What does "the things some of us think that he's right about" mean?
RFK points to issues that science as "settled" as far as science settles anything and claims it's a conspiracy that the results disprove his views.
He is to medicine what the flat earthers are to geology.
At best we'll have a few billion dollars flushed "investigating" things we already know. At worst we will have scientifically disproven views on medicine introduced as "valid" and a large number of medical scientists will be fired because they're not crackpots.
I've heard RFK talk. He's convincing. Even if the person asking questions pushes back on him.
He's got thousands of hours of practice defending his views.
You really have to know your stuff to understand that he's talking nonsense and making arguments that have actively been disproven.
His talks sound like really good science but they're just not.
I thought it was just one, not "some". Under the circumstances it could be self serving.
Within the margin of error/reporting we could be looking at a 15 minute choke with people telling him he was going to die, followed by jury nullification.
We could also be looking at a 3 minute choke where Penny didn't know he was over the line and the "warnings" not believed by the jury.
We're getting into who the jury believed and who they didn't and they spent a lot more hours at this than I'm going to. Both times I was a witness to a car accident I sharply disagreed with other people about non-trivial issues.
Sitting here in my chair I lean more towards the first story, i.e. too long a choke with the jury refusing to do anything. However the second story is also within the margin of error so "reasonable doubt" and all that.
Chris: I don’t have AI glasses that tell me a person’s criminal history...
We are after the fact quarter backing. But Neely's history shows that Penny judged Neely correctly.
Ergo we have the problem that the people in the subway were (correctly) scared and (correctly) believed Neely was going to start attacking random people.
Chris: the precedent we’re setting here is a disturbing one.
The people here were locked in a room with this guy.
The root problem is they're in this situation to begin with, i.e. that the city is allowing this guy to live in the subway and continually subject the passengers to this. This was his 43rd mental health crisis.
Correct. However if we assume no one needed to use any force we have a different problem than the reality.
The guy with a history of attacking random people was at it again. The random people needed to figure out what to do about this. The amount of force used to stop him from being violent was also enough to kill him.
It is indeed a question whether the force used was excessive. Jury couldn't make up it's mind. It's seriously unfair to put random people in that situation and expect no problems.
City knew Neely was a problem and living in the subway. He'd been arrested 42+ times and was thought to be one of the 50 craziest homeless people in the city.
If we want the subway to be used, then we can't also be asking random people to deal with Neely and also tell them they'll go to jail if they don't deal with him correctly.
If we're talking about Jordan Neely then "harmless but scary spider" isn't the correct comparison.
Neely had a cycle of mental health crises, arrests, hospitalization, (presumably then release) and then repeat. His criminal record includes three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway.
Penny stepped in to prevent what would have been his fourth. The problem isn't that the people are scared. The problem is they should be scared because that's where Neely was in his cycle.
This guy had a history of randomly attacking women on the subway. If the state wants to keep its monopoly on violence then they have to keep people like that locked up.
There are categories other than "filled with rage right now" and "professional".
Thus far it looks planned and well thought out.
Planned suggests a fair bit of time. Well thought out suggests relatively high functioning and not a random lunatic.
I can think of somethings which would have made his escape go better but I don't post "how to commit a good murder" ideas in public. However it looks like he had a plan, followed it, and thus far it seems to have worked.
We can speculate on his motives, but typically we're wrong so maybe we shouldn't.
The part that suggests it's not a pro is I'd think a real professional wouldn't want to end up in the national news with entire departments looking for him. Killing a CEO openly in public can reasonably be predicted to do that.
The cops have the resources to solve close to any crime. They just don't have the resources to solve all of them.
Certainly not- we both agree Hunter is guilty of the tax charge and the picayune gun form charge.
The Biden pardon covers everything, including crimes we both agree upon.
President Biden could have trivially had the pardon only cover whatever Trump might do. He choose to have it cover everything that his own Justice Department found.
No matter the rhetoric, the black letter of the pardon isn't designed to prevent Trump from misusing justice, it's designed to prevent his own Justice Department (yes, and Trump's later) from doing anything.
The AI is supposed to make stuff up. That's it's job. It creates a rough draft that is spell checked.
When you ask for anything from an English paper to the bare bones of a program, it's making stuff up. It's strengths are speed of content creation and grammar/syntax. It's weakness is it doesn't understand what you want.
I've used it professionally. It's great, but it's a tool I use and not a thinking entity that could replace me.
Those idiot lawyers were trying to use it as a search engine and not an intern.
also admitting that all the spilled ink and investigations and also Trumps foreign policy interventions on the subject were all baseless.
