I feel like you might only be convinced when an AI powered robot rolls up to you and asks, "Bandrami, are you convinced that AI is transformative yet?"
The abuse perpetratored by Epstein is obviously hideous but is there an argument that his corporate and government espionage activities need to be looked at as a clear organized criminal conspiracy?
1 - Assume it was decades ago. That I've heard, a fair number of the released emails mentioned Jeff's 2008 conviction. But to paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "only the little people need to follow laws". That attitude seems to be very common in the emails.
2 - Isn't it convenient that zero major news organizations - controlled by high profile people and their buddies - are raising that issue? Not that I believe there to be any public support for competent & systematic enforcement of the laws against such behavior. That I've heard of, nobody even cares about how Jeff got off with a slap on the wrist in 2008.
I also kinda have the question of: Who is the new Jeffrey Epstein?
Nature abhors a vacuum, and it seems the space that Epstein filled was large and branching and significantly profitable (in money, information, and influence). There's no way there isn't at least one other person that's started to fill the void.
Ideally, the ramifications of association with Epstein should shrink the size of the vacuum considerably, but the pursuit of those associates has really only just started and, as someone else has already pointed out, some countries / governments are protecting these associates rather than investigating / prosecuting. As such, there's not much discouragement yet.
It's unfortunately very possible that someone else is filling the "bring underage girls to rich guys" part (seriously, we have to "teach this fantasy out" for most little boys) ; but it might be someone more discrete, with a smaller network, and who will not merge the "socialite businessmen" persona with the "pimp for the rich" persona.
Also, it might be an anomaly that one person has a very big network ; maybe it's usually more of a "small adjacent networks".
So it would be like asking "who replaced pablo escobar or bernard madoff". The answer is (unfortunately) very likely not "no-one" ; but it might very well be "not one".
The emails are bizarrely sloppy with spelling and punctuation, perhaps many usages of "don't" ended up being typed as "don t", triggering an automated find-and-replace.
The export itself is also sloppy, with characters like equal signs being added in weird places. Seems like they have it set to cast a wide and poorly set up net.
Before mobile phones, there were public phone booths. Along motorways there were often call boxes. There’s little to none of that anymore.
Also before mobile phones, if you had an accident in a remote area you were at the mercy of someone passing by and noticing you. Today, modern cars can call 911 on your behalf along with your location without you even being conscious. Or if you don’t have a car that does this, then your cell can be used. Let’s not also forget iPhones calling for help when they detect you had a fall at home.
Yes emergencies existed before mobile phones. I contend that the use of mobile phones has led to better outcomes when an emergency happens. I also admit mobile phones will have caused some of those emergencies (distracted driver etc).
I have many times used public telephones when I really need to when traveling. The main difference today is they are free. Every airport lobby, every hotel, and most business can call a taxi or call 911 in a pinch. There are also free public use phones (often hardcoded to emergency numbers or taxi companies) often in hotel and airport lobbies.
I never noticed them until I got rid of my phone but they are everywhere.
In NYC all the payphones were replaced with wifi stations that also allow you to make free phone calls for emergencies etc.
Also all cell phones can call 911 without a sim or subscription so someone really worried about having instant access to call 911 in an emergency could have one of those keychain sized dumb phones they leave charged and powered off until they need it.
You are highly conditioned by marketing and social pressure to think you need to have a cell phone tracking you and distracting you at all times to live a safe and productive life in the modern world, but this is just not true.
Lived without one for 5 years, and have experienced accidents and emergencies in that time like anyone else.
Right, typically in an emergency you’ll want to call the police or paramedics, and later family. Front desk of any business or bystander can do the first, hospital can do the latter.
Ethically speaking it seems like you should not be accessing commercial news sites if you're not willing to pay in some way for the work of the people writing the articles.
Show context-based ads instead of spying on people would be a good start. That should be the only form of legal advertising. It is for sure the only form of potentially ethical advertising.
I also pay to get past paywalls when a site has content I want to read, rather than try to sneak past using some dodgy mirror.
Sure, but once countries hit a moderate level of development the bulk of preventable infant deaths are handled. E.g. Frances' rate has been flat since the turn of the millennium.
reply