
‘Testilying’ by Police: A Stubborn Problem - anarbadalov
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-police-perjury-new-york.html
======
macawfish
I have a friend who almost went to prison (24 months) for something a stranger
had done because a police officer gave false testimony against him. Because my
friend's public defender was overloaded with cases, bus surveillance footage
corroborating my friend's defense almost didn't make it to his trial. At the
very last minute, while the judge was making his final statement, my friend's
public defender busted through the door with the footage. A police officer
blatantly lied to get him convicted for a crime he had nothing to do with.

My friend got off and the police officer blushed. Nothing else happened. The
cop was never prosecuted for anything, not for perjury, not for testilying.

In case you were wondering, the answer is "yes": my friend is a black male.

 __edit: __Just wanted to say that yes, these kinds of things also happen to
people of all races, especially working class people.

~~~
ncallaway
I really think false testimony should carry the punishment the accused is
facing.

I also think prosecutors are absolutely negligent when it comes to the police
and others they need a relationship with for their other day to day
activities.

I've kind of come to the conclusion that we need a _separate_ prosecutor's
office for police matters.

~~~
gowld
perjury is punishable by 5 years in prison. That's a suitable punishment. The
problem is that the law is not enforced.

~~~
naasking
> The problem is that the law is not enforced.

I've started to think that prosecutorial discretion is one of the main
problems in Western societies. It yields all kinds of injustices, and overly
vague and expansive laws that essentially result in every citizen breaking a
few laws a day.

If prosecutors didn't have a choice on whether to prosecute a case, the law
would ultimately be a lot more reasonable because old and unjust laws would
more readily be stricken from the books, and there would be no possibility of
favouritism.

~~~
bluntfang
>overly vague and expansive laws that essentially result in every citizen
breaking a few laws a day.

I've had the idea that the current system we have, which is basically you're
not breaking the law unless someone is watching, isn't going to play nice with
constant surveillance.

Currently, if a law isn't enforced, it's de-facto not the law.

Just imagine if computers in people's cars were phoning home to police. How
many speeding fines would be issued daily? Failure to (completely) stop at a
stop sign? Reckless driving? Look at how China is currently testing the waters
with shaming j-walkers[0]. Just wait until this is fully institutionalized.

[0] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/china-deploys-ai-
camer...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/china-deploys-ai-cameras-to-
tackle-jaywalkers-in-shenzhen/9567430)

~~~
snowwrestler
This debate is already well underway in the context of speed cameras, which
can automatically issue a ticket to every single driver who is even 1mph over
the speed limit. Many communities are limiting their use, for example by
restricting their placement to only streets immediately outside schools.

------
zerocrates
"Testilying" is a fun, cute name for the crime of perjury.

~~~
mfoy_
Seriously. Rock solid evidence that directly contradicts your sworn testimony?
That's perjury. That's a crime.

~~~
wl
It's not perjury unless it's willful. I have no doubt that some of these
inconsistencies (most?) are deliberate, but human memory is often pretty
terrible. Good luck proving that the officer was deliberately not telling the
truth.

~~~
dclowd9901
How about making it a crime to misremember? Sure would make you think twice
before you testified something as fact. Human memory is _very_ fallible. Time
we started treating it that way.

~~~
milesokeefe
Under that law, very few sane people would testify at all.

~~~
dclowd9901
Great. Most testimonies are probably fallacious anyway.

------
JudasGoat
I have first hand experience when I tried to drive away from the police
because I knew I had a warrant for my arrest. They started shooting and said I
tried to run them over. There were five separate police reports with the same
story. I had eye witnesses, but they were addicts like myself. So you plead
guilty and go to jail.

~~~
turc1656
That's truly unfortunate. But it doesn't surprise me one bit. This is how they
operate. They love trumping up charges any way they can ("stop resisting!")
because the more "serious" crime they stop they better they look and then they
are able to get promotions. Was there any dashcam or other video evidence
available? I assume not or else I imagine it would have been used.