No. Hunter's resume and the behavior of the people hiring him look a lot like he's selling political favors. The investigations were well deserved. Adding to that the whole sex, drugs, and criminals angles made them doubly so.
But ultimately it’s a gesture, as I originally said, of fear and despair from Joe who doesn’t believe the Justice system under Trump will be Just towards his son.
This is total nonsense.
Biden had the ability to pardon him for anything Trump could have done but also let Hunter serve his time for the things his own justice department found. Biden could have also not pardoned him for the things he's already been found guilty of but then zapped everything else.
Hunter has been given a breathtakingly large scope of a pardon when normally those are extremely narrow. It was also done without involving the people who normally vet and write these things.
But the conclusion is only that Joe is clean. According to the Biden Justice department, Hunter is not.
And this wouldn't have come up if Hunter himself (yes, and the GOP) hadn't shined a spotlight on this.
The legal system is then faced with the problem of what to do. If we follow the normal laws and rules, Hunter ends up doing time.
This is pretty normal for someone who burns his life down, does a lot of things we've criminalized, and then writes a book about it.
That's what the pardon is protecting him from. Not the GOP weaponizing the justice system, but the justice system functioning as it normally would at this point.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Thursday Throughput: RFK Jr Edition”
What does "the things some of us think that he's right about" mean?
RFK points to issues that science as "settled" as far as science settles anything and claims it's a conspiracy that the results disprove his views.
He is to medicine what the flat earthers are to geology.
At best we'll have a few billion dollars flushed "investigating" things we already know. At worst we will have scientifically disproven views on medicine introduced as "valid" and a large number of medical scientists will be fired because they're not crackpots.
"
Yes. It's disqualifying.
I've heard RFK talk. He's convincing. Even if the person asking questions pushes back on him.
He's got thousands of hours of practice defending his views.
You really have to know your stuff to understand that he's talking nonsense and making arguments that have actively been disproven.
His talks sound like really good science but they're just not.
"
"Fixed" isn't the correct word. As far as we can tell, even with hindsight, it was perfectly fine and safe.
There was an argument for changing it to deal with unfounded fears, but afterwards the goal posts have been moved.
With hindsight it may have been a mistake to remove Thiomersal because it encouraged the anti-vax movement.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/9/2024”
He's short. Just like everyone else who is 6+ inches shorter than me. That's ...(math time)... basically everyone.
"
I thought it was just one, not "some". Under the circumstances it could be self serving.
Within the margin of error/reporting we could be looking at a 15 minute choke with people telling him he was going to die, followed by jury nullification.
We could also be looking at a 3 minute choke where Penny didn't know he was over the line and the "warnings" not believed by the jury.
We're getting into who the jury believed and who they didn't and they spent a lot more hours at this than I'm going to. Both times I was a witness to a car accident I sharply disagreed with other people about non-trivial issues.
Sitting here in my chair I lean more towards the first story, i.e. too long a choke with the jury refusing to do anything. However the second story is also within the margin of error so "reasonable doubt" and all that.
"
I don't think "snaps". I think we're looking at idealism. It's like how a lot of terrorists are engineers.
"
True all that.
Case looked pretty strong, but ultimately we couldn't fully convince a jury. Maybe some of them felt that would be punishing what should be rewarded.
"
Chris: I don’t have AI glasses that tell me a person’s criminal history...
We are after the fact quarter backing. But Neely's history shows that Penny judged Neely correctly.
Ergo we have the problem that the people in the subway were (correctly) scared and (correctly) believed Neely was going to start attacking random people.
Chris: the precedent we’re setting here is a disturbing one.
The people here were locked in a room with this guy.
The root problem is they're in this situation to begin with, i.e. that the city is allowing this guy to live in the subway and continually subject the passengers to this. This was his 43rd mental health crisis.
"
It was disputed how many minutes Penny held him down. If it was 12-15, then that's a problem. If it was "too the next station so 3-5" then less so.
"
There's a lot of temptation to claim the situation is something different we can look the other way.
However I question whether looking the other way is virtuous.
"
Correct. However if we assume no one needed to use any force we have a different problem than the reality.
The guy with a history of attacking random people was at it again. The random people needed to figure out what to do about this. The amount of force used to stop him from being violent was also enough to kill him.
It is indeed a question whether the force used was excessive. Jury couldn't make up it's mind. It's seriously unfair to put random people in that situation and expect no problems.
City knew Neely was a problem and living in the subway. He'd been arrested 42+ times and was thought to be one of the 50 craziest homeless people in the city.
If we want the subway to be used, then we can't also be asking random people to deal with Neely and also tell them they'll go to jail if they don't deal with him correctly.
"
If we're talking about Jordan Neely then "harmless but scary spider" isn't the correct comparison.
