When the legal system is setup to rely so heavily on money that even the government can't go against it, you know shit is bad, yo.
Also, say what you will, but the US situation right now, this matter included, is definitely "novel and thought provoking" so if this thread is flagged, I am not convinced the people flagging it are doing it just because of HN rules.
But this problem, that money determines effective outcome of legal proceedings is a global problem. And for the same reason as here: governments not protecting people because they refuse to spend the money (and, really, it's not so much about money, it's about effort).
Read about child protection in court, "pre-trial" incarceration in New York (which I guess is in the US, yes), what happened to lawyers in the Netherlands, what's happening to social service court claims in France (ie. the government, who are defendants here, just walked out of the courtroom ... and the judge refuses to convict them), ... there's an endless list here.
I'd say most people who work on this kind of zero-sum winner takes all approach to life would call that a win. The rest of us who want regulators who can regulate and believe in a mutuality? less winning.
If I put a certain pair of billionaire's names in here, it just annoys people. I guess if they read and can intuit, I don't have to resort to calling anyone "Winnie the Pooh" to get around the noise filters but I am interested what nominative determinism could apply. Elongated names are better. Ones with a suitably fragrant, anal scent gland, Musky kind of smell.
That is the point of Doge. All of the first agencies they went after were investigating Elon's companies. Time for Bezoa to get his turn sucking on the Trump teat.
Also, say what you will, but the US situation right now, this matter included, is definitely "novel and thought provoking" so if this thread is flagged, I am not convinced the people flagging it are doing it just because of HN rules.
reply