<< (a) trying to prosecute the con men (helps no one, is just a punishment)
I take issue with this statement. I accept that there are limited resources and there is a question of how to use those resources wisely. However, there is a reason beyond simple question of karma/balance for a society to ensure that sufficiently egregious crime is punished. I absolutely disagree that it helps no one as it very well may stem a tide of future con-men, which is not without a toll.
Now compare that to option c ( other policy change ), which, in current gridlock setup seems somewhat unlikely.
That said, I accept that there are other considerations at play here.
Yeah, but you already have a police/justice system, right? From the perspective of a politician, the decision (a) is more about "prioritize the police/justice system to do its work on these cases". The justice will have to drop something else they are doing to work on this, and that something else might be beneficial in preventing the future crime in the same way you're arguing. (If you mean make sure systemic changes are made to the prioritization, that's another variant of the (b) option.)
But to be honest, I am not sure retributive punishment really prevents crime all that well. U.S. has a lot of laws against fraud, and has a pretty good track record in investigating and punishing as far as different governments do, and fraudsters still appear. I think in most cases, people aren't rational about committing a crime, they often self-delude themselves somehow that whatever they are doing is morally acceptable. I think there was an interview with the FTX CEO, who answered the interviewer's question with incredulous "the way you describe what we do, it indeed looks like a fraud". So I think some people have the ability NOT to see their pyramid scheme as a pyramid scheme.
On the other hand, people who will rationally consider whether to do a crime or not, should not necessarily think that because someone got away with a crime, they will get away with it too. You might as well think that the police/justice will be better prepared to a similar crime now.
Your comment is dumb. That’s the bulk of it. She’s a Congresswoman. Judging her on what she didn’t say is nonsense. It’s not particularly related to her. Why would she comment on it? Do you need her to make a press conference to confirm it was bad?
I literally have not heard a single word about her since all the Conservatives were whining about her during the 2016 elections, and then whining about her now in the above comments.
I once watched a scrub jay (who had a feud with the local squirrel) very deliberately lay a peanut vertically in mulch, tap it into the ground, and lay a large square of bark over top. It was very pleasingly methodical bird.
Medium was always a hobby for Ev, it seemed. You guys were in the same building as me for a few years (760 market). I think we may have even subletted from you at one point. But even back then it seemed like you had too many people. You can't get rid of substack, but you can differentiate. I'd suggest going all in on a decentralized platform. It's clear mastodon and others currently on the market will never cross the chasm. You have the network effect to do so while at the same time offering something different.