~~~
inetknght
Why do you imagine it would have been used? Police have a strong incentive to
not provide such evidence.

~~~
xyzzyz
They really have no choice but to provide it, if the defense attorney
subpoenas for it, but public defenders often don't do a good job defending
people, and the dashcam evidence suspiciously often goes missing or broken.

~~~
tytytytytytytyt
> They really have no choice but to provide it...the dashcam evidence
> suspiciously often goes missing or broken

------
ChuckMcM
This is perhaps the single biggest thorn in my sister-in-law's life. She is a
public defender in Marin County.

I feel if we could make the number of times an officer was found to testify to
something that was shown to be a lie, was submittable as evidence in rebuttal
to all of their testimony, it would quickly make bad officers unable to
participate in the justice system.

I would hope that an officer that cannot make arrests because their testimony
will always be stained in court will find themselves out of a job.

~~~
awakeasleep
[http://invisible.institute](http://invisible.institute) is working on this in
Chicago and i know there is another project working on it in NYC

~~~
Flenser
Specifically this project: [https://invisible.institute/police-
data/](https://invisible.institute/police-data/)

Data here: [https://github.com/invinst/chicago-police-
data](https://github.com/invinst/chicago-police-data)

------
dahdum
If you're wondering how California deals with this...poorly.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sheriff-brady-
list-201712...](http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sheriff-brady-
list-20171208-htmlstory.html)

"California is among 22 states that keep officer discipline from the public,
but it is the only one that blocks prosecutors from seeing entire police
personnel files."

------
omegaworks
The institution of police needs to be abolished and replaced wholesale by
something better. Measures meant to temper the systemic problems in the
institution put in place by the Obama administration have been ripped out[1]
by the white supremacist[2] sitting in the Attorney General's seat.

Their actions are counterproductive to the preservation of an integrated, fair
civil society.

1\. [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-
announces-...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-
changes-collaborative-reform-initiative)

2\.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/10/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/10/read-
the-letter-coretta-scott-king-wrote-opposing-sessionss-1986-federal-
nomination/?utm_term=.67bf6ef7558e)

~~~
ethiclub
I wish people had to justify downvoting with a quick comment. I presume you
are being downvoted a) for the possible hyperbole of 'white supremacist' (Is
Sessions a White Supremacist, or protectionist and somewhere on the
nationalistic scale? Genuine question, as I am unqualified to say) and b) as
it is arguably fanciful thinking to simply 'rip it out and replace it
wholesale' (I would argue 'never going to happen').

To a large extent, issues posed in this thread could be solved with body cams.
When all police are held more accountable in this way, are your grievances
eased at all?

How would you suppose a government bring about such a large upheaval when most
modern politics spends its time on compromise and incremental change?

~~~
omegaworks
>When all police are held more accountable in this way, are your grievances
eased at all?

No, because then they pull this nonsense[1]. They are an institution
historically grounded in anti-labor terrorism and slave catching, crafted
entirely to elevate the security of private property above all other societal
concerns.

>(Is Sessions a White Supremacist, or protectionist and somewhere on the
nationalistic scale?

You should reconsider your hesitance here. Intellectuals need to stop
tapdancing around the issue of white supremacy, and call a spade a spade. He
prosecuted a group of people that were helping African-Americans register to
vote. He's pushed back time and time again against sentencing reform that
would treat people more equally under the law.[2] Calling his actions
"protectionist" or "nationalist" is explicitly excluding black citizens from
The Nation in question. By attempting to misdirect and misattribute these
actions you are complicit in the practices that sustain the root from which
his hateful policies grow.

