4 ms·

Reading the deposition, under oath, of the forensics engineer who investigated the situation basically made me agree with the blog post and even that quote in p

Reading the deposition, under oath, of the forensics engineer who investigated the situation basically made me agree with the blog post and even that quote in particular. I think they have him dead to rights, here, barring a miracle of explaining away very, very suspicious behavior and a mountain of circumstantial evidence. I would hope if I asked any of my source control clients to dump a bunch of stuff and then walked to another employer who oh by the way is doing something very similar, I'd be investigated as rigorously. I hear what you're saying, but I think you're being unfair. This isn't bloggism; I think it's a pretty solid analysis from a lot of available information. There is definitely another side, and it's definitely making an appearance in this thread, but I don't think it's unfair to say "yep, that looks like a hole in one." Certainly smells like one, and it's not partisan or agenda-based to say that. Could you elaborate on what you feel the agenda is here?

pfarnsworth 10y ago
All testimony in a trial is under oath. You still haven't heard the testimony from any of the accused, and you already came to a conclusion based on the single testimony of the plaintiff? "Welp, that's good enough for me, I guess Levandowski is guilty. Let's wrap it up, everyone!" I hope you realize how ridiculous this is. You don't know he dumped anything onto a USB drive. As far as the testimony knows, he plugged in a USB drive to the laptop. Any lawyer worth her salt would rip that to shreds. Do you know he didn't copy a movie onto the USB drive and watched it from the laptop? Do you know he didn't use the USB drive to copy information onto the hard drive? To qualify that as "Dead to rights" is particularly stupid. The only person being unfair is the blogger, and you, by coming to a conclusion without hearing all the evidence. It's not solid analysis, it's lazy and premature.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  I didn't say he was guilty. That's not my place to decide. I said it looks like they have a smoking gun unless they can explain away a lot of suspicious behavior. Maybe they can. I actually haven't drawn any conclusion, particularly on the person involved. This is basically standing on the sidelines and saying damn, they have a good case. It'll be impressive to see the defense. You've drawn the conclusion and assumed I have. I'm merely remarking that the case is extraordinarily strong and the evidence, as circumstantial as it is, is compelling, unless you feel that the evidence is fabricated. And a lawyer can't rip all of what I read to shreds, though I understand what you're saying.
  - pfarnsworth 10y ago
    You said "I think they have him dead to rights". Unless you are not a native English speaker and you don't understand the words that you're typing, it means you think that the accused is guilty. If that's not what you meant then I suggest using different words. Of course you think they have a good case. All you've heard is their side.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      It's weird being the guy who has lobbied for discretion and waiting for the other side in these cases on Hacker News before, and then being told I don't understand the words I am typing. The evidence basically indicts him, outright. Full stop. I'm sorry, and I know it offends you, but I'm acknowledging that fact. He is pretty much red-handed, and the evidence basically amounts to "we found the defendant standing over the corpse while holding a bloody knife." Maybe he has an explanation that we will find out (maybe he was performing surgery to save him!), but right now, the evidence doesn't look good. This isn't complicated whether English is my primary, secondary, tertiary, or quarternary language. I also have performed forensics investigations not unlike the deposition I've read, and at no point did I say "gosh, that's thin." That's my point. He was remarkably dumb in the alleged narrative, if it's all true. Given my experience with Google's investigative abilities, I don't doubt any of the evidence submitted. I disagree with you, you are wrong, and I understand every inch of the words I am typing. It's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that Google and Waymo have done their due diligence bringing a coherent and well-defended complaint here. Please do me a favor and don't assume that because I'm on the other side I'm deficient or inferior to you in some way. It's how I know there is literally zero fruit down the path of engaging you.
      - pfarnsworth 10y ago
        Your understanding of English must be very poor, because you said above that "I didn't say he was guilty." and now you're saying "The evidence basically indicts him, outright. Full stop." So yes, you are absolutely saying he's guilty after hearing one side of the story. Which only very stupid people do. So, at least acknowledge that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you think he's guilty, that's well within your rights, but understand you're making a completely premature declaration of guilt by hearing one side of the evidence. Full stop.

pfarnsworth 10y ago

All testimony in a trial is under oath. You still haven't heard the testimony from any of the accused, and you already came to a conclusion based on the single testimony of the plaintiff? "Welp, that's good enough for me, I guess Levandowski is guilty. Let's wrap it up, everyone!" I hope you realize how ridiculous this is. You don't know he dumped anything onto a USB drive. As far as the testimony knows, he plugged in a USB drive to the laptop. Any lawyer worth her salt would rip that to shreds. Do you know he didn't copy a movie onto the USB drive and watched it from the laptop? Do you know he didn't use the USB drive to copy information onto the hard drive? To qualify that as "Dead to rights" is particularly stupid. The only person being unfair is the blogger, and you, by coming to a conclusion without hearing all the evidence. It's not solid analysis, it's lazy and premature.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
I didn't say he was guilty. That's not my place to decide. I said it looks like they have a smoking gun unless they can explain away a lot of suspicious behavior. Maybe they can. I actually haven't drawn any conclusion, particularly on the person involved. This is basically standing on the sidelines and saying damn, they have a good case. It'll be impressive to see the defense. You've drawn the conclusion and assumed I have. I'm merely remarking that the case is extraordinarily strong and the evidence, as circumstantial as it is, is compelling, unless you feel that the evidence is fabricated. And a lawyer can't rip all of what I read to shreds, though I understand what you're saying.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  You said "I think they have him dead to rights". Unless you are not a native English speaker and you don't understand the words that you're typing, it means you think that the accused is guilty. If that's not what you meant then I suggest using different words. Of course you think they have a good case. All you've heard is their side.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    It's weird being the guy who has lobbied for discretion and waiting for the other side in these cases on Hacker News before, and then being told I don't understand the words I am typing. The evidence basically indicts him, outright. Full stop. I'm sorry, and I know it offends you, but I'm acknowledging that fact. He is pretty much red-handed, and the evidence basically amounts to "we found the defendant standing over the corpse while holding a bloody knife." Maybe he has an explanation that we will find out (maybe he was performing surgery to save him!), but right now, the evidence doesn't look good. This isn't complicated whether English is my primary, secondary, tertiary, or quarternary language. I also have performed forensics investigations not unlike the deposition I've read, and at no point did I say "gosh, that's thin." That's my point. He was remarkably dumb in the alleged narrative, if it's all true. Given my experience with Google's investigative abilities, I don't doubt any of the evidence submitted. I disagree with you, you are wrong, and I understand every inch of the words I am typing. It's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that Google and Waymo have done their due diligence bringing a coherent and well-defended complaint here. Please do me a favor and don't assume that because I'm on the other side I'm deficient or inferior to you in some way. It's how I know there is literally zero fruit down the path of engaging you.
    - pfarnsworth 10y ago
      Your understanding of English must be very poor, because you said above that "I didn't say he was guilty." and now you're saying "The evidence basically indicts him, outright. Full stop." So yes, you are absolutely saying he's guilty after hearing one side of the story. Which only very stupid people do. So, at least acknowledge that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you think he's guilty, that's well within your rights, but understand you're making a completely premature declaration of guilt by hearing one side of the evidence. Full stop.