13 ms·

If it does go to trial it would be great for people behind this to be directly tried for their criminal actions as well. The reality is that a company is on tr

If it does go to trial it would be great for people behind this to be directly tried for their criminal actions as well. The reality is that a company is on trial for the actions of individuals and if there is no follow through on that it will not change anything. I doubt it goes to trial as I am 99% sure that the judge will rubber stamp the whole thing because the US is a corporate driven hellscape where peasants are accountable, but wealthy individuals and corporations are not.

spacecadet 2y ago
1000%
- spacecadet 2y ago
  LOL downvotes, delusional capital apologists.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    1. People can disagree for other reasons than being an apologist. 2. Saying "1000%" like that is a bad comment, so don't assume the people that downvoted even disagree with you.
    - spacecadet 2y ago
      I know. Not sure whats worse, the rules or assuming I needed your explanation without being asked. Downvote away, its all a social experiment anyways...
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        So you were complaining about the wrong thing on purpose? Even if I believe you, that's a bad social experiment. Stop wasting people's time.
        spacecadet 2y ago
        You have no idea. People waste their own time, stop playing a victim.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        People can't un-read a comment and get their time back. So for a normal-length comment, the only way to blame the reader is to suggest they shouldn't be on the site at all. If someone is causing a site to be bad on purpose, they are wasting other people's time and they need a better hobby.
        spacecadet 2y ago
        Sure. You ok? You have now "wasted" a ton of time coming back here and arguing over my original comment which took less than 1 second to read. You and other people waste their own time. Take responsibility for one's self and stop blaming others. Or shall I keep coming back to check and waste my time?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        I'm not complaining about the time it took me to reply. I'm explaining the original issue. The people that saw your waste of space calling out "delusional capital apologists" didn't ask to see your comment. When you make a bad comment on purpose, you're the only one at fault. Ignore my commentary for a second. What "responsibility" could anyone else take? The only reasonable option I see here is "don't visit HN". But if you're the person making it bad to visit HN, then the problem is you, in a way that cannot be deflected.
        spacecadet 2y ago
        The problem is always everyone else to you.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
tsunamifury 2y ago
You really want the engineer who was last on the line of decisions to go to jail? Because that’s how this will go.
- WinstonSmith84 2y ago
  Such decisions are way above the pay grade of random engineers
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    Never forget Kareem Serageldin - the one person who went to jail for the 2007 financial crisis. In fairness, he was an exec making $7M per year - so not a nobody, but he was only managing 70 people (Credit Suisse was a ~50k person company), and obviously not the only person who should've went to jail.
    - sgammon 2y ago
      A systemic failure doesn't necessarily mean that people should go to jail; Kareem lied about the price of bonds and deserved jail time.
      - underlipton 2y ago
        Everyone lied about the price of bonds, that's why our major investment banks still exist (though, I suppose CS doesn't at this point; that's another story).
        sgammon 2y ago
        What is your point? (1) That others should have gone to jail too, or that (2) Kareem was only doing what everyone else was doing? For (1), were other people prosecuted? Maybe there was insufficient evidence or process issues that got in the way of additional convictions. For (2), how does that excuse a crime? Kareem's story is fascinating for many reasons and I don't find lying about bond prices to be a crime to hate someone over. But, a crime it is, nonetheless.
eastbound 2y ago
95% of US inmates are on plea deal, which means the prosecutor never had to prove the charges before the (potentially) criminal admitted it. It is unfair for those who admitted the charges because they believed they couldn’t defend themselves further. So the Boeing trial being on plea deal would be on paar with that standard…
- dfxm12 2y ago
  Can you explain your line of thinking for saying this? Because to me, the standard for such a big company, getting so many public dollars, that is responsible for the safety of a ton of Americans (and more) should obviously be more strict (for at least those reasons) compared to an individual who can't afford a good lawyer who had just a little too much weed on them.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    The largest share of convicted inmates in the US were convicted of violent crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, or assault. Simple marijuana possession makes up a tiny share. And less than half of the violent crimes committed in the US lead to a conviction.
    - underlipton 2y ago
      Couple of things: 1) Citation needed. Particularly if you're talking about federal inmates, state, or both. 2) It's disingenuous (re: primacy bias) to lead off with murder and rape, which account for a far smaller portion of "violent" crime than robbery (which I assume includes burglary, in which the victim and perpetrator don't make contact) and assault (which, again, does not require the victim and perpetrator to physically make contact (that's battery)). All of this is aside fact that an individual who allegedly commits a heinous act against another person or small group of people is in a completely different class from a large corporation whose products put millions at risk (and the executives and managers who sign off on those company's decisions). There is quite the destructive myopia behind the increasingly punitive (rather than rehabilitative) nature of incarceration for the former, when the latter get off so easy.
diob 2y ago
Don't worry, it's now legal for the judge and everyone else involved to get a nice present from Boeing, as long as it happens afterwards! :(
- mlekoszek 2y ago
  Wait... explain.
  - ssklash 2y ago
    A recent Supreme Court ruling allows pretty much exactly this...
    - squigz 2y ago
      What ruling? What, more precisely than "pretty much this", does it allow?
      - dboreham 2y ago
        Bribery.
        sixothree 2y ago
        Well. Literally bribery. As long as you don’t document the interaction and as long as the payment is after the fact, yeah. Bribery.
  - ilyagr 2y ago
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop... Somewhat opinionated, but clearer explanation: https://jacobin.com/2024/06/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-kavanaugh https://jacobin.com/2024/06/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-... Perhaps somebody finds a better overview.
    - 2y ago

