Smok
1yr ago
According to ACOUP it is worse in humanities as you will not be even employable after going through this.
In theory, these responsibilities are usually supposed to add up to about 20 hours a week, though there is a lot of variability from week to week and assignment to assignment. I actually kept track of my work hours in the first year of my PhD and found they ranged from 60 to 80 hours a week and that was with all the tricks I had learned to read and work faster during my MA (for comparison, I rarely felt seriously stressed about schoolwork during my undergraduate degree, which I finished in three years)
(...)
And yes, every graduate student will come up with a whole host of reasons why they are special and the job fairy will favor them, but the numbers don’t lie: you’re not special and the job fairy died years ago.
(...)
At least flagellants, in theory, got to go to heaven as the reward for their self-destructive purification. The only thing pursuing a PhD in the humanities offers is the opportunity to go on the academic job market, which is frankly probably closer to hell at this point.
(...)
So You Want To Go To Grad School (in the Academic Humanities)?
(...)
Have you tried wanting something else?
Smok
1yr ago
And my claim is that just compensation for attack on you can be much greater than entire net worth before being harassed.
Smok
1yr ago
I would argue that 500$ would be better, because if people responsible can be reached then "get 500$ for spam call" will result in rise of cottage industry of people earning this way and being deeply interested in hunting down responsible people.
That is a fully intended effect.
Smok
1yr ago
the fact that someone won't take a deal can't actually tell us anything
If typical person would not take the deal it tells us that compensation is not drastically overvalued.
Smok
1yr ago
I assume stupidity and zero effort and that they found already cropped clip on Twitter or similar place and reposted it.
Maybe they were more malicious and less lazy and stupid.
Smok
1yr ago
If you never were a multimillionaire, you can not honestly claim to restore harm done to you you should become one. When it's grievous bodily harm (say, you lose your hand, or get cancer) it may be different, because loss of life or quality of life is very hard to repair with money, and even to approach it one needs a lot of money. But here it's not the case
Claim that the same harassment is more damaging to richer people is absurd. If anything, richer people have more ability to shield from harassment.
Smok
1yr ago
OK, that is amazing and hilarious and absurd and actually case of "they ruled that actual shoelace was a machine gun".
I am amazed and worried at that someone managed to write and send this reply.
I was honestly unaware of this, thanks for making me aware of this.
Smok
1yr ago
For comparison, that's equivalent to the maximum compensation for spending 100 years imprisoned on false charges in some states (...) It is absurd to argue that the former should payout more than the latter.
It is also possible that compensation for wrongfully convicted are really low.
So at best, whether someone would make a deal to exchange $x for harassment is irrelevant.
not really
If typical person in such situation would not take it at all and it would be awful deal then compensation is too small (say, 5$ for cutting off both hands)
If for typical person in such situation it would be amazing deal (1 billion for cutting out single finger of a left foot) then compensation is overly large.
If deal would be not going in either extreme then compensation is sane (though still may be overly large and overly small).
Smok
1yr ago
If that is accurate they definitely deserved large penalty, though markedly lower than enough to bankrupt CNN.
Smok
1yr ago
Not familiar with this case, from quick look it does not appear to be as large scale or affecting as many people, or involving blatant log-term and blatantly obvious lies, so I would go with "no".
Smok
1yr ago
What happens if the predatory bank is enabled by someone else? If your high-risk clients are minorities and the government says that if you don't lend to them, you get shut down for discrimination, and then a lot of those high-risk clients default on their loans, is it really fair to make the banks pay?
Have bank lied to them and promised that defaulting is impossible, taking loans has no risks or deliberately mislead them into this? Are they blatantly lying about lack of risk? Are they telling them to disregard mandatory disclosure of risk? Are they promising that they will repay less or the same despite that real interest is >0? If no then it does not really apply.
Though bank would have a problem if doing this would be needed to reach some diversity ratio or something.
And obviously, "the government says that if you don't lend to them, you get shut down for discrimination" is stupid and should be fixed. And yes, I know that it is easy to say.
