I think there's a basic floor for how we should treat other people, regardless of the circumstances. Things like access to food and water, shelter, etc.
I'm going to disagree that the point of prison (as punishment) is cruelty. It absolutely can work without it, but I'll recognize this is nuanced and there are likely those that can't be rehabilitated effectively.
>I'm going to disagree that the point of prison (as punishment) is cruelty. It absolutely can work without it,
This is an absurd claim. How does punishment work without cruelty? Remember, that I allow for people to disagree on the quantity of cruelty (supposing that can be quantified)... so you're proposing cruelty-free punishment. This misses the entire point of what punishment is. Perhaps your reading comprehension is faulty, and you confuse the word with "rehabilitation". I see that alot.
>but I'll recognize this is nuanced and there are likely those that can't be rehabilitated effectively.
Hah! I hadn't even read that sentence yet when I wrote the above! Damn I'm good. Rehabilitation is science fiction. No one has even ever proposed a theory on how or why it's supposed to happen, let alone engineered a method to induce it to occur. On reddit, these conversations are often hilarious, but maybe here on Hackernews it will be glorious. Why do you think you need to do to cause a violent criminal to rehabilitate? If the method is performed diligently, what percentage of violent criminals rehabilitate, and what sort of timeline are we talking? Why do the failures (and let's be honest, there are failures in every manufacturing process) fail? Can these be sorted out beforehand?
But at the end of the day, there is still a big problem. Justice is what society promises to the victims so that they will refrain from revenge; the state must carry out the revenge for them. It does so for several reasons: to discourage eternal feuds, to ensure that the correct culprit is targeted, and to avoid normally nonviolent people from growing accustomed to violence. To satisfy their monkey need for vengeance in the most civilized manner possible. If you fail to satisfy it, then these people are obligated to do it themselves. Rehabilitation alone can't substitute, even if it were possible. For the lesser criminals, incarceration suffices. For those more depraved, we don't want them rehabilitated. It serves no need at all.
My mother spanked me when I misbehaved. She caused real pain as punishment.
It was never cruel.
Punishment and cruelty are not equivalent.
Please note, I am not in favor of spanking children, and never spanked mine.
Now as to your final point, that justice is the state taking revenge on behalf of the victims. I replied to you above that I see the validity of this, and for the same reasons you give (discourage eternal feuds). And for those same reasons Justice is restraint. At most equivalent harm, no more than an eye for an eye.
I think it was your anger that made you say these ethics we both share are bullshit rules designed to hurt your family.
Now in the current case, for that point to stand, we need to ensure that the prisoners have in fact harmed identifiable others. Google tells me "Roughly 40% of inmates in Texas prisons are incarcerated for non-violent offenses". Thus 40% of the time, there is no cause for vengeance.
And where prison is vengeance, if it is just, it needs to be restrained. Not cruel. Not unusual. Just as punishment is not cruelty, justice is not cruelty.
For other readers, as I mentioned above, while I see a valid ethical stance behind NoMoreNicksLeft's anger and hurt, I do not share it. I seek mercy, and as for Justice, "Justice is mine sayeth the Lord"-- in other words, I leave it to God. I find it sick that the US, the "land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Look, I've had bad interactions with bonafide unredeemable unrehabilitable psychopaths, and I'd like to see such people locked up for life. But I do not wish them cruelty beyond the innate cruelty of life behind bars.
It's just a standard reintermediation play, inject yourself in the middle of a supply chain, and then once established squeeze the living shit out of both sides.
Also use exploitation of regulation (e.g. leveraging contractors via 1099s to access cheap labor and indemnification from liability) to your advantage .
this was the model of like 2/3 of the 'startups' in the 2010s.
They can investigate all they want, they can even detain you briefly, but if you are a citizen and there’s no evidence of a crime then they have to let you in.
If you really believe that the two are equivalent, I hope you’re taking action right now and not just posting on HN. Otherwise that would certainly speak poorly of your character.
What are they going to do if you’re not carrying anything illegal and you’re a citizen? You cannot be refused entry to the US as a citizen and they can’t charge you or hold you without evidence. You don’t have to tell them why your phone is wiped, just stay silent until you’re released.
That doesn't support the proposition that carrying a new or previously-cleaned phone across the border is cause for suspicion. In that case, the defendant wiped the phone after he was encountered by CBP.
Step 1: Person is detained.
Step 2: They wipe their phone on the spot.
Step 3: Police say they're hiding evidence.
If step 2 happens at the border post detention, or prior to arrival at the border, the perspective to the police is all the same, they see a wiped phone. Police detained somebody, saw they had a wiped phone. Doesn't matter when they wiped it.
"The law" doesn't operate by standard norms at the border, almost like you missed the point of the original article. If they want to charge you with something, they'll find a way to do it. Not sure which version of the US you live in where all government actions follow the letter of the law, but it's not where the rest of us are.
Read Samuel Tunick's article again:
> Customs and Border Protection officers wanted to search his phone. After questioning, he eventually turned it over but gave officers a passcode that then erased the contents of his Google Pixel phone.
