4 ms·
There’s no question that it’s sabotage. The only thing left to prove is the culprit, which is with 99% the manufacturer (motive, means, opportunity) but obvious
by klabb3 3y ago
There’s no question that it’s sabotage. The only thing left to prove is the culprit, which is with 99% the manufacturer (motive, means, opportunity) but obviously need to be established in a court who is responsible and criminally culpable.
The fact that lawmakers, courts and the public are lost in the tech is a problem, but surely this crime can be fitted into existing criminal code against sabotage… although the methods are “new” the crime itself is classic.
- dexterdog 3y ago"Lawlessness is the condition in which your adversary refers you to a law he made."
- jancsika 3y agoIt's almost like you found a lossy encoding for discussing governance. For example, both the NYC taxi medallion system and warlords controlling a city in a failed state would get input as "lawlessness" in your encoding. But then if I ask what is the quality of life in each instance, I can't get that answer because there aren't bits in your encoding for that.