Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

GLkA8QVWoAApgDl?format=jpg&name=medium

 

 

Dude never learned from his dad to commit your sin of conning the stupid and gullible for self enrichment with class so you can remain above the fray. He wants to take the full Jim Bakker route

Posted
20 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:

Not sure how that wasn’t disqualifying… juror gets their “news” from defendant’s own platform?!

Seems teed up for impartiality…

Not during the trial they won’t. “Can you be impartial “ cuts both ways. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
19 hours ago, safe sex said:

My opinion remains unchanged.

Is there an actual purpose other than increasing personal wealth?

Short covering can provide needed liquidity when the price does crater.  If everyone was long and the price craters, you don't have a lot of buyers at that point and the price drop accelerates.  Short sellers provide the buying liquidity when they cover their short position.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Not during the trial they won’t. “Can you be impartial “ cuts both ways. 

Yuuuup. But, as juror 2,the state no doubt had strikes left to use. Something must have indicated that this person was going to be ok. 

Because we have an underlying criticism of the justice system on this thread, this is one. It is a noble goal to remove biased/prejudiced jurors from the panel. 

But voir dire sometimes reaches the level of almost pure gamesmanship: attempting to place jurors biased in your favor on the panel. 

This is not the only instance in a trial where notions of fairness may take a back seat to winning at all costs. 

The adversarial, competitive nature of trials is supposed to produce a good facsimile of truth in the sense of iron sharpens iron. But I wonder sometimes if the gamesmanship doesn't produce unjust results. 

Posted

DJT will go to zero, give it time.  I worked for a startup for a while. I joined after the IPO and stock crash. We had an actual product and revenue, but an unclear product roadmap.

The stock IPOed around 18 and zoomed up to 200.  At that point every employee was a millionaire on paper.  Six months later, the day I interviewed, the stock was at 51 cents a share.  Everyone's options were underwater.  The founder and a few early employees made millions.  I got a lot of options at the lower price, so I figured it might work out.  It did not.

My interview was the standard "talk to six people for an hour each" format.  One interviewer walked in, said "You want to work here?  Sure, whatever..." and walked out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The adversarial, competitive nature of trials is supposed to produce a good facsimile of truth in the sense of iron sharpens iron. But I wonder sometimes if the gamesmanship doesn't produce unjust results. 

Good faith is a fertile ground upon which trumpism and fascism thrives. That basic presumption of civility is exploited and weaponized to create the sort of unequal justice we've been enjoying for a good long while. 

Trump is getting free extensions on his prima facie fraudulent bond, simply because the system is built with the expectation of people not lying to the courts face. The system is so incredibly vulnerable to garbage in; garbage out, and it's the main lever of obstructionism he routines uses. 

The gamesmanship doesn't guarantee unjust results, but it certainly sets the table for them. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What now?

That's how most big tech companies do interviews, one or two phone screens and then a big day of interviews across a panel of interviewers that then give feedback and assess the candidate wholsitically. 

It's a big pain in the ass lol. On #bothsides

Posted
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That's how most big tech companies do interviews, one or two phone screens and then a big day of interviews across a panel of interviewers that then give feedback and assess the candidate wholsitically. 

It's a big pain in the ass lol. On #bothsides

Jesus, and I complain about the normal one hour with six people. I can't imagine a 6-hour interview, that sounds exhausting and really boring as you repeat the same damn answer 6 times in a day.

Posted
1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

Jesus, and I complain about the normal one hour with six people. I can't imagine a 6-hour interview, that sounds exhausting and really boring as you repeat the same damn answer 6 times in a day.

Where I am, we break it up into 4 or 5 45 minute interviews that are intentionally planned to cover different disciplines and skills and traits, so it's at least not monotonous for the interviewee. But it is a grind, wether you're the sausage or turning the crank

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Effort into the hiring process seems like it’s going higher and higher, but retainment by decent salary increases doesn’t seem to match.  My last interviewing was 30 minutes each with 3 peer level, then hiring manager, then a skip level. And it still felt like a lot for the job level. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Effort into the hiring process seems like it’s going higher and higher, but retainment by decent salary increases doesn’t seem to match.  My last interviewing was 30 minutes each with 3 peer level, then hiring manager, then a skip level. And it still felt like a lot for the job level. 

If they just keep getting better at the hiring process they’ll be able to find those employees willing to work more hours, for way less pay and benefits and zero consideration for their own mental health and work life balance. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, safe sex said:

My opinion remains unchanged.

Is there an actual purpose other than increasing personal wealth?

Is your question the human motivation for the practice or are you trying to discern the utility of the practice?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Is your question the human motivation for the practice or are you trying to discern the utility of the practice?

