punch threat?

To me it seems like you are splitting hairs in order to defend the indefensible. The practice of tacking on as many charges to get people to plea bargain is unethical and fascist.

I've done it to 40-50 internet companies.

My experience is internet companies don't collect debt the way you describe. It's the offline companies that do (ISPs, gyms, utilities, banks, etc)

Edit: they also need to inform you before sending your debt for collections, giving you time to get it right with them before any credit score issues. Seriously, people are so worried about keeping their promises to companies that don't reciprocate that concern. Most companies just deal with the consequences of breaking the rules. Why shouldn't we apply the same to them as their users?

Only for certain things. My experience is anything primarily offline, they collect: gyms, ISPs, gas companies, etc.

Anything primarily online? They don't. Netflix, hulu, most credit card subscriptions that are VC funded (I've done with with countless SAAS providers), etc. I've ghosted them with no repercussions on my credit score or collections calls.

Edit: I also use paypal and click the remove merchant authorization button from there; that might also trigger some kind of forced cancellation?

So much this. I LOVE paypal as a user because of it. All my subscriptions go through it and if it isn't offered via paypal, I'll reconsider.

I love to see a list of all my subscriptions with the ability to unilaterally cancel my subscription at any time via PayPal... I never even contact the companies I 'unsubscribe' from... I simply remove their access to my paypal.

Because you do want it.

Organized labor has introduced customs that you benefit from and take for granted.

All you have to do is look at the difference in quality of life that came before and after the changes we obtained from organized labor in the 1800s/early 1900s.

Most people don't appreciate the extreme asymmetry between those who control capital and those who create the wealth of nations (26 individuals have the same worth as 3.5 Billion individuals)

In fact, just look at the quality of life of a worker in a place with strong labor (say most of the EU) vs say, the US.

It sounds like your post is arguing without actually contradicting anything I said.

I mean, your post basically is: Why can't we all just get along.

While it's a noble feeling, the reality is society is fractious, and for complex and nuanced decisions such as brexit there are people who will net-net benefit and people who will net net see detriment. And 'leave option' was the underdog, you might not like to admit it but, the financial and betting markets saw it as such objectively. I'm not sure why you feel the need to try and deny this.

The article mentions something in passing that I think is important:

Potential and Value

The article only mentions it once. We live in an increasingly globalized world where our individuality can have an ever smaller impact on the enormous system. I think this drives a lot of people to have a feeling that they are living up to less than their potential and their value isn't that high. Maybe the whole system is living up to less than it's potential. But there is a lot of hopelessness about being able to influence it and our value within the system.

The reality is that much of what is horded has potential or is tied to something that had/has (like lost relatives mentioned in the article)

It seems like hording, like compulsive behaviors, allow us to create a small sense of agency in a world that constantly strips us of it and define potential and value by our own book.

There is a difference:

If A, then result would NEVER be realistically contested If B, then result COULD be realistically contested

No one would argue that if the vote were stay, we'd be seeing it again. It wouldn't happen. Not even maybe.

But since the underdog won, since leave won, it is now contestable.

I'm on this fence on this one, and I don't live there, so I don't have a side. But I do see each side's points.

You are 100% spot on. Advertising for gambling should be treated as vice advertising and heavily restricted. Like tobacco, pot, casino, horses or others.

> Or is this a standard "prohibition creates criminal opportunity" issue?

I'd say it's a bad idea because... and hear me out... people will still have lottery. I present as evidence to my argument the prohibition on drugs, sports betting and prostitution. You can add in homosexuality where it is prohibited. And this even happens in places under penalty of death.

Trying to restrict willing, consenting adults from titillating their senses in private transactions in private property... has been a spectacular failure.

I know, you probably know better for these people than they do. But we are stuck in a world with what seems like humans that enjoy (or suffer from) free will.

How many times does the social experiment of restricting these titillation have to be carried out with all it's high costs before we figure out it isn't worth it.

I can provide at least a half dozen studies that prove it does work.

