OpenSorceress

@zmerch alternatively, maybe they go to the range and practice shooting like it was their job :D

@phyrfox Or silver. Maybe our taxpayer hitman only takes contracts on werewolves. XD

@gerrit I hesitate to speculate on cartel industry standards :P but if the job is trafficker, that means they're international and/or at scale, so I'd say they're subcontracting :D

@zmerch Whether or not the taxpayer is good at their illegal source income thing isn't the question :P and who knows? Maybe that hitman taxpayer is Deadpool :P

Basically, as far as the IRS is concerned, you'd be self-employed (SB/SE.) They would expect you to file and pay in your own withholding in the form of quarterly estimated income taxes, then when you file your annual return, it would be on a 1099-S (Miscellaneous / self-employed, contractor, etc.) The quarterly filings with whatever accounting you could provide would be referenced if you got audited against whatever financial accounts, assets of value, etc. you own.

In order to file the original return claiming the income, you'd have to demonstrate some kind of accounting (the drug dealer sticker-booklets, or something.) If you got audited, all of your financial transactions would come under review for however far back the audit covers. The IRS would have to find some degree of proof of you having somehow attained that as income, and depending on how they classified it, you could easily end up owing 80K as a result (windfall tax.) It could go a lot of ways; personally, I recommend none of them :P

@Obie2.0 Sorry, I was awkwardly trying to reference a question you asked in chat with the much more common, much less good-faith version of the same ("links pls.") but that connection would be ambiguous and damn these tiny comments. I'm in that chat, btw.

@Obie2.0 an assssment of that nature was the subject of the research provided, (although scoped to Stack Overflow.) One of the observations made by the researchers was the paralyzing effect of the strident resistance to assessments for and out of hostility toward this purpose ...basically in exactly the same spirit as Philipp has done here. You requested specific examples - how about this answer that we're commenting on right now. :)

Fromthe research answer - I mention specifically to read the comments carefully. In the comments of that answer I linked to another Meta Stack answer whose comments are truly enlightening: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/290727/… where this diamond moderator openly admits to discriminating against women - and nobody objects or finds this remiss at any point meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/254891/…

*Perception of gender disparities. One of the problems that often arises stems from the repeated subsequent handling of that hypothetical example has a way of conferring the weight of cross-referenced statement of fact. It further exposes a certain selective failure to interrogate that is not nearly as common under any other circumstances, which in turn points to a presumption that standards for citing are dramatically lowered in a manner which is consistently convenient to a male corporatist interest - ie, this can be measured according to who omits/demands sources, etc. and who obliges.

And it's impossible to tender the even an abridged version of the full scope of those observed patterns here in comments, just the ones that have turned up here in the comments - all I can do is assert that they exist and handwave at the paper somebody else wrote that alludes to the same. Also, protip, it is possible to observe those same patterns yourself pretty easily. Just pick a board, search a tag like "gender" or "feminism" and look for commonalities in responses.

@Obie2.0 It seems I was unclear, probably a consequence of my runaway negative feelings late at night. My remarks were more a much more broadly scoped observation of a pattern of behavior - of voicing a certain subset of presumptions and conclusions communicated with an observable shift in priorities (a singular lack of rigor being one example, by inventing statistical figures when actual data is assumed to not exist before effort is made to find any) not an indictment of you personally. I should have said "y'all" instead of you, or something.

@janh By the way, if it hasn't been made crystal clear, I am absolutely feeling the same "vibe" as referenced by AquaticFire. Not that you'll acknowledge that I'm a woman seconding her motion as it's own concrete, specific example. Toward that, you were provided with the research up-thread and just clearly declined to review it, but nobody's going to hold you or any other dude here to that, because that's just not how Stack works. If I were to voice my actual opinion of any this, I would be met with immediate adverse administrative consequences. Because that's how Stack works.

@Obie2.0 You appear to have completely skipped the research I provided that breaks down the participation of women on Stack Overflow in detail along with why women make ourselves invisible. To summarize that paper since you cba to read it: threads like this, to which men flock to post sentiments like these (as with this thread, almost always unchallenged by any so-called allies), are why we don't appear to participate. :) It's deliberate, and it's because of behavior including yours here and througout Stack that we feel compelled to hide. Yes, we're hiding. From you.

To clarify, it's not my research, I just found it. meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/290727/… Delineated here. I have further thoughts regarding the impact and implication. Also, read the comments responding to that answer carefully. And, you're not alone. This started in 2015 with Tableflip. My Twitter handle is the same as my handle here if you'd like to chat. :)

@AquaticFire I would have a very different answer than the ones provided, but I know better than to share what I think here. The opportunity-cost analysis does not pan out in favor of making the effort against the backdrop of just this one specific answer and comment thread, let alone my personal experience. I'm disinlined to expose myself to the negging a public answer from a woman inevitably, invariably draws, but feel free to ping if you want to discuss privately; I have research you may find interesting.