spacecadet 2y ago

1000%

spacecadet 2y ago
LOL downvotes, delusional capital apologists.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  1. People can disagree for other reasons than being an apologist. 2. Saying "1000%" like that is a bad comment, so don't assume the people that downvoted even disagree with you.
  - spacecadet 2y ago
    I know. Not sure whats worse, the rules or assuming I needed your explanation without being asked. Downvote away, its all a social experiment anyways...
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      So you were complaining about the wrong thing on purpose? Even if I believe you, that's a bad social experiment. Stop wasting people's time.
      - spacecadet 2y ago
        You have no idea. People waste their own time, stop playing a victim.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        People can't un-read a comment and get their time back. So for a normal-length comment, the only way to blame the reader is to suggest they shouldn't be on the site at all. If someone is causing a site to be bad on purpose, they are wasting other people's time and they need a better hobby.
        spacecadet 2y ago
        Sure. You ok? You have now "wasted" a ton of time coming back here and arguing over my original comment which took less than 1 second to read. You and other people waste their own time. Take responsibility for one's self and stop blaming others. Or shall I keep coming back to check and waste my time?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        I'm not complaining about the time it took me to reply. I'm explaining the original issue. The people that saw your waste of space calling out "delusional capital apologists" didn't ask to see your comment. When you make a bad comment on purpose, you're the only one at fault. Ignore my commentary for a second. What "responsibility" could anyone else take? The only reasonable option I see here is "don't visit HN". But if you're the person making it bad to visit HN, then the problem is you, in a way that cannot be deflected.
        spacecadet 2y ago
        The problem is always everyone else to you.
        Dylan16807 2y ago

tsunamifury 2y ago

You really want the engineer who was last on the line of decisions to go to jail? Because that’s how this will go.

WinstonSmith84 2y ago
Such decisions are way above the pay grade of random engineers
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  Never forget Kareem Serageldin - the one person who went to jail for the 2007 financial crisis. In fairness, he was an exec making $7M per year - so not a nobody, but he was only managing 70 people (Credit Suisse was a ~50k person company), and obviously not the only person who should've went to jail.
  - sgammon 2y ago
    A systemic failure doesn't necessarily mean that people should go to jail; Kareem lied about the price of bonds and deserved jail time.
    - underlipton 2y ago
      Everyone lied about the price of bonds, that's why our major investment banks still exist (though, I suppose CS doesn't at this point; that's another story).
      - sgammon 2y ago
        What is your point? (1) That others should have gone to jail too, or that (2) Kareem was only doing what everyone else was doing? For (1), were other people prosecuted? Maybe there was insufficient evidence or process issues that got in the way of additional convictions. For (2), how does that excuse a crime? Kareem's story is fascinating for many reasons and I don't find lying about bond prices to be a crime to hate someone over. But, a crime it is, nonetheless.

eastbound 2y ago

95% of US inmates are on plea deal, which means the prosecutor never had to prove the charges before the (potentially) criminal admitted it. It is unfair for those who admitted the charges because they believed they couldn’t defend themselves further. So the Boeing trial being on plea deal would be on paar with that standard…

dfxm12 2y ago
Can you explain your line of thinking for saying this? Because to me, the standard for such a big company, getting so many public dollars, that is responsible for the safety of a ton of Americans (and more) should obviously be more strict (for at least those reasons) compared to an individual who can't afford a good lawyer who had just a little too much weed on them.
- philwelch 2y ago
  The largest share of convicted inmates in the US were convicted of violent crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, or assault. Simple marijuana possession makes up a tiny share. And less than half of the violent crimes committed in the US lead to a conviction.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    Couple of things: 1) Citation needed. Particularly if you're talking about federal inmates, state, or both. 2) It's disingenuous (re: primacy bias) to lead off with murder and rape, which account for a far smaller portion of "violent" crime than robbery (which I assume includes burglary, in which the victim and perpetrator don't make contact) and assault (which, again, does not require the victim and perpetrator to physically make contact (that's battery)). All of this is aside fact that an individual who allegedly commits a heinous act against another person or small group of people is in a completely different class from a large corporation whose products put millions at risk (and the executives and managers who sign off on those company's decisions). There is quite the destructive myopia behind the increasingly punitive (rather than rehabilitative) nature of incarceration for the former, when the latter get off so easy.

diob 2y ago

Don't worry, it's now legal for the judge and everyone else involved to get a nice present from Boeing, as long as it happens afterwards! :(

mlekoszek 2y ago
Wait... explain.
- ssklash 2y ago
  A recent Supreme Court ruling allows pretty much exactly this...
  - squigz 2y ago
    What ruling? What, more precisely than "pretty much this", does it allow?
    - dboreham 2y ago
      Bribery.
      - sixothree 2y ago
        Well. Literally bribery. As long as you don’t document the interaction and as long as the payment is after the fact, yeah. Bribery.
- ilyagr 2y ago
  https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop... Somewhat opinionated, but clearer explanation: https://jacobin.com/2024/06/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-kavanaugh https://jacobin.com/2024/06/supreme-court-corruption-thomas-... Perhaps somebody finds a better overview.
  - 2y ago