You can't provide any that prove it doesn't. Even the few that you posted seem to be at the least, pointing to a possibly effective situation. Mentioning increased ODs in the immediate surrounding area is... I'd say kinda expected. That's kinda the whole idea, get all the ODs in the same place.

I mean, your own data shows that it reduces HIV rates (not possibly, it does)... and 'POSSIBLY' has unintended consequences.

Despite the data, you won't change your mind.

At least admit that like the anti climate change people, you just don't want to believe. It has nothing to do with data.

Because we all have vices.

Should we accept them openly and be proud of having vices? No.

Should we be tolerant of other people's vices? Yes.

Basically: having vices is bad, having vices doesn't make you bad. Vices should not be a source of pride.

I would agree that the HAES movement does get at something that needs fixing: America dehumanizes people. It's hard to explain, but having lived in other countries, I can say there is a dehumanizing element here against those that are deemed less (druggies, ex-cons... and to a lesser extent those who are overweight)

Have you been to Portugal?

The stigma of a heroin user is strong there.

You know why? Because we don't want heroin users.

I'm a libertarian. 100% in favor of allowing people to own their own body (i.e. they can put in whatever they want)

Being fat isn't a crime.

There is no war on fatness.

There is simply a stigma.

A stigma to dissuade people. It works. It worked for me. I know other people who got their shit in gear because they were tired of not getting the respect they felt they deserve. I come from a hard background.

The Healthy while Fat is just an excuse to want to gain acceptance of unhealthy behavior.

No it won't work.

Sure, cigarette smokers come from shitty backgrounds (I was one). But getting looked down on was a major reason for me to quit.

Are there weak people who will forever smoke and feel bad?

Yes.

I have no answer for them.

But I know we can't start accpeting cigarette smokers. Or more people will smoke.

That is a totally different thing than using VIOLENCE to make it so someone can't access their vice.

I 100% support people engaging in vices.

I also think we should as a society be more accepting of vices.

Because they have good and bad. Some of the best chefs I've known are fat. Some of my favorite music was made on heroin.

Addiction to opioids is also partly genetic. Should being a heroin addict be fine?

The healthy while fat movement specifically tries to remove a stigma that IMO should not be removed.

Yeah, see, no one is bothered by that because no one is saying:

Be proud of your true heroin addicted self. Show it to the world. IF they don't accept your heroin addiction THEY ARE wrong.

See. If any movement said that, I'd be against it. Because they are trying to remove stigma from something that SHOULD HAVE IT.

Expect fat people can eat KFC in the open.

Fat people aren't being sent to jail for being fat.

Heroin addicts are being judged and looked down on. No one is fighting that.

No one is saying 'be proud ye heroin addicts'.

I have hear fat people basically say 'be proud of ye 'curves'"

You are stretching VERY far.

There is a segment of the population that is addicted to a substance that is illegal. They die because they hide to satiate their addiction.

If fast food were illegal, and fat people sat under bridges eating fast food and occupationally chocked on an illegal KFC chicken bone, I'd advocate for fatty eating centers.

Comparing saving lives to removing stigma is... beyond absurd.

The key difference: Social stigma. HAES seeks to remove stigma.

Safe injection sites don't.

Both being fat, smoking cigarettes or being a heroin addict are things to be, at the least, slightly ashamed of.

*exceptions go out to anyone with thyroid or other such medical conditions, just as to people who are opioid dependent due to pain management.

Every bit of research I've seen contradicts this. I'm talking about NHI in the UK and several peer reviewed papers which seem to support safe injection sites as being a cost effective way of dealing with social addiction issues (we already know the war on drugs hasn't worked)

Care to share any sources on the ineffectiveness of these sites?

The HUGE difference is that one is asking to use resources in a smarter way (safe injection sites). They are not destigmatizing drugs.

I've been to countries where there are 'tolerance' zones. But that doesn't mean there isn't stigma to doing it.

Stigma is a strong social disincentive.

The Healthy as fat is trying to remove stigma for something that is unhealthy. But it is not trying to re-assign social resources in a logical way.