bdrool

It's weird in the digital age to say information needs to be "returned" (although they did also say "and all copies"). Still, I'm reminded of the old "getting my song back fucker" quote:

http://www.bash.org/?104052

Comment · 9 years ago

The facts are very clear-cut and I provided sources.

> the chances of the publicly known story being accurate are pretty slim

That's empty speculation. If that's the only defense for his actions then there isn't any.

It's going to take a lot more than that to convince people to vote for him.

Comment · 9 years ago

I don't find that very hard to believe considering it's sometimes possible to use something as simple as a mirror to trick the brain into correcting phantom limb pain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_box

Comment · 9 years ago

Reminder that this is the same person who attempted to publicly shame[1] Jeremy Guillory out of fighting for his fair share during GM's acquisition of Cruise. This attempt failed, and Cruise ended up having to publicly acknowledge the opposite:

"As part of the settlement, Cruise and its founder Kyle Vogt now acknowledge that Guillory was a cofounder of the company."[2]

On top of that, Sam's post originally included the statement "it’s important to the way Silicon Valley works that such behavior not be tolerated" in reference to Guillory fighting for his recognition, which he later removed.[3]

This is not someone I would support for any sort of public office.

EDIT: He's not above criticism, folks. If you disagree with me, how about replying and explaining instead of down-voting?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11490188

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/car-startup-cruise-settles-le...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11491011

Comment · 9 years ago

> It's been known for a long time that Trump and the FBI director didn't see eye to eye, and the former employs the latter. Still significant, just not surprising.

The president firing the FBI director is huge news. The story is currently at the top of every single message board and news outlet except this one.

Comment · 9 years ago

> The mother of his godson Aidan remarked, "Nick didn't care about the stupid politics shit, he'd just laugh at it." Jon Hanna said Nick "became a criminal as a matter of principle and as an act of civil disobedience."

https://youtu.be/_Wy0k3j_a7E

[Note: that's actually him (Nick Sand) in the video clip above.]

Comment · 9 years ago

I realize that, but vigilantism is not always driven by a rational view of crime statistics. Fear can be a very powerful force. If people fear crime and feel they are being ignored and not protected by the state, they may take matters into their own hands, quite often irrationally. See for example the reaction to terrorism, despite the vast statistical unlikelihood of being a victim of it.

I notice that several people are responding to me as though I am advocating vigilantism even though I am doing the opposite, so I feel I must reiterate once again that I am fully opposed to it. Instead, I am trying to raise the alarm that if highly visible crimes like the one described in this article are not addressed sufficiently, the public may react with vigilantism. That is an outcome I want to avoid.

Comment · 9 years ago

> that basically says "The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works", without backing it up

That's a quote from me, not from the HuffPo article. The article says "The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically…", as I quoted originally.

> I've actually spent the last hour looking for statistics to back or not back you up. I've wasted my life.

I replied to you here with a source that only took a few minutes to find:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189548

You seem very emotional about this topic. I would urge you to look at it more dispassionately. As I already stated (but it bears repeating), I absolutely do not want vigilantism to be the result of crimes like this, but I fear unless there is an open and honest conversation, things may end up there anyway. I believe the best (and perhaps only) way to avoid such an outcome is to consider the possibilities that may result from various actions (or inactions), unpleasant as they may be.

Comment · 9 years ago

I noticed you replied to me twice (once here and once in another subthread), saying you'd spent time looking and "wasted [your] life". You also seem to be going further down the road of ad-hominem, describing the author of the first article I wrote as an "NRA spokesman". You seem ideologically driven and therefore unlikely to listen. But here goes anyway:

"Vigilante Mobilization and Local Order: Evidence from Mexico"

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522fc0aee4b06bf96fa60...

> Our empirical approach traces the sources of recent self-defense groups to the early twentieth cen- tury Cristero rebellion and, using an instrumental variables approach, we show that contemporary community mobilization has succeeded in reducing a broad range of crimes.

Also I note that you're pushing back against my statement regarding things being swept under the rug (e.g., your statements about "somehow" this making it to the news). Did you also notice that the link to this article is gone from the HN front page? My intuition is that the public in general is going to turn a blind eye to this topic, until they can't any more (that's usually when something really bad happens). Note again that I am very unhappy with that idea and wish it were not so, but it strikes me as unfortunately very likely. I'd love to be wrong, but I see nothing to indicate otherwise. There is always hope I suppose.

Comment · 9 years ago

I already gave one, just a few sentences above.

Comment · 9 years ago

An earlier version of this article said something like "BART did not immediately report the incident" (can't recall exact wording). This statement or any equivalent appears to be removed. It looks like newsdiff.org doesn't track sfgate.com, so I can't find the exact change. Regardless, the article originally indicated BART didn't report the incident to the public right away.

That leads me to say: sweeping this kind of crime under the rug will not help. Instead, it will lead to a repeat of the Goetz vigilante incident in NYC in the early 1980s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...

http://nypost.com/2011/12/23/one-of-bernhard-goetzs-victims-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/bernie-goetz-t...

That last link in particular contains a stunning statement:

> The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically — so much so the authorities even held back the numbers — the truth hurt too much.

The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works. Please note I hate the idea of vigilantism and hope with every fiber of my being that things do not come to that, but it at first glance appears that things are headed in that direction, which I am immensely sad and scared to see.

Comment · 9 years ago

It really makes me sad to read the part about counting pennies and having to stretch such tiny advances while writing the books, especially when she describes her frustration at how much a framed copy that was sent by the publisher must have cost, compared to her frugal situation. It is a shame that writing down useful knowledge in a clear way is not better rewarded.