5 ms·

“Never threaten to cost someone more than it would cost to have you killed.” is a reasonable rule to live by.

by empath75 6y ago

dbuder 6y ago
Coward.
gspr 6y ago
That seems like a rule that would have a terrifying chilling effect on a lot of legitimate lawsuits.
- raducu 6y ago
  Luckily a lot of people live in the civilized world, where the high likelihood of being caught and prosecuted for murder and spending a lot of time in jail, make murder a not so reasonable option -- assuming we are talking about psychopaths willing to kill someone for financial gain. Murder is nowadays an option for few criminal organizations -- such as the USA government, the British Royal House (remember, Epstein didn't kill himself), the Russian Government or the mafia or some drug gangs.
  - tbonepickens 6y ago
    "remember, Epstein didn't kill himself" - citation needed I get that Epstein's death was fishy, I myself very much think so, but "Epstein didn't kill himself" isn't a factual statement because there still lies a possibility that he took his own life
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    Nitpick: a government technically isn't a criminal organization because they define "criminal" to not include themselves.
raducu 6y ago
You also have to factor in the feasibility of that someone being able to get away with murder, then you must factor in how valuable a couple decades in prison is worth to them, and how prone they are to taking such risks.
- pstrateman 6y ago
  > You also have to factor in the feasibility of that someone being able to get away with murder How would it matter to the person in this example? They're already dead...
  - raducu 6y ago
    I was just pointing out it is not just a monetary issue and most of the successful criminals are intelligent actors.
AtHeartEngineer 6y ago
I disagree, this discounts the martyr
basseq 6y ago
With the important caveats of 1) the implicit costs of murder-for-hire are probably pretty high (risk of going to jail, e.g.) and 2) killing someone doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit go away—though that doesn't help the person being killed. So the utility formula is something like: (p[c] * c[f] + c[a]) ÷ p[l] > c[l] where: p[c] = probability of getting caught p[l] = probability of the lawsuit being dropped c[f] = value of your freedom c[a] = cost of an assassin c[l] = cost of losing the lawsuit You can layer in additional probabilities—like the probability of the assassination being successful, or the probability of winning the case. This is just fun to talk about the utility formula of assassinations on HN. But it's probably true that as c[l] increases, c[f] increases as well, and p[l] drops. So it's rarely (never?) worth this trade-off.
- catalogia 6y ago
  You forgot 'probability that your opponent reasons matters like this out rationally', which is a big one I think.
  - basseq 6y ago
    Which, if you want to get pedantic—and yes! let's get pedantic!—probably correlates with a lower probability that the assassination isn't successful. Because if they're irrational, they're going to end up meeting an undercover cop in the parking lot of the local K-Mart or something. See also: Tiger King. Which is probably the best citation and the best thing I'll type all day.
    - fragmede 6y ago
      Ah yes, Tiger King, a well balanced documentary that presents an in-depth look at the practices of murder for hire, and not a lurid tale of entertainment so Netflix can make more money. Popular media, especially shows like CSI and Law and Order, have an incentive to show the rich white folk how resolute the government is, and just how much no one could ever get away with murder. The reality's a bit different, and as recent events have shown, the police aren't above murder anyway. They protect their own and accept murderers in their ranks. So, an ex-cop or current cop is probably the best person to properly incentivize to commit murder. For them, `p[c] = probability of getting caught` expands to a[c] = probability of getting caught a[b] = probability of there being no repercussions despite getting caught. But if we're gonna base today's lesson on how to get away with murder on the show Tiger King, the two step lesson it teaches is: 1. own a tiger sanctuary. 2. feed your husband to the tigers for lunch.
fragmede 6y ago
Logical, and I host most of us are able to live a life of such privilege. In desperate times, however, there are those who are forced to stand up for what they believe is right, and not to simply roll over. The fight with my HOA on my right to put in a trampoline is not worth killing over, but people like President Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Alexander Litvinenko have faced problems that were.

