Nothing suspicious at all about being contacted by the subject of a news story just to say it’s not newsworthy. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Then the few people who don’t are very prolific commenters because it’s a mistake I see often.

If “voters” means the same in both cases, why did you use numbers that specifically only apply to the last election to make a point?

Just because this is a common enough mistake, I’m going to publicly correct you for the benefit of other people who might see this comment. I apologize.

It’s Martial Law. Not Marshall Law.

“Confiscate” sure is a weird way to spell “steal”.

Correct. When there isn’t enough bread to go around, it doesn’t really matter if everyone has money.

Maim America, Grift Americans

These are all valid points but they don’t preclude the existence of an open-source alternative to MBFC, which is what the commenter you replied to was asking.

You seem to be under the impression that this trial is going to be fair in any way. It’s a jury trial where the defendant is forbidden from talking to the press while the news media does its best to slander him to the public whenever the case is mentioned. Yes, in an ideal world you’d be right, but the people that need convincing of his guilt are going into the trial with their opinions half-formed against him and I guarantee you that the prosecution will veto any juror that seems like they understand proper standards for evidence.

So that the cops can beat black people and plant evidence, ovbiously.

That doesn’t matter, though. He isn’t being charged with manufacturing an illegal firearm so the prosecution does not have the burden of proving that he did so. Likewise, if he is being charged with gun trafficking, they still don’t need to prove where he got the illegal gun from, just that he had it.

And he’s being charged with terrorism, for fuck’s sake. Do you really think the standard for evidence at this trial will be a fair one? The prosecution is likely to get away with hearsay while the defense will be expected to provide DNA evidence from the actual killer as well as his parents and grandparents to get the case dismissed.

To be fair, there is probably at least one unloved person who isn’t a CEO.

“Voters” doesn’t mean “people who voted in the most recent election” but “people who are registered to vote” so the other commenter is correct.

They’re just expressing an opinion. Cool it.

But then wouldn’t it be easier for those software engineers to just deploy it themselves and keep all the money? What value is the buyer providing?

What is meant by Ransomware as a Service, as opposed to regular old Ransomware?

I came here to say this. If I have only a 7% chance of recovering my data after paying, I’m better off not paying.

It’s like this with any contriversial issue: most people adopt a manicheist stance, regardless of which side they’re on. This is why I think it’s important to always remember that if these issues weren’t nuanced, they wouldn’t be so controversial among so many different sectors of society.

We can agree on that (that this is the legislators’ reasoning). Whether it’s good or even valid reasoning remains to be seen. For one thing, the alternative to an adoption is one more parentless orphan - which is often also the alternative to an abortion. Oversimplifying the issue helps nobody. I’m not accusing you specifically of oversimplifying, as you made it clear that you were pointing out an oversimplification made by others.

That depends on how you define a human, and there’s the entirely separate issue of whether it being human or not should be the deciding factor. For example, a braindead human is still human but killing them is quite different from killing a healthy human. Oversimplifying the issue helps nobody.