1\. [http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-
crash/](http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/)

2\. [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/can-a-new-
cri...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/can-a-new-criminal-
justice-reform-bill-get-past-sessions-w490247)

~~~
ethiclub
Thanks for the reply, interesting view.

>You should reconsider your hesitance here. Intellectuals need to stop
tapdancing around the issue of white supremacy, and call a spade a spade.

I am not a US citizen and don't know anything about this person, so I stand by
my position on being unqualified to say (hence asking). Actually on a side
note, I agree with you, but on the other hand am equally concerned about the
'level platform' (e.g. 'my opinion is as valid as your scientific method')
that we currently have in society.

Having said the above - Yes, I am a hesitant debater in general, so for other
circumstances, I agree.

>[http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-
crash/](http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/)

The reference you provided seems a little tenuous to this to me FYI (and is
also a single data point). That flippant comment from a single police force
regarding a corporation does somewhat reflect the power of companies at the
moment, but I am not sure whether it shows anything more than this. Side note,
the police also said along the lines of "we will not rule out prosecuting the
driver" (paraphrasing) which strikes me as terrifying, as the driver was
arguably avoiding negligence as much as possible, while Uber could be
considered grossly negligent here.

>They are an institution historically grounded in anti-labor terrorism and
slave catching, crafted entirely to elevate the security of private property
above all other societal concerns.

To play devil's advocate here, so were the Dutch[1], Swedish[2] governments
etc.) - Which are among the more democratically represented countries we have
at the moment (no where near a pure democracy, but still some of the best we
have). These nations now have comparatively liberal prison and policing
systems.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Slave_Coast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Slave_Coast)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade)

------
kakarot
I had 6 or so different police officers testify against me during trial.
Everyone of them told a different story, and the stories told did not
corroborate with the evidence.

Even so, I received the stiffest possible penalty, 6mos jail and thousands in
fees. The judge said his conviction was based on the fact that he "thought I
was lying".

My life has been severely impacted by this wrongful conviction.

This issue runs deeper than lying police. When the DA and court system are in
on it too, there is no hope.

------
krylon
Unfortunately, this problem is not entirely unknown in Germany, too. I have no
idea how common it is, but there was one well-publicized case where somebody
got beaten up by the police at a demonstration. The police claimed the man had
insulted and attacked the officers and then resisted arrest. Video evidence
the police had went missing mysteriously, but then volunteers started sending
in the videos of the incident _they_ had recorded, and the Chaos Computer Club
(at least I think it was them) correlated all the recordings. The resulting
video clearly told a very different story from the one the police had told.
And I doubt this is an "isolated incident". When you cannot police officers to
tell the truth about how they use the power given to them by the state, how
can you trust them at all?

And just to be clear, my mother is a retired police officer, married to
another retired police officers, so I have met my share of police officers,
and all the ones I have met were decent people who valued honesty highly. But
that makes the fact the police as a whole is willing to tolerate such behavior
all the more troubling.

~~~
ender89
The problem with police officers lying like this is that it colors all other
police interactions as suspect. If the police were smart, they'd turn these
sort of people out rather than close ranks.

------
maxxxxx
I don't understand why lying in court by cops is not being treated as one of
the worst offenses they could make. Cops are entrusted with the use of
potentially lethal force so they should be held to the highest standard. There
is no excuse for lying.

It's the same for judges taking bribes. If you can't trust the legal system
then a democratic state can't work properly.

------
Taniwha
Really it's simple - a cop found guilty of perjury should never ever be
allowed to be a cop again

~~~
cwkoss
They should go to prison

~~~
Taniwha
well yes that too, but no police department should be hiring anyone who even
perjures themselves a tiny amount .... the real problem here is a cultural
problem within police departments and it's their civil oversight that needs to
solve this

------
tyingq
I expect some controversy for this observation, but jobs that come with power
over other people (like being a police officer) seem to attract a
disproportionate ratio of assholes.

I have no doubt there are good cops. But the nature of the job makes it
appealing to a certain audience.

~~~
ncallaway
It baffles me that jobs with more power over people, tend to come with more
protection for abusing that power.

The more power a job holds, the higher a standard of conduct necessary and the
higher the punishment and enforcement for abuse should be.

~~~
tyingq
I spent some time in the US military in the 80's and 90's, and it was similar
to the situation with cops. It did seem to improve after the infamous
"tailhook" scandal, but I suspect it's still bad. _" Absolute power corrupts
absolutely"_ seems unavoidable. Human nature is what it is.