“Never threaten to cost someone more than it would cost to have you killed.” is a reasonable rule to live by.

dbuder 6y ago

Coward.

gspr 6y ago

That seems like a rule that would have a terrifying chilling effect on a lot of legitimate lawsuits.

raducu 6y ago
Luckily a lot of people live in the civilized world, where the high likelihood of being caught and prosecuted for murder and spending a lot of time in jail, make murder a not so reasonable option -- assuming we are talking about psychopaths willing to kill someone for financial gain. Murder is nowadays an option for few criminal organizations -- such as the USA government, the British Royal House (remember, Epstein didn't kill himself), the Russian Government or the mafia or some drug gangs.
- tbonepickens 6y ago
  "remember, Epstein didn't kill himself" - citation needed I get that Epstein's death was fishy, I myself very much think so, but "Epstein didn't kill himself" isn't a factual statement because there still lies a possibility that he took his own life
- a1369209993 6y ago
  Nitpick: a government technically isn't a criminal organization because they define "criminal" to not include themselves.

raducu 6y ago

You also have to factor in the feasibility of that someone being able to get away with murder, then you must factor in how valuable a couple decades in prison is worth to them, and how prone they are to taking such risks.

pstrateman 6y ago
> You also have to factor in the feasibility of that someone being able to get away with murder How would it matter to the person in this example? They're already dead...
- raducu 6y ago
  I was just pointing out it is not just a monetary issue and most of the successful criminals are intelligent actors.

AtHeartEngineer 6y ago

I disagree, this discounts the martyr

basseq 6y ago

With the important caveats of 1) the implicit costs of murder-for-hire are probably pretty high (risk of going to jail, e.g.) and 2) killing someone doesn't necessarily make the lawsuit go away—though that doesn't help the person being killed. So the utility formula is something like: (p[c] * c[f] + c[a]) ÷ p[l] > c[l] where: p[c] = probability of getting caught p[l] = probability of the lawsuit being dropped c[f] = value of your freedom c[a] = cost of an assassin c[l] = cost of losing the lawsuit You can layer in additional probabilities—like the probability of the assassination being successful, or the probability of winning the case. This is just fun to talk about the utility formula of assassinations on HN. But it's probably true that as c[l] increases, c[f] increases as well, and p[l] drops. So it's rarely (never?) worth this trade-off.

catalogia 6y ago
You forgot 'probability that your opponent reasons matters like this out rationally', which is a big one I think.
- basseq 6y ago
  Which, if you want to get pedantic—and yes! let's get pedantic!—probably correlates with a lower probability that the assassination isn't successful. Because if they're irrational, they're going to end up meeting an undercover cop in the parking lot of the local K-Mart or something. See also: Tiger King. Which is probably the best citation and the best thing I'll type all day.
  - fragmede 6y ago
    Ah yes, Tiger King, a well balanced documentary that presents an in-depth look at the practices of murder for hire, and not a lurid tale of entertainment so Netflix can make more money. Popular media, especially shows like CSI and Law and Order, have an incentive to show the rich white folk how resolute the government is, and just how much no one could ever get away with murder. The reality's a bit different, and as recent events have shown, the police aren't above murder anyway. They protect their own and accept murderers in their ranks. So, an ex-cop or current cop is probably the best person to properly incentivize to commit murder. For them, `p[c] = probability of getting caught` expands to a[c] = probability of getting caught a[b] = probability of there being no repercussions despite getting caught. But if we're gonna base today's lesson on how to get away with murder on the show Tiger King, the two step lesson it teaches is: 1. own a tiger sanctuary. 2. feed your husband to the tigers for lunch.

fragmede 6y ago

Logical, and I host most of us are able to live a life of such privilege. In desperate times, however, there are those who are forced to stand up for what they believe is right, and not to simply roll over. The fight with my HOA on my right to put in a trampoline is not worth killing over, but people like President Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Alexander Litvinenko have faced problems that were.