4 ms·

In his sentencing statement, Judge Edward Davila said the case was "troubling on so many levels." "What went wrong? This is sad because Ms. Holmes is brilliant

In his sentencing statement, Judge Edward Davila said the case was "troubling on so many levels." "What went wrong? This is sad because Ms. Holmes is brilliant.” Brilliant of what? Of dressing in black turtleneck and imitating Steve Jobs? Able to lower her voice one octave down?

vagrantJin 4y ago
> What went wrong? This is sad because Ms. Holmes is brilliant. This statement right here. The fact that a supposedly impartial judge is having a crisis of reasoning... The joke being "all equal before the law", the punchline being that aristocrat/peasant social structure is doing better than ever inside a self-proclaimed "republic"
- Laforet 4y ago
  The laws of the republic are only as impartial as the people enforcing them. Unfortunately charisma works in mysterious ways.
- leobg 4y ago
  Isn’t the argument, “This is especially bad because she had the foundation to use her intelligence in ways not useful to society. She took to crime not because she was raised in the wrong milieu or saw no other chance to survive with what she had. She took to crime by choice. Not only did she caused damage by what she did. She also caused society damage by withholding her talents, for which society, too, had paid, from real tasks facing us.”
  - vagrantJin 4y ago
    I am merely pointing out something we can all see, but pretend not to. Can you imagine the judge in a serial killers murder case going on about how talented the killer was in cutting up body parts and could have contributed to society by being a specialist amputator. Poor thing just made a bad choice. Now we put away such a talented amputator in prison and the world is darker for it. Oh woe!
xerxesaa 4y ago
She did get into Stanford. Not sure if that's a great proxy for talent, but I'm guessing she was somewhat strong academically.
- wombat-man 4y ago
  She probably could have had a perfectly nice career working somewhere in tech or anywhere in corporate america I guess.
  - tinco 4y ago
    Could she really though? She was in her 2nd year of Stanford when she dropped out to "revolutionize" the field. Despite the reputation, and I'm sure it's a magical place, but no university in the world is going to make you an expert in a field just in the second year of an undergraduate degree. The fact that she could not be convinced of the impossibility of her ideas by her professor who could give a clear falsifying experiment did not bode well for her. Also, the medical field is far removed from me, but she was a programmer in high school and claimed she made money selling C++ compilers to Chinese universities. That's just bullshit. Even if you do a favorable interpretation and assume they mean compilers written in C++, what would they be compiling that a university would pay money for?
    - wombat-man 4y ago
      It probably breaks down to whether or not she wants to play the game or not. If she's smart enough to get in a school like that she can certainly handle corporate BSing. I guess she could maybe be a PM or possibly make it in banking.

vagrantJin 4y ago

> What went wrong? This is sad because Ms. Holmes is brilliant. This statement right here. The fact that a supposedly impartial judge is having a crisis of reasoning... The joke being "all equal before the law", the punchline being that aristocrat/peasant social structure is doing better than ever inside a self-proclaimed "republic"

Laforet 4y ago
The laws of the republic are only as impartial as the people enforcing them. Unfortunately charisma works in mysterious ways.
leobg 4y ago
Isn’t the argument, “This is especially bad because she had the foundation to use her intelligence in ways not useful to society. She took to crime not because she was raised in the wrong milieu or saw no other chance to survive with what she had. She took to crime by choice. Not only did she caused damage by what she did. She also caused society damage by withholding her talents, for which society, too, had paid, from real tasks facing us.”
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  I am merely pointing out something we can all see, but pretend not to. Can you imagine the judge in a serial killers murder case going on about how talented the killer was in cutting up body parts and could have contributed to society by being a specialist amputator. Poor thing just made a bad choice. Now we put away such a talented amputator in prison and the world is darker for it. Oh woe!

xerxesaa 4y ago

She did get into Stanford. Not sure if that's a great proxy for talent, but I'm guessing she was somewhat strong academically.

wombat-man 4y ago
She probably could have had a perfectly nice career working somewhere in tech or anywhere in corporate america I guess.
- tinco 4y ago
  Could she really though? She was in her 2nd year of Stanford when she dropped out to "revolutionize" the field. Despite the reputation, and I'm sure it's a magical place, but no university in the world is going to make you an expert in a field just in the second year of an undergraduate degree. The fact that she could not be convinced of the impossibility of her ideas by her professor who could give a clear falsifying experiment did not bode well for her. Also, the medical field is far removed from me, but she was a programmer in high school and claimed she made money selling C++ compilers to Chinese universities. That's just bullshit. Even if you do a favorable interpretation and assume they mean compilers written in C++, what would they be compiling that a university would pay money for?
  - wombat-man 4y ago
    It probably breaks down to whether or not she wants to play the game or not. If she's smart enough to get in a school like that she can certainly handle corporate BSing. I guess she could maybe be a PM or possibly make it in banking.