1488
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
1488 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
58073 readers
3060 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
One death is coincidental, two is suspicious, any more and it’s gonna become plainly obvious, and now there’s 10. That’s just delicious. They can’t silence them all.
1 dead whistleblower is a tragedy. 10 dead whistleblowers are a statistic.
nice reference 10/10
2/12
2/12 so far
10/10 survive yes?
I give it a perfect 5/7
With rice?
sadfsdfasfasf
So in other words, very plausible deniability.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/heart-attack-gun
We had that tech in 1968. I'm pretty sure it would be a matter of a phone call and some change from the couch cushions for Boeing to create the recent outcome.
Does this mean they did it? No.
Does it warrant the reaction folks are having about it? Absolutely yes. (Edit - In light of their current troubles and the fate of the prior whistleblower.)
Aside from the puncture wound.
From the article:
They may have ironed that out, this article is talking about tech that is more than half a century old. We got from first aeroplane to man on the moon in less than that.
Which can be missed by an examiner
sadfsdfasfasf
Literally no one has made that statement, including me, the guy who brought up the heart attack gun. Take a breath man.
sadfsdfasfasf
Plonk.
sadfsdfasfasf
I stand by that statement, and don't feel like trying again to connect the dots on the relevancy of my example for you. Whatever you are arguing about is - not the same.
sadfsdfasfasf
And it is suspected that thousand of elderly people are murdered every year, but it is ruled as a natural death, because the demographic is prone to natural deaths and nobody bothers to check further.
At the very least demanding a throughout investigation in both cases is absolutely reasonable.
sadfsdfasfasf
The first wasn't coincidental. He said "hey they might murder me" then he died right before testifying.
Well, iirc he didn’t show for his deposition, or the day after, or the day after that, at which point the lawyers sent people to find him and found he “committed suicide”.
This is after he said “I am absolutely not going to commit suicide over this. If I die and people say it was suicide, I was killed.”
Even one death under these circumstances is not a coincidence, and that ought to be coded into law. You'd better fucking well hope the person who blows a whistle on you is healthy - that's the world we should move towards. Not that that couldn't also be abused, but the pendulum is way too fucking far this way.
Can't or won't?
Seriously, though, I wouldn't be surprised, if a bunch of suicides or "retractions" are happening soon.
How about 2 million if you shut up? No? How about we publish this dirt on you? Would be a shame, if some nameless robber orphans your children.
Any serious issue should have a paper trail of some sort. Emails, meetings, part rejections, that sort of thing. There are processes in place to allow anonymous reporting of some of these things.
Planely obvious
But you wont argue that 10 dead whistblowers can still be a tremendous coincidence, right?
How is your polonium tea comrade?
I still don't see why they can't.