Smok
1yr ago
use a shoelace to more effectively bump-fire a semi-auto rifle
note that it is distinct "shoelace is machine gun"
where pulling a trigger once results in multiple rounds being fired is technically making a "machine gun"
"triggering multiple guns at once in weird way counts as machine gun" is far more defensible and reasonable than "shoelace is machine gun"
(and yes, trying to legislate definition of things where border is fluid and with adverse groups will result in a lot of stupid shit, but less stupid than "shoelace is machine gun")
And you could almost imagine someone getting in trouble for having in their possession a semi-auto gun and a loose shoelace, because they could be readily assembled into a machinegun.
OK, that parts makes sense and I can easily imagine someone interpreting maximally evilly.
Smok
1yr ago
the shoelace thing isn't something I pulled out of my butt
I am definitely unaware
it's a meme based on an actual BATF ruling
What was the actual ruling? Have they ruled that actual shoelace was a machine gun?
Smok
1yr ago
Maybe should be more pessimistic, but I would bet that declaring shoelace to be machine gun would not pass. Declaring nonmachine gun as a machine gun? Likely.
Declaring shoelace as a machine gun? Would not reach court or would be squashed there.
Smok
1yr ago
And the prosecutors will prosecute and the judge will go along and so will the higher courts and no amount of pointing out that it's a shoelace will save you from jail time. And to add insult to injury, if and when all this commences, all those law-n-order conservatives who agreed that indeed a shoelace was not a machine gun will say "Well, what did you expect? You knew a shoelace was a machine gun, BATF said so."
Somehow I suspect that it is hyperbole and not what you actually believe, but I am not really sure.
Smok
1yr ago
And if it was self-sabotage by Jones it does not count, for obvious reasons.
I was looking for order of magnitude estimate as far as forum posting goes. I am happy about "50M per person is definitely too much, 1M per person definitely not enough"
If I would be on jury or judge or my opinion would matter I promise that I would put more effort into that.
As it stands, even a pyramid scheme operator will probably stop to help an injured child in a dark alley; I think he would not do that if he though that society's preferred fate for himself violated his sense of justice.
My expectation is that pyramid scheme fraudsters (and similar) behaving even less prosocially will be more than outweighted by curbing stealing that currently is de facto legal. And that sketchy businessmen will switch to other technically legal or forbidden by unenforced bans or punished but not enough things. Rather than going around and vandalising stuff because some specific scam is no longer viable.
And I disagree with this argument as it seems to be general argument against punishing any criminals short of murderers. For reasons similar as I would disagree with "As it stands, even a thief will probably stop to help an injured child in a dark alley; I think he would not do that if he though that society's preferred fate for himself violated his sense of justice." arguments against actual punishment for theft.
(I do not see a real difference between thief breaking in and causing damage of 10 000$ and stealing things worth 10 000$ and banker convincing the same person to gamble 20 000$ on "it is risk-free, ignore that standard warning template about risks" and proceeding to lose that, and I would love to see both actually punished and treated both behaviour as antisocial evil)
Though at least in USA with current asset forfeiture laws it is clear that care about such things as blocking currently legal stealing is nonexisting among lawmakers.
"triumphalist copyright laws result in software/music pirates who laugh in your face if you make moral arguments about the wellbeing of content creators" (that's me, too!) to pretty general ones like "minority that believes it is being discriminated against will steal and vandalise anything the moment the eyes of the state are looking away".
That is legitimate risk, but currently financial fraudsters will basically laugh at victims, fully aware that in the worst case they will lose what they stolen and get slap on the wrist as their activity was technically legal or de facto legal. Except outrageous cases like FTX where there is a decent chance for some punishment at least for some.
Smok
1yr ago
But that need not be because of how much money it is, but because money is fungible to other projects that we care about. E.g. maybe saving lives is infinitely valuable
People often declare that lives are infinitely valuable and proceed to spend money on entertainment rather than donating it to save lives. Nearly noone actually behaves like lives were infinitely valuable.
