4 ms·

Flock (YC S17)

ryandvm 2mo ago
Ugh. It hurts my brain to think about the Venn diagram of privacy advocates and YC sycophants that hang out on Hacker News.
- nekusar 2mo ago
  YCombinator and HN would run a "Slit your mommas throat as a service" if they though there were hockey stick growth profit. Flock, and anybody who funds them are the real domestic terrorists. Anybody who destroys these devices are patriots in my book. And if I ever serve for jury duty over a case like that, they didn't do it.
  - dylan604 2mo ago
    > And if I ever serve for jury duty over a case like that, they didn't do it. Now you're bending facts. You can decide they are not guilty of a crime, but you can't make them have not done it.
    - lovich 2mo ago
      He’s referencing jury nullification. Juries actually can “make them have not done it”, although that’s been used for good and ill purposes.
      - sib 2mo ago
        "Not guilty" does not mean "did not do it" - it means "the state didn't prove that they did it beyond a reasonable doubt."
        nekusar 2mo ago
        Exactly. I think as a citizen and a 2x juror, that it is our responsibility first to determine if a law should be a law for all. Secondly, if the law passes scrutiny, ONLY then should we determine guilt or innocence. I am highly disincentivised in seeing victimless crimes as crimes. Like drug usage and all that. Or destruction of horrific security appratus like Flock. Simply put, the laws wrong. And that means 'Not Guilty' for anyone I would have to judge, even if they admitted it in open court. (I'm also aware that jury nullification has also been used to find black lynching perpetrators to be not guilty of the same nullification. I said that I judge a law if it should be. Murder is pretty clearly not victimless, but extenuating circumstances like self defense are a thing. Lynching is terrible, and so is freeing lynching perpe-traitors.)
        lovich 2mo ago
        Yea and that’s effectively “did not do it” when it comes to anything involving consequences. It was obvious what the rhetorical point `nekusar was making. I’ll give you the pedantic point of being technically correct when looking at it from a gods eye view.
        dylan604 2mo ago
        But for the purposes of doing something in protest like destroying flock cameras, the person doesn't want to be known as not doing it. They want people to know they did it, and why they did it. They want the cred. So saying they didn't do it is not helping the cause. Accepting they did it while returning not guilty is the desired outcome. Having juries return not guilty verdicts when someone very clearly did something is a good step in having stupid laws overturned. Even if they don't get removed, it shows police and prosecutors that that juries are not going to convict for this type of case. You'd have to be a Jeanine Pirro type to be willing to bring cases that are known losers. Rational prosecutors will not.
    - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
      If you really want to nitpick, juries are what settle questions of facts.
      - dylan604 2mo ago
        You can agree that the person did the act yet still find them not guilty. The fact is still the fact. As someone else stated, not guilty does not mean they did not do it. It just means they do not want to say they are guilty. There's only two options. If if you do not choose "guilty" the only option remaining is "not guilty".
    - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
      And you're just being a pedant, aiming for the worst kind of correct.
      - dylan604 2mo ago
        nope, read my response lower in this thread before your knee jerk reaction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49158933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49158933
        xboxnolifes 2mo ago
        You're being a pedant because it's a common saying to say "if they did it, no they didn't". Everyone knows what is meant by saying it. Going through all of those words to explain what everyone already knows is what it means to be a pedant.
  - bob001 2mo ago
    > YCombinator and HN would run a "Slit your mommas throat as a service" if they though there were hockey stick growth profit. While saying they're making the world a better place in the process. At least Wall Street sharks tend to be honest about their motivations and lack of giving a shit about you.
- _def 2mo ago
  Human rights are really important to us!* *As long as it doesn't prevent us from getting rich.
- yomismoaqui 2mo ago
  Money is a nice balm for cognitive dissonance.
zuzululu 2mo ago
not a good look for YC

Flock (YC S17)

Ugh. It hurts my brain to think about the Venn diagram of privacy advocates and YC sycophants that hang out on Hacker News.

nekusar 2mo ago
YCombinator and HN would run a "Slit your mommas throat as a service" if they though there were hockey stick growth profit. Flock, and anybody who funds them are the real domestic terrorists. Anybody who destroys these devices are patriots in my book. And if I ever serve for jury duty over a case like that, they didn't do it.
- dylan604 2mo ago
  > And if I ever serve for jury duty over a case like that, they didn't do it. Now you're bending facts. You can decide they are not guilty of a crime, but you can't make them have not done it.
  - lovich 2mo ago
    He’s referencing jury nullification. Juries actually can “make them have not done it”, although that’s been used for good and ill purposes.
    - sib 2mo ago
      "Not guilty" does not mean "did not do it" - it means "the state didn't prove that they did it beyond a reasonable doubt."
      - nekusar 2mo ago
        Exactly. I think as a citizen and a 2x juror, that it is our responsibility first to determine if a law should be a law for all. Secondly, if the law passes scrutiny, ONLY then should we determine guilt or innocence. I am highly disincentivised in seeing victimless crimes as crimes. Like drug usage and all that. Or destruction of horrific security appratus like Flock. Simply put, the laws wrong. And that means 'Not Guilty' for anyone I would have to judge, even if they admitted it in open court. (I'm also aware that jury nullification has also been used to find black lynching perpetrators to be not guilty of the same nullification. I said that I judge a law if it should be. Murder is pretty clearly not victimless, but extenuating circumstances like self defense are a thing. Lynching is terrible, and so is freeing lynching perpe-traitors.)
      - lovich 2mo ago
        Yea and that’s effectively “did not do it” when it comes to anything involving consequences. It was obvious what the rhetorical point `nekusar was making. I’ll give you the pedantic point of being technically correct when looking at it from a gods eye view.
        dylan604 2mo ago
        But for the purposes of doing something in protest like destroying flock cameras, the person doesn't want to be known as not doing it. They want people to know they did it, and why they did it. They want the cred. So saying they didn't do it is not helping the cause. Accepting they did it while returning not guilty is the desired outcome. Having juries return not guilty verdicts when someone very clearly did something is a good step in having stupid laws overturned. Even if they don't get removed, it shows police and prosecutors that that juries are not going to convict for this type of case. You'd have to be a Jeanine Pirro type to be willing to bring cases that are known losers. Rational prosecutors will not.
  - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
    If you really want to nitpick, juries are what settle questions of facts.
    - dylan604 2mo ago
      You can agree that the person did the act yet still find them not guilty. The fact is still the fact. As someone else stated, not guilty does not mean they did not do it. It just means they do not want to say they are guilty. There's only two options. If if you do not choose "guilty" the only option remaining is "not guilty".
  - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
    And you're just being a pedant, aiming for the worst kind of correct.
    - dylan604 2mo ago
      nope, read my response lower in this thread before your knee jerk reaction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49158933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49158933
      - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
        You're being a pedant because it's a common saying to say "if they did it, no they didn't". Everyone knows what is meant by saying it. Going through all of those words to explain what everyone already knows is what it means to be a pedant.
- bob001 2mo ago
  > YCombinator and HN would run a "Slit your mommas throat as a service" if they though there were hockey stick growth profit. While saying they're making the world a better place in the process. At least Wall Street sharks tend to be honest about their motivations and lack of giving a shit about you.
_def 2mo ago
Human rights are really important to us!* *As long as it doesn't prevent us from getting rich.
yomismoaqui 2mo ago
Money is a nice balm for cognitive dissonance.

zuzululu 2mo ago

not a good look for YC