------
dclowd9901
It's not "testilying" it's fucking perjury. There's nothing about this that
should be made cute.

------
mirimir
> "Remember that the utilization of SOD [information obtained from the NSA]
> cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document
> presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit
> the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions
> with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use
> "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by
> SOD." [aka parallel construction]

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-
idUSBRE97409R20130...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-
idUSBRE97409R20130805)

That is, they are _instructed_ to testilie.

------
OrganicMSG
> "Kevin Richardson, the Police Department’s top internal prosecutor, said he
> believed so-called testilying was nearing its end. “I think it’s a problem
> that’s very much largely on its way out,” he said."

Very much largely?

Now, without wanting to cast aspersions on a prosecutor, is this guy lying
about lying?

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
It's a problem on its way out because of the rapid adoption of body cameras on
police officers.

If you look at the next 25 years, not only will every cop have a camera
running 24/7, but also all vehicle's including the suspect's will be recording
events from multiple angles.

Most homes will have cameras at the front door, and throughout the home in
some form or another.

Many witnessneses are already recording things through their phones.

People may be wearing augmented reality style "google glasses" that can
retroactively record important moments. Meaning they won't even intend to
record the things that they do.

Right now its possible for the police to intimidate someone who pulls out a
phone and starts recording, but soon there will be just too many devices, and
it will be impossible to tell what is recording.

And drones... Traffic and delivery drones, can easily be rerouted during
police incidents to provide overhead video feeds that help the officer, or
help the court determine what happened at a later date.

~~~
cr0sh
Sounds possible - but what about faked video that looks real?

That is - deep learning NN generated aerial drone footage (or altered footage)
- could certainly be done...

I'm not sure where this ends...

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
Deep fakes take time. No one could possibly know that an incident is about to
occur, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Also if a police department wanted to undertake a full on conspiracy to
fabricate evidence, their will be so many cameras from so many angles, that
there lies would quickly be outed.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Deep fakes take time.

For now.

------
merraksh
Mandatory "Don't talk to the police" link:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

Thanks to user turc1656 for re-posting it, can't stress enough how relevant
this is.

~~~
ptr_void
In practice, that might get you more in trouble. I like to think LEO as well
connected gang members. One should generally do what they tell you to not make
them angry in any way. And after the interaction is over, one can think about
taking legal action if necessary. Some sort of on person hidden video recorder
would be better, as LEO can make up charges or plant things, but that's too
much annoyance for normal people, so complying to whatever the ask is the best
option. If you want to assert your right that might upset police, camera whose
memory can't be destroyed easily is a must if you don't want to end up in
prison.

------
phkahler
"Police lying raises the likelihood that the innocent end up in jail — and
that as juries and judges come to regard the police as less credible, or as
cases are dismissed when the lies are discovered, the guilty will go free."

I'm not sure why the police protect each other when there is wrongdoing. When
that stuff eventually comes to light it reflects badly on the entire group.
Sure, we can tell people it's just a few bad apples, but that doesn't really
hold up when the group continues to support bad apples. They're being
complicit.

~~~
mlillie
Really? Some 75% of Americans have "a great deal of respect" for the police.
Sounds like the lying and getting away with it is working out just fine for
their public perception.

[http://news.gallup.com/poll/196610/americans-respect-
police-...](http://news.gallup.com/poll/196610/americans-respect-police-
surges.aspx)

------
daniel_iversen
Holy crap the US always scares me with this sort of insane stuff going on. How
do regular Americans feel about this sort of thing?

