dalek_cannes

From guidelines:

   In Comments

   Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face
   conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

   When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of 
   calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" 
   can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Agreed. It's disturbing that there are so many members who are seemingly intelligent, but either haven't read the guidelines or think that guidelines don't apply to them.

> I don't have the mental energy to give everyone I come across the benefit of the doubt... people who don't take the time to try and understand me get dismissed pretty quickly.

So you basically demand others spend mental energy on you, but you refuse to return the favor?

A few examples would help us understand the problem better. Based on just this description, it could be anything.

Sony is Japanese.

In other words, you want free content. But content costs time and money to produce. And content is inevitably colored by the source of the money. When the source is advertising, the content you receive is optimized for advertising. Of course, this is not a problem if you're happy with the content you're getting now.

Ongoing internal investigation? Or -- and forgive me, I don't know a universally inoffensive way to broach this subject -- because her being a gender/ethnic minority in her line of work makes Amazon reluctant to terminate her?

Incorrect. This is a prevalent yet still poorly understood phenomenon that has an impact not just on those in the tech sector (as many of us on HN are), but also on society at large. Philosophers and activists have repeatedly tried to explain this type of behaviour, but we still have no answer. I find it very curious.

You can hardly be blamed. This quote just on page 3:

My manager did not communicate to her management chain the positive impact I was having on the product - in fact, she once told me “You’re here to make me look good - you’re doing an awesome job”.

Isn't a contract that violates a law, Bad in Law?

I just realized this comment is irrelevant. This is the most important bit about this article:

> We know now that the explanation was that Simon was snared in a trap set by people who wanted to end the death penalty, no matter what the cost.

It seems a lot of America's 'justice' takes place in the absence of a judge or jury: in the presence of a prosecutor with a plea bargain offer. At least in third world countries, the coercion and bias is in plain view.

Paper is a technology that revolutionized the way we practice politics and law. It didn't lead to a utopia but made the system scalable beyond a tribe or village. Technology is meant to solve problems of scale here, not of human nature.