sdhgaiojfsa

The culture is at least somewhat relevant if it gets in the way of efficiently performing the mission.

I don't know, but I can speculate. For example, there is no evidence I'm aware of that the hacks were politically motivated or that the results of the hacks were used to assist one candidate or hinder another.

This is a semi-variant of Hyrum's law.

Here's how it works. If those were the only charges, then your standard of proof would be "beyond a reasonable doubt" (i.e. 97-99% likely). They aren't. Since the other charges were already proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is already going to be incarcerated for the statutory thirty years to life. Now the judge has to decide how much time to give. If the defendant is a saint who made a mistake, maybe they get thirty years. If the defendant is the devil, they might get life. I don't know what standard of evidence the judge is required to use to make this decision, but I'm under the impression that it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is probably more like, "preponderance of evidence," (>50% likelihood). So if the judge believes the most likely scenario is that the defendant is a super bad guy, they might give a harsher sentence.

As an aside, epistemically, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "evidence." Evidence is stuff that causes you to believe something more. Evidence does not imply that there is a 100% certainty of something being true.

? I quoted the judge in the case, who does have the evidence . . .. She didn't presume guilt. She factored evidence of guilt into her sentencing decision.

> As long as a conviction feels good, it doesn't much matter if the due process of law is followed

What? I don't believe I said anything about "feeling good" anywhere in my comment, so I struggle to fathom how my argument can be equivalent to an argument that includes that term.

> It's strange that sentencing can be increased for crimes you haven't been convicted for.

I feel like judicial discretion in sentencing is pretty well understood, but I guess it could seem strange if you haven't spent much time reading about or experiencing the legal system.

I don't know. I don't know too many prosecutors, and whenever I read about them, it's normally related to sensational news stories or even more sensational fictional TV shows. Perhaps you have more direct experience with these elusive creatures and have a better understanding of their mentalities.

It actually is how the law works, though, since (for better or worse) there is judicial discretion in sentencing.

I quoted someone who was intimately involved in the trial saying there was ample and unambiguous evidence. Your theory on why those charges were not included is one of a number of possible explanations. Another possible explanation was that they felt they had enough to nail him sufficiently on the other charges, and didn't want to bother to prove unnecessary additional offenses.

You do not understand correctly. r vs. g has little to do with the return of debt vs. the return of certain classes of securities (since neither is pegged to economic growth). Rather, the return on deposits and the return on stocks are both part of a composite (r) that is meant to be greater than g.

The "liquidity requirements" you refer to are the fraction in "fractional-reserve." If I deposit $1, and then the bank's capital requirements are 75%, and they lend out $0.75, the total amount of money is now $1.75. This is what people are referring to when they say banks create money.

You're not wrong that that effect can exist. And I'm not saying that investing is a totally altruistic, virtuous action. However, the criticisms of the stock market as not being "real investing" are largely off-base. Liquidity encourages investment -- illiquid investments are universally less preferred than liquid investments, all other things being equal. Even if non-IPO investors/subsequent issuance investors are not directly providing capital to a company, nobody would participate in IPOs or other stock issuances unless they were confident of a market for that stock in the future. Therefore participation in the secondary market for stocks is necessary for a primary market to exist in any meaningful way. (In a similar way, if the public market did not exist, there would be much less private investment, much fewer startups, etc.)