this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
722 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
60112 readers
3513 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they did that and the real killer killed again, what would that achieve? Or is this a one-and-done thing?
Not that I'm fully on board with the theory, but you might be surprised how often "solving" a high profile case is placed above actually getting the right man.
This is a publicity nightmare for the police, and getting someone in custody "achieves" placating the public and key stakeholders.
Repeating things about this kids views on the Uni-bomber and referring to his writings as a manifesto "achieves" diminishing his status as a folk hero.
So while I won't endorse any particular theory until more evidence comes out, it wouldn't be the first time putting a scapegoat in jail was deemed more important than letting people think the "perp" got away. Even if the hypothetical real shooter kills again, controlling the narrative can be it's own goal in cases like this.
More dead CEOs, I guess. I'm down with that.
I doubt you will be when the costs of everything go up due to all the corporations hiring massive security teams.
Something that doesn't seem to occur to so many of you and something most of you have no response to. In fact, the only response I occasionally get is that it's worth the cost, which seems to go against the whole reason for the assassination in the first place.
How much do you think it costs to hire a security detail? I'm pretty sure security for the entire C-suite would be a tiny drop in the bucket for most mega-corporations.
Whether it costs a dollar or a billion dollars, who do you think is going to pay for it?
If they could squeeze out an extra dollar then they would already do so. They don't need to justify it as "increased security costs".
When have they ever rased rates without giving a justification? Please show me.
Nah, I'm good. Clearly our opinions differ. It's of no interest to me to collate a bunch of sources just for you to dismiss in bad faith.
Feel free to find sources to support your own argument though if you like.
In other words, you can't show me because you can't back up your claim. Got it.
Dude, you're the one asserting that healthcare costs will rise due to increased security requirements.
I don't quite follow why the onus is on me to backup my retort.
Because you said they don't need to justify raising rates. Do I really need to show you that insurance companies give reasons for raising rates?
No, neither of us need to do anything.
But only one of us has said that they won't back up their claim. I just said I would if you needed me to. Maybe because you can't.
You're a very strange person.
I'm sure you find it strange that people dare to suggest you back up your claims in case you might be wrong, but I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that you're not always right.