~~~
slowmotiony
Oh yeah, US is so bad, lying cops would never exist in Europe or Africa or
Asia right?

~~~
fsloth
Where I live (Finland) cops would have very little incentive to lie. We are
brought up to treat each other in an egalitarian way, and that transcends most
levels of our society. For example, in Turku stabbing[0] the police did not
attempt to kill the suspect but to incapacitate him with as little force as
possible. It's about how they are trained.

Police are quite respected, and not feared by anyone here.

Justice system is not about punishment, but about providing as low level as
possible downside to illegal actions. So it's set up more like a statistical
tool than like a personal punishment scheme.

Yes, small country, homogenous culture, etc.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Turku_stabbing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Turku_stabbing)

Edit: I have to add, that while the general standards seem to be quite high,
individual officers are not incorruptible. A head of drug enforcement was
recently jailed for basically corruption. But the fact that anyone can be
deposed if found wanting is perhaps a signal about the self repair in the
system - individuals are corruptible, but the system and norms aren't. At
least for the moment. Yes, a single officer might lie if bucketloads of euros
are at stake, but a random officer would generally not lie for leisure.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jari_Aarnio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jari_Aarnio)

------
cheez
The police are 100% your enemy once they start questioning you about anything.
Record, record record.

Catch them in one lie, and you get off scot free. Source: been dealing with
the "justice" system since I was 17, most recently last year where I recorded
an agent of the court committing perjury.

Yes, nothing happens to them but most importantly, they've never been able to
convict me of anything.

~~~
sigstoat
> The police are 100% your enemy once they start questioning you about
> anything. Record, record record.

even better, stop talking to them.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

> Catch them in one lie, and you get off scot free.

they're not leprechauns, there are no magical rules in effect.

~~~
cheez
No but you have to keep in mind the dynamics:

1) once a police officer submits or makes a knowingly false statement that
results in your prosecution, exposing this taints all cases where that officer
was involved which could result in retrials or dismissals. The da absolutely
does not want to be responsible for this. They will drop the charges once your
lawyer takes them aside after the statement has been made. Note: do not give
your lawyer this evidence until the perjury has occurred. They may not be
happy with you and inform the DA thus cutting you off at the knees (it's
pretty incestuous at times.) Play dumb and outraged that this is happening to
you.

2) a finding of perjury is rare, you're after dismissing the charges

3) nothing will happen to that officer but you may end up being considered
hostile in that precinct.

No doubt about it, they are the enemy when it comes to finding a scapegoat and
they do it with your tax dollars.

Edit: I'm unable to respond, apparently I'm commenting too much for the last
hour so my response is here:

Think about this regarding not trusting your own lawyer: if the case gets
dropped, the attorney makes no more in fees. If that evidence is neutered, it
needs to go to trial. Trust no one. I'm a very hard looking guy (hard life but
I'm really quite soft) and most people think I'm guilty of everything. Add
that I am not white, don't look rich, and it's a recipe for distrust on sight.
Even when faced with evidence, I've had people continue to lie as if admitting
that I'm innocent would cause a tear in the fabric of the universe.

~~~
adrianratnapala
> _Note: do not give your lawyer this evidence until the perjury has occurred.
> They may not be happy with you and inform the DA thus cutting you off at the
> knees (it 's pretty incestuous at times.)_

Seriously? Are these public prosecutors, or ones you pay good money for? Is it
that the defenders think you are guilty but are going through the motions of a
pretend defense? Either way it is a scary thought.

In general I thought you would want your lawyer to know as much as possible so
that they have as many options as possible for constructing an arugment for
you in court. If you have to second guess that, then you are in a bit of a
lose-lose situation with every piece of info.

~~~
cheez
I was being rate limited for some reason, so I could not respond earlier, but
here is my response:

Think about this regarding not trusting your own lawyer: if the case gets
dropped, the attorney makes no more in fees. If that evidence is neutered, it
needs to go to trial. Trust no one. I'm a very hard looking guy (hard life but
I'm really quite soft) and most people think I'm guilty of everything. Add
that I am not white, don't look rich, and it's a recipe for distrust on sight.
Even when faced with evidence, I've had people continue to lie as if admitting
that I'm innocent would cause a tear in the fabric of the universe.

------
StanislavPetrov
The scandal and crimes aren't limited to the perjurious cops, but include
prosecutors who fail to prosecute this perjury (and, even worse, rely on false
testimony to secure convictions).

