Tangential to the deeper and more problematic issue with the recent DoJ, repeated malicious prosecutions at a scale not seen before.

Oh did we already get a guilty verdict?

> You might say that they're paying criminals, but that's not clear either. The US has quite liberal free speech laws.

You specified paying arsonists in your first comment.

I assume arson is a criminal action and not protected by free speech.

True, like wire fraud and money laundering.

I love printers and ink, I hate the people that make the experience worse in hopes of making more money.

There's nothing lazier than a whataboutism claim. If we're okay with Chinese made phones and other electronics, then let's give their cheap EVs a chance instead of worrying about a plethora of other hallucinated *isms. Anyways, if the Chinese want to hurt "US" they have plenty of other ways to go about it.

China is still banning Teslas from driving near government buildings and leaders' motorcades.

China is smart and recognizes known threats as threats. In the US we give them quasi government positions where they inflicted massive damage causing millions of senseless deaths.

Then why China approved Tesla to be the one and only wholly foreign-owned enterprise in vehicle manufacturing?

Then drive some Schitty Chevy, what do I care. The rest of us need reliable affordable transportation that won't boil the oceans over. The Chinese are willing to make it, that is a good thing (+ they haven't bombed anyone for quite some time to boot).

First it was whataboutisms, now it's trying to disparage me.

You're incorrectly assuming I don't want something reliable that's safe for the environment in an attempt to make me look bad because you're defaulting to attacking the person instead of the message.

Whataboutism is helpful?

I bought a dumb 4K TV years ago. When I looked not too long ago, I couldn't find any for sale.

Look at the HN ID number to see which is first.

I took out the Wi-Fi module before I ever powered up the TV. I don't want to have to trust that a guest won't try to connect to their own hotspot to watch their Netflix on my TV.

If I had to buy a smart TV, this is what I would do. It's the only way to be sure.

Sadly, the purchase would still reward the company for making a spyware screen, and signal that I find it acceptable, which is why I plan to avoid them forever.

I think these TVs are subsidized by the ad revenue, so you might cause them more pain by buying one and never connecting it.

p.s. if you like this idea use the Ad Nauseam plugin for firefox et al in lieu of ublock whatever. It clicks on all ads it hides, polluting metrics, wasting money.

it also tells you the estimated cost of all ads it's clicked on your behalf.

You're also going to be profiled based on every list imaginable. Have fun when companies think you're an extremist and into wild things like fetishes.

Perhaps, but for that i use TrackMeNot plugin, which gets a list of headlines then does headline remixes/mashup and googles/searches for them on a set schedule of your choosing. you can choose to disallow words that would be illegal to search for in your jurisdiction.

also, oh no! Coca Cola will think i like latex? Shoot, this ruins my retirement plans.

> oh no! Coca Cola will think i like latex? Shoot, this ruins my retirement plans.

Oh no! Now you didn't get that job because the company farms out their background checks and that company uses these metrics to determine different types of risks (social risks, financial risks (you must really like gambling after clicking on all of those gambling ads), etc). Oh no! Now you're on an extremist list and being investigated. Oh no! Now you're paying more for the same products because you're on a list of people that companies think will pay more. Oh no! Your social score is tanking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)

Yea this isn't a thing and is just another scare tactic that gets dragged out when Ad Nauseum is brought up as the better solution. It's banned in the Chrome because it works

I don't know, some of the other Black Mirror episodes ended up being right on the money.

Ah yes, "banned because it works"... That's why lots of stuff is banned /s

Cool

Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47851086

Any lawyers here?

> wait for you to do it repeatedly until it adds up to enough for a felony instead of just a misdemeanor

Isn't there a concept in the legal system where you have to mitigate damages even if you're the victim? I can't think of the example off the top of my head that Steve Lehto (consumer lawyer on YouTube gave).

I'm guessing people who steal from the stores aren't able to afford a decent lawyer, but I imagine a decent lawyer would ask the Target witness(es), why didn't you stop him after the first theft? Why did you keep letting him steal?

> why didn't you stop him after the first theft? Why did you keep letting him steal?

Enforcement goes to the police. Stores can't apprehend thieves. There is a lot of training for store employees to not try to engage the thieves because some can behave erratically and dangerously when they feel like they're caught.

You can tell someone they need to stop and pay for merchandise, but if they choose to keep walking there's nothing the store staff can do but document and report it.

The reason stores wait until it reaches felony level to report it is because police are too busy to try to pursue every small case that happens everywhere. There are fewer crimes that rise to the level of a felony, so they have to focus their efforts on the smaller number of more serious crimes instead of taking every report FIFO style

Stores can and do trespass people without police involvement.

The stores can also make a police report after the first theft, but the stores are choosing not to.

The stores are choosing not to mitigate their damages, something that the courts frown upon in my limited knowledge.

I understand that might be a civil aspect (mitigation) versus a criminal aspect, but perhaps someone who has been to law school and studied the law, might be able shed some light.

Well they can apprehend thieves but they choose not to because it has the potential to go poorly or result in bad PR. That's a modern trend though - 50 years ago they were happy to have private security do the job.

I know that people who work for at least one non-profit, use Google Streetview to see how much money they should ask people for.