Neely had a cycle of mental health crises, arrests, hospitalization, (presumably then release) and then repeat. His criminal record includes three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway.
Penny stepped in to prevent what would have been his fourth. The problem isn't that the people are scared. The problem is they should be scared because that's where Neely was in his cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Jordan_Neely
"
This guy had a history of randomly attacking women on the subway. If the state wants to keep its monopoly on violence then they have to keep people like that locked up.
On “From the New York Post: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot outside Hilton hotel in Midtown in targeted attack: cops”
The majority of our assassins are lunatics and incoherent politically.
The majority of our civil disorder and the occasional accompanying riots is from the Left. If you are looking for "excuses to crack down", look there.
"
One hopes they're just being quiet about what they know.
"
2nd degree murder is still called "murder" even if the "intention" wasn't to kill anyone.
"
There are categories other than "filled with rage right now" and "professional".
Thus far it looks planned and well thought out.
Planned suggests a fair bit of time. Well thought out suggests relatively high functioning and not a random lunatic.
I can think of somethings which would have made his escape go better but I don't post "how to commit a good murder" ideas in public. However it looks like he had a plan, followed it, and thus far it seems to have worked.
We can speculate on his motives, but typically we're wrong so maybe we shouldn't.
The part that suggests it's not a pro is I'd think a real professional wouldn't want to end up in the national news with entire departments looking for him. Killing a CEO openly in public can reasonably be predicted to do that.
The cops have the resources to solve close to any crime. They just don't have the resources to solve all of them.
"
Google's robot says there are 4 different categories.
1st Degree, i.e. intentional and done with forethought. (This was clearly that).
2nd: A killing committed during a felony. So you're robbing a store and your partner kills the clerk.
Manslaughter: Not the previous ones and often resulting from reckless or negligent behavior.
Justifiable: Self defense or defense of others.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/2/2024”
She didn't run as moderate or progressive. She ran as undefined.
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
Certainly not- we both agree Hunter is guilty of the tax charge and the picayune gun form charge.
The Biden pardon covers everything, including crimes we both agree upon.
President Biden could have trivially had the pardon only cover whatever Trump might do. He choose to have it cover everything that his own Justice Department found.
No matter the rhetoric, the black letter of the pardon isn't designed to prevent Trump from misusing justice, it's designed to prevent his own Justice Department (yes, and Trump's later) from doing anything.
"
AI making stuff up is a known issue.
The AI is supposed to make stuff up. That's it's job. It creates a rough draft that is spell checked.
When you ask for anything from an English paper to the bare bones of a program, it's making stuff up. It's strengths are speed of content creation and grammar/syntax. It's weakness is it doesn't understand what you want.
I've used it professionally. It's great, but it's a tool I use and not a thinking entity that could replace me.
Those idiot lawyers were trying to use it as a search engine and not an intern.
On “From the New York Post: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot outside Hilton hotel in Midtown in targeted attack: cops”
Cops now say no ebike.
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
The "out of fear" explanation doesn't cover what Biden actually did.
For that to work, we need to believe Hunter is an innocent lamb and Joe Biden's Justice Department's findings and actions were politically motivated.
This is a helicopter parent saying "not my child".
"Out of fear" is an excuse, not an explanation.
"
also admitting that all the spilled ink and investigations and also Trumps foreign policy interventions on the subject were all baseless.
No. Hunter's resume and the behavior of the people hiring him look a lot like he's selling political favors. The investigations were well deserved. Adding to that the whole sex, drugs, and criminals angles made them doubly so.
But ultimately it’s a gesture, as I originally said, of fear and despair from Joe who doesn’t believe the Justice system under Trump will be Just towards his son.
This is total nonsense.
Biden had the ability to pardon him for anything Trump could have done but also let Hunter serve his time for the things his own justice department found. Biden could have also not pardoned him for the things he's already been found guilty of but then zapped everything else.
Hunter has been given a breathtakingly large scope of a pardon when normally those are extremely narrow. It was also done without involving the people who normally vet and write these things.
This was a favor to his son.
"
Sure. All of that is true.
But the conclusion is only that Joe is clean. According to the Biden Justice department, Hunter is not.
And this wouldn't have come up if Hunter himself (yes, and the GOP) hadn't shined a spotlight on this.
The legal system is then faced with the problem of what to do. If we follow the normal laws and rules, Hunter ends up doing time.
This is pretty normal for someone who burns his life down, does a lot of things we've criminalized, and then writes a book about it.
That's what the pardon is protecting him from. Not the GOP weaponizing the justice system, but the justice system functioning as it normally would at this point.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.