Smok
1yr ago
Actually, Elon Musk is not my political opponent. And to my irritation even after that pedo guy I kind of like him despite trying to avoid that.
Also, I bet that many of bank fraudsters and CEO deliberately ignoring evil perpetrated by their bank share my political preferences (at least, enough of them to vote for the same people).
who should pay similar fines for saying things you agreed with at the time?
I was always against defrauding people and calling them paedophiles/murderers/etc or claiming to have fake children based on transparently false claims.
So I am not really able to provide such examples.
Smok
1yr ago
From outside it is sad and hilarious.
Reminds me about https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,8363.msg337784.html#msg337784 (about Peru and still worth reading if you do not care about Peru)
(...)
This led to left wing protests and riots and a new state of emergency. The same people who praised Castillo's use of such tactics a few months ago flipped for pretty transparently partisan reasons. The left wing considers this a coup (despite it being completely constitutional) and the right wing considers this the successful prevention of a coup (which it was). The father of the right wing presidential candidate, Fujimori, staged a coup in exactly this way in 1992. And the left considers him a dictator. If there's a difference beyond partisan hypocrisy why it's different I can't see it. (Though this does add a wrinkle that the daughter of someone who can credibly be described as a dictator might end up as president. And that the right has the opposite position on legitimate/illegitimate coups making them hypocrites too.)
(...)
The opinion of the left is that the removal was illegitimate for... uh... reasons. Seriously, they don't have a legal argument as far as I can tell. It's all about neoliberalism and capitalism and that Keiko Fujimori is the daughter of a dictator. And her father's a dictator because he dissolved the Congress extra-constitutionally with the support of the military without calling an election. Which is completely different from Castillo because... he succeeded and Castillo failed I guess.
(...)
Fujimori speaks very highly of her father's presidency.
(...)
Smok
1yr ago
"shucks, guess that business venture failed" level but on the "I have to give up my previous life" one
Yes, I am aware of this and this is more "and that is why I am fine with Alex Jones fined into nonexistence, if this verdict will be applied" and less "that should be legislated immediately".
If I would be proposing actual law then it would be more reasonable - but still going into this direction.
But for example for predatory banks some actual penalties should be happening. It is absurd that entire sale division blatantly lies to people, companies going bankrupt and people losing their wealth - and nothing happens to people responsible for that. I consider "I have to give up my previous life" as desirable for CEOs presiding over this. Though not "and now they are homeless and starving".
nontrivial number of people would threaten victims into silence or even outright attempt to murder them (or even just run amok on third parties), because they'd prefer the chance of jail time to the certainty of losing $1m.
Yes, that is a risk. "You lose your home if you hit pedestrian" may end with China-style "we hit pedestrian? lets be sure that they end dead".
Again, it is more personal emotional reaction that ready legislation. In such cases I put much more effort and thinking into that (and what I got passed was extremely minor compared to what is discussed here, and I put much more effort into it)
Maybe one day there'll be Roko's Basilisk style scifi punishments you can mete out with certainty, but until then...
That would be unlikely to work, the problem is that many people outright ignore potential negative consequences. I am thinking more about compensation to victims than deterrence.
Smok
1yr ago
Nukes are not hard to obtain for technically advanced countries like Poland
Either I am deeply underestimating capacity of my country and its government or overestimate difficulty of getting nukes or overestimate how strongly other would react or you do the opposite.
But this claims seems laughable, even planned civilian nuclear power plant will be basically entirely imported tech. And importing nuke design would be quite hard to do.
only full-scale wars and nobody launches 'minor incursions' against nuclear powers
This is untrue, Falklands for start. Situation in Israel and 9/11 may also count.
Also, India-China and India-Pakistan.
And probably many other cases, that is only what I remembered right now.
You did it in
by claiming that the same harassment should result in different payout based on net worth of victim.
More options
Context Copy link