Do you not understand the lesson being taught by such an exercise? It sounds like instead your biases made you think the school civics class would be teaching students how to profile people as terrorists.
We ban accounts that post uncivilly, so please don't do this on HN again. Instead, please (re-)read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Entrepreneurism is still very much alive. Down but not out. However for this board, talk of it is decimated. To the point where the only mention of it is in this thread, where I am speaking to one person, who needed to be reminded what it even means.
Thanks for pointing that out. So insightful. Also definitely thanks for clarifying the total confusion about what is meant by "in America". I thought to myself, "Now wait just a minute. Do they mean the USA? Because all those other countries must feel offended if so."
Also, I thought, "it's so true that the American economy is orders of magnitude stronger than other nations. Clearly this is because of an empire of oppression built upon the same small-minded chauvinism which leads Americans to refer to themselves as Americans."
I regularly get aggravated about the sensitivity of my bank's fraud screening. I have to call them constantly just to spend my money. But, I am at least reassured about how difficult it is to siphon money from the account.
Classification is still very needed. I'm interested to see what comes out of this. Especially with regard to eliminating biases of a classification system.
Capitalism isn't going anywhere obviously and shouldn't. On the other end is state-run media, e.g. North Korea. We wouldn't want things to swing in that direction or even toward RT or many other examples.
I think we should be looking to replicate whatever magic is and has been in PBS, early BBC, ITN, and other earlier UK and French programming.
It's important to remember that these orders serve a real and necessary role in investigating serious criminals; these individuals are not named prior to trial or if the investigation does not lead to a trial. It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.
> these individuals are not named, but it should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation.
If only there were some way of determining whether they were being unlawfully persecuted or validly investigated.
Do you think it might be a judge? Upon a completed investigation? One which is effective and protects the identities of the investigated prior to any criminal prosecution?
Do you think there should maybe be an oversight board and a congressional committee? Because these things exist. Do you propose something different?
These are the functions which these authorities serve in society.
Why all of these rhetorical questions? There have been hundreds of thousands of these, with only a handful released upon completed investigation. I think a transparent judge, a transparent oversight board, a transparent congressional committee, etc is what is proposed. This is how we know these functions are even being served by authorities in society. Or not being served, such as up until recently where the gag was interminable making your "upon a completed investigation" comment misinformed at the least and your blind faith misplaced.
That's what trials are for. The trial system is deeply imperfect, but investigating someone with a view to putting them on trial is not inherently untoward. You seem to be arguing that a trial should precede an investigation.
And when they do so they complain about judges' willingness to do it. There is no procedural solution that will ever be satisfying to people who wish to return or a technologically simpler time.
Well think about it ... if the investigation or justice proceedings were not completed, or the investigation didn't yield prosecution, thier names would not, and should not be revealed. So which is it? You want full transparency which would cause people to be unlawfully persecuted by the public? Or do you want a functional investigative justice system which protects the identities of the not-proven-guilty?
I ask you with complete sincerity - think it through.
He wants the Constitutional requirement, and the tradition of the separation of powers, to be fulfilled by having a Judge review and sign off on the search. That is all he wants, you are the one imagining insane things.
Go ahead and downvote me, but NSA has a different process than warrants for a reason. There is signoff which satisfies the constitution. Secret court, secret panel. It is secret for a reason and the court is overseen by congress.
However personally I would prefer these cases to be declassified after a reasonalbe amount of time, where it is possible to protect the innocent.
It should not be assumed that they were being unlawfully persecuted - rather that there was a serious reason for them to be under investigation
It's probably just my own crazy notion, but I think we should assume they're innocent until proven guilty in open court. I also have this other crazy idea that the government should obey the fourth amendment to the constitution (i.e. the highest law in the country), and only conduct reasonable searches with a judicially sanctioned warrant. One based on probable cause and a legally actionable oath/affirmation by the government official seeking the warrant.
But I guess reversing the presumption of innocence and pissing on the separation of powers by creating quasi-judiciaries under the executive arm of government is... good...
We should be totally okay with court ordered records requests against specific accounts. That's LEO doing his job. It doesn't look like these two letters were court ordered however. Even so, it was bounded time against two accounts and of course you don't want to tip them off.
It's the bulk tap rooms, such as the AT&T one, that ARE the dragnet and highly abusive of our rights. I feel like this whole NSL release program of late is a distraction tactic to take our attention away from the real abuse.
Except for 1. the extreme secrecy and 2. the matter being policed is essentially speech.
If a crime has been committed for which Twitter is evidence, then arrest the perpetrators and collect the evidence with a standard public search warrant. There isn't even an argument to be made that uncaught co-conspirators could preemptively destroy evidence, as Twitter has it all recorded! But the war on drugs has established this philosophy of cultivating ongoing crime in order to catch ambiguous "higher ups". That kind of "ongoing threat" is only compatible with a totalitarian society.
I'm not going to tell you what you should do, especially without knowing the details of the situation, but it's probably helpful to hear a third party's description of what your options were 3 weeks ago, if you ever find yourself in the same position again:
The leave option : This area is always hot and there are a lot of jobs, so if you're unhappy you can find another position rapidly. Life is short. If you're being jerked around go ahead and find something else where that is going to be less likely. Greener pastures (usually) exist in this land of abundance.
The stay option : Staying for a month after production shows character and is something you can learn A LOT from. Maybe you've been to production many times before but there is always something to learn, even when it's a flaming shit-show. Especially when it is. The period of moving into prod is often rough, and sometimes only the strong pull through it. Even if you stay for only a month, you will be getting valuable experience and stories to tell. Stories that are actually most valuable when told in your next interview, and every subsequent interview in your career. Think about it from a hiring manager's perspective. Would you rather hear a story about an employee who had gripes with the team and leadership but who was hungry for special experience and felt a duty to help during the first month of production? Or would you rather hear a story about an employee who had those gripes and left as soon as prod was launched, when the team is in a bit of a critical point. It's true that when you get to prod, the bulk of the initial development work is done ... but there is a substantial chunk left which is making sure it stays propped up when it falls over in all of the various ways it usually does in the first month. The "story" of staying just for 1 month is definitely better. It's less comfortable but rewards more experience and anecdotes. However, make sure you do get out soon if you recognize a need to do so.
As for your current situation, I would say it shows some character that you want to help through with the push to prod. I would say ask, and if both employers are agreeable then do it. But if either employer doesn't like the idea much, then don't push hard for it. Just start your new job. Employer #1 might not like the idea much either. Once it's clear that someone is exiting sometimes it's best to not have them mingling very much. On the other side, if they are really eager to have you stay an additional week when they know you have already signed an offer with employer #2 and have a start date, they might not have your best interests in mind, which sounds like it is in line with your thoughts about them.
You really are an idiot.