I maintain that this post, along with the responses by Tim Post and so forth, effectively torpedoed my dev career.

meta.stackexchange.com/questions/256254/… <- I'm one of the 2 women who was arbitrarily suspended for 7 days. My involvement in that dialogue amounted to "hi there" and "I'll go get a moderator"

I mean truly epic.

That yes, it is downright peculiar in being uncharacteristic (I don't know him but that's usually how these things work out) and yet there it stands before our eyes and that is in no way unique

Yes, and one of my core points is that Philipp and his answer here are in no way unique

The answer we were discussing could also serve as a specific example of the propensity to simply make arbitrary declarations based solely on opinion and having no discernable basis in reality - no effort to lend legitimacy through references, etc.

I have a storied history of terrible outcomes with Stack chat.

Hi :)

*Perception of gender disparities. One of the problems that often arises stems from the repeated subsequent handling of that hypothetical example has a way of conferring the weight of cross-referenced statement of fact. It further exposes a certain selective failure to interrogate that is not nearly as common under any other circumstances, which in turn points to a presumption that standards for citing are dramatically lowered in a manner which is consistently convenient to a male corporatist interest - ie, this can be measured according to who omits/demands sources, etc. and who obliges.

And it's impossible to tender the even an abridged version of the full scope of those observed patterns here in comments, just the ones that have turned up here in the comments - all I can do is assert that they exist and handwave at the paper somebody else wrote that alludes to the same. Also, protip, it is possible to observe those same patterns yourself pretty easily. Just pick a board, search a tag like "gender" or "feminism" and look for commonalities in responses.

@Obie2.0 It seems I was unclear, probably a consequence of my runaway negative feelings late at night. My remarks were more a much more broadly scoped observation of a pattern of behavior - of voicing a certain subset of presumptions and conclusions communicated with an observable shift in priorities (a singular lack of rigor being one example, by inventing statistical figures when actual data is assumed to not exist before effort is made to find any) not an indictment of you personally. I should have said "y'all" instead of you, or something.

@janh By the way, if it hasn't been made crystal clear, I am absolutely feeling the same "vibe" as referenced by AquaticFire. Not that you'll acknowledge that I'm a woman seconding her motion as it's own concrete, specific example. Toward that, you were provided with the research up-thread and just clearly declined to review it, but nobody's going to hold you or any other dude here to that, because that's just not how Stack works. If I were to voice my actual opinion of any this, I would be met with immediate adverse administrative consequences. Because that's how Stack works.

@Obie2.0 You appear to have completely skipped the research I provided that breaks down the participation of women on Stack Overflow in detail along with why women make ourselves invisible. To summarize that paper since you cba to read it: threads like this, to which men flock to post sentiments like these (as with this thread, almost always unchallenged by any so-called allies), are why we don't appear to participate. :) It's deliberate, and it's because of behavior including yours here and througout Stack that we feel compelled to hide. Yes, we're hiding. From you.

To clarify, it's not my research, I just found it. meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/290727/… Delineated here. I have further thoughts regarding the impact and implication. Also, read the comments responding to that answer carefully. And, you're not alone. This started in 2015 with Tableflip. My Twitter handle is the same as my handle here if you'd like to chat. :)

@AquaticFire I would have a very different answer than the ones provided, but I know better than to share what I think here. The opportunity-cost analysis does not pan out in favor of making the effort against the backdrop of just this one specific answer and comment thread, let alone my personal experience. I'm disinlined to expose myself to the negging a public answer from a woman inevitably, invariably draws, but feel free to ping if you want to discuss privately; I have research you may find interesting.

If I am diverting the discussion, I must not understand the question or the point of inquiry and will refrain from participating without clarification. Good luck.

@phoog According to this website, California entrapment laws zero in on the officer's conduct; the accused's intent, criminal history, and/or character are not relevant to whether they were, in fact, entrapped. I guess it comes down to the fact that when propositioned, she refused; it doesn't matter if she's a career bank robber, as long as she's not a sex worker by trade. (And again, she said no.)

There is no suggestion that she does not feel threatened by the unwanted, persistent solicitations of a strange man. If we're applying "average woman" to this scenario, that is. (Also, I meant that if the situation had moved forward in a sexual manner, coerced consent would result in sexual assault. Sorry if that was unclear.)

I don't think focusing on Betty's behavior is going to lead to the answer of, "Why was this entrapment?" because Betty said "No" the first time - not, "No, that's not enough money." "No" does not leave the question open to negotiation; the fact that Officer Jones ignored this is vital. How many times does she have to say no before it's considered sufficient refusal? This situation becomes sexual assault.

Also - the OP's class seems unorthodox, if that helps.

The OP's question could be summarized as, "what part of this situation meets the definition of entrapment that we were taught in class?" The OP does not