~~~
Analemma_
Yup. This is why there needs to be a law mandating that ALL allegations of
police criminality are automatically, statutorily handled by a special
prosecutor. District Attorneys have shown very convincingly that they
absolutely cannot be trusted to investigate the misconduct of police in their
jurisdiction.

This is a simple change that would, overnight, completely flip the calculus of
police who literally get away with murder.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> This is why there needs to be a law mandating that ALL allegations of police
> criminality are automatically, statutorily handled by a special prosecutor.

That lets every person arrested charge the police with something criminal, and
have it taken seriously, no matter how bogus the charge.

What? You thought the police practice "testilying", but the criminals don't?

Now, true, _some_ such accusations need to be taken more seriously. Not all of
them, though. The prosecutors err too often on the side of the police. Erring
too much on the side of the accusers is not the answer, though.

~~~
dragonwriter
> That lets every person arrested charge the police with something criminal,
> and have it taken seriously, no matter how bogus the charge.

No, it doesn't. An independent special prosecutor can brush off an allegation
as not credible as easily as a police-aligned prosecutor; in principle, they
won't be biased by their other prosecutions depending on the police, but they
don't somehow lose the capacity for judgement along with that source of bias.

------
Animats
Most companies fire about 2%-4% of their work force a year for cause. Most
police departments don't.

~~~
nyolfen
one of the few bastions of unions left in america

~~~
javajosh
Not sure why this was down-voted; the police unions are a HUGE reason that
police don't get fired, and even when they do, they get hired in another
county or state.

------
stevenwoo
Got thrown off the prospective jury pool in Palo Alto when I said "it depends"
when the prosecutor asked me who's word I would trust between a police officer
and an ordinary citizen. There was no physical evidence and it was going to be
a she said/he said case. She said I must have a chip on my shoulder.

~~~
justin66
I don't have extensive experience with this but I've served on a jury and have
been rejected for service. My sense is that they'll look for the ideal, pliant
juror throughout the day but might gradually ease up as the pool gets
depleted.

------
emodendroket
"Testilying" seems like a cutesy neologism for perjury.

------
smsm42
Leave it to the NYT to write a long piece about the police abuse and not
mention the police unions, whose vast political powers are the main force
behind the fact that it is so hard to prosecute police abuse, even by a single
word.

------
RickJWag
Are there bad cops? Sure.

But most police are honest. They work a dangerous job, at low pay, and with a
mostly ungrateful public. These days, they are a political football with a
powerful press working against them.

I'm glad cops are there. It'll be a bad day when the 'Ferguson effect' becomes
amplified.

------
leot
Should the enforcement of rules be stricter or less strict when applied to
those responsible for enforcing the rules?

------
mnm1
It's insane that we hold police to lower standards than everyone else rather
than higher. We let them get away with lying and murder because a majority of
society are what, too scared of dark-skinned people? Absolutely fucking
insane. This situation will never change until there are real consequences.
These officers should be fired, stripped of their benefits, and sent to jail
with the criminals they probably lied to put in there. But they won't because
as the article says, the "justice" system doesn't care. Justice my ass.

------
darawk
Why is there no baseline mentioned here? This is something that really bothers
me about reporting these days. How much is 25 times? Is that a lot? I have no
way of knowing. What kind of rate does that imply? How much should I discount
police testimony given that information? If it's 25 out of 100, that's really
bad. If it's 25 out of 100,000 - maybe it's not that pervasive a problem.

~~~
berbec
That does raise an interesting question:

How many innocents convicted, due to institutionalized, consequence-free
perjury, is too many?

If you think 25 out of 100,000 isn't "that pervasive a problem", thank your
lucky stars you're not one of those 25.

~~~
darawk
In a perfect world, sure. But in the actual world that we live in, reducing
false convictions to _zero_ is not realistic. So we have to look for areas
where investing our resources in fixing a problem will have a comparatively
large beneficial impact. If it's 25/100, there's a lot to be gained there. If
it's 25/100,000, there isn't.

------
binarytide
"problem"...

------
ppbutt
How do you all bypass these horrendous paywalls?