If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same.
> Please, ask an attorney and educate yourself before you continue.
I've gone through this process at the border and have in fact consulted an attorney on precisely this. How about you do the same before you continue.
> If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same.
Whether someone’s activity meets the elements of a destruction of evidence charge depends on context. Any competent attorney will tell you that. Wiping your phone once the encounter has begun, and especially in response to being asked to hand over the phone for inspection? Bad. Doing it before you board the plane? Less of a problem.
A border agent might still question you more intensely if you show up at the encounter with a new or previously cleaned phone, but that’s not the same as being hauled off and criminally charged for destruction of evidence after the encounter has begun.
> I've gone through this process at the border and have in fact consulted an attorney on precisely this.
What did they tell you, exactly? And can you give me their contact info?
> How about you do the same before you continue.
I am an attorney. (Not legal advice, consult your own.)
> That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border.
That’s true, but also not what we’re debating.
We are debating whether, on inspection, having a new-appearing phone when you first encounter CBP will give rise to reasonable suspicion that you violated the law or are inadmissible and thus should be further investigated. I asked you for specific examples where this happened to someone, and you provided an example that didn’t fit the pattern. You gave some other story about someone who destroyed evidence in the middle of an encounter.
If you don’t have an example that matches, that’s fine. But don’t then move the goalposts.
Go ahead and re-read the original comment: "It's been somewhat established that having a wiped or basic phone is in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further."
The implication is that, as in the case I provided, if they have already detained you, and you provide them with a wiped or basic phone (Tunick), this will be a "in itself sus and reason for them to investigate you further."
Goalposts are where I left them, not sure where you're going...
edit: And let me save you time in your response, "investigate you further" implies they were already investigating you.
I mean the EV is a good choice, but the bigger impact here is that everything gets more expensive due to the increase in costs of shipping, refining, producing, and heating/cooling...
Which often aren't as visible as paying $82.00 to fill up your ICE vehicle, but add up to much more of an impact.
I've observed more that H1B's keep employee mobility lower, so employees on H1Bs tended to be paid less due to the natural bumps that come out of switching jobs every few years, especially going from an associate to senior/staff level where often the company throws a small raise with promotions that don't keep up with market rates.
One other factor that I experienced is when I was in senior leadership we absolutely tracked 'flight risk' that factored in to retention programs for top talent, and H1Bs were by the nature of it viewed as lower flight risks so less likely to fall into these programs.
There are already categories like this if you jump away from tech.
Our friendly neighborhood Ski resort oligarchies leverage the J-1 Visa program to bring in international students to work at the resorts over paying more to hire local workers for example. They also leverage the company store model by putting them in dorms and charging them accordingly for housing.
Absolutely; I'd check out AI Engineering by Chip Huyen to get a fundamental understanding of the space and do a couple of side projects in the area to get familiar and be able to speak to the nuances of working with LLMs, and that will be enough to start working to transition and apply for relevant roles.
Noah Smith is like Gell-Mann amnesia personified. He's good at writing columns such that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, until he opines on something you happen to be familiar with, and you realize he's completely full of shit and that his main talent is the ability to rapidly pump out a Wikipedia-skim-tier opinion on whatever happened to draw his attention that day. Would strongly recommend putting him on your mental ignore list.
The Noah Smith/Nate Silver axis of opinion-politics writers are — literally — Stephen J Smith and Skip Bayless for people who think politics is sports. They're in the entertainment business.
lol I ran a sizeable team around 2020 and I had to educate a couple of our new hires straight from college that they actually needed to check their work email, after they missed important HR related stuff and they had just completely not realized it was an avenue for company communication, with an assumption that everything was available on our heavily used slack.
tbh I'm with the zoomers on this one. Work email is 99% junk. Newsletters from every SaaS product we use, "A meeting started", invitations for calendar events that I can just accept ON the calendar, notifications for every transaction on every system ("X posted a comment on Y,") and spam from salespeople, recruiters, etc. And then 1% of it is actionable important stuff that I don't get through Slack.
Email died because of the junk/spam issue. And it's self-fulfilling - when most emails are junk, nobody sends a love-letter or party invitation by email because the recipient probably won't notice it, which in turn lowers the usefulness even further.
If email was a commercial product, the company would have done something about that. Email died because it was an open platform, with nobody to address this systematic issue.
They probably didn't realize why they needed multiple apps to communicate inside the company.
I was in a situation where we had slack for communication between teams, email for corporate stuff similar you described, zoom for calls, personal messengers like WA for communicating with people in the company who didn't have slack, SMS/phone calls for alerts and various on-call staff. Total nonsense. No surprise I missed something.
I think there's a basic floor for how we should treat other people, regardless of the circumstances. Things like access to food and water, shelter, etc.
I'm going to disagree that the point of prison (as punishment) is cruelty. It absolutely can work without it, but I'll recognize this is nuanced and there are likely those that can't be rehabilitated effectively.
reply