I know the human motivation: greed. I was interested in the utility beyond personal wealth, which appears to be putting needed liquidity into the market, which is fair enough, but I think the practice needs guardrails that it currently lacks (and that feeling applies to almost the entirety of our financial system).

Edited by safe sex
Posted
1 hour ago, safe sex said:

I know the human motivation: greed. I was interested in the utility beyond personal wealth, which appears to be putting needed liquidity into the market, which is fair enough, but I think the practice needs guardrails that it currently lacks (and that feeling applies to almost the entirety of our financial system).

I think the distinction needs to be made between "personal wealth" in the form of "retail" investments that you and I can make and some people richer than us can make. 

And those investments made by institutional types that make money only for institutions, some of which are "worthwhile," like those that benefit universities and retirement funds, and some that only benefit private, wealthy interests like banks, ibanks, hedge funds, etc. 

I think a lot of the latter have lost most or all connection to benefit the capital markets. Or at least it's very tenuous. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, safe sex said:

I was interested in the utility beyond personal wealth,

It’s even more essential than that. Sure it performs some functions, but most importantly it punishes poorly allocated capital, which is very beneficial to everybody. In the long run, it’s probably the most beneficial aspect of a free market system to society.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I wonder sometimes if the gamesmanship doesn't produce unjust results. 

Gee, ya think?  Surely not, the legal system is the most bestest greatest thing ever and is as pure as the driven snow.

Or,

wirestory_a62a6c79869955b546691f9dc4b7a8

1373769451000-AP-Neighborhood-Watch-1307

t_128f3b961d7b43ad8b79245a7040324e_name_

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

I’m not as pessimistic as y'all but either way him having to sit there while 2 of his mistresses, Cohen and Hope Hicks talk shit about him will be glorious. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Gee, ya think?  Surely not, the legal system is the most bestest greatest thing ever and is as pure as the driven snow.

Or,

wirestory_a62a6c79869955b546691f9dc4b7a8

1373769451000-AP-Neighborhood-Watch-1307

t_128f3b961d7b43ad8b79245a7040324e_name_

No one here has ever contended that it's perfect. But the latter two are probably more the result of bringing charges when you don't have the evidence or the law to convict.  

And if you want evidence of gamesmanship negatively affecting outcomes, the better examples are prosecutorial and police misconduct. 

Posted
53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And if you want evidence of gamesmanship negatively affecting outcomes, the better examples are prosecutorial and police misconduct. 

I totally agree, but an image of some poor brown dude that got railroaded into a wrongful conviction wouldn't draw recognition like the ones I posted.  I just found it amusing that you would ask such an obvious question especially considering your response shows you knew the answer already.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I totally agree, but an image of some poor brown dude that got railroaded into a wrongful conviction wouldn't draw recognition like the ones I posted.  I just found it amusing that you would ask such an obvious question especially considering your response shows you knew the answer already.

I didn't ask a question, I made an observation. 

 

The problem is that even the best intentioned lawyers are or get competitive in a trial scenario.  Again, that's intended to benefit "the system," but on occasion it goes overboard and things get fucky because of it. 

The example here is jury selection, where the ostensible goal is to keep the biased off the jury. But the line between that and putting people biased in your favor is thin, maybe imperceptible. But if keeping biased people off the jury is "right," then intentionally putting people biased in your favor is "wrong."

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, the odd situational ethics of law dogging may even actually require that attempt. Does anyone here not want Trump-opposed jurors on this case? Didn't think so. 

The one limiting factor that maybe avoids some of the problem is that people are incomprehensible, so you may not be doing what you think you are. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Is your question the human motivation for the practice or are you trying to discern the utility of the practice?

 

On 4/19/2024 at 1:14 PM, safe sex said:

My opinion remains unchanged.

Is there an actual purpose other than increasing personal wealth?

Accumulate currency, unlock pussy

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

So I am reading articles saying Trump is angered/pissed that the judge is rushing the hush money trial; given enough time I think Trump would admit he needs more time to prepare & to pay hush money to potential witnesses. 
The theatrics are amazing....but not surprising 

? - is Trump really wanting to go to trial on Federal charges, maybe plead down to some lesser charges or plead nolo contendre, all while believing will be able to pardon himself when he is sworn in again as Prez?

Edited by Wally Fairway
Posted
1 hour ago, Goofyboy said:

While he’s dealing with this, the state of NY can start seizing his assets. His bond failed.

No, he gets a week to get another bond.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

100%’ he’s getting off on this. No way in hell are 12 People going to agree

The only redeeming drama will be watching trump get raked over the coals 

I actually sort of agree/disagree. Like noted up thread about 5 pages back, the penalties are toothless. I think he will be convicted but no jail time or anything actually severe will happen. Essentially a big nothing burger since he won't yet suffer any real consequences.



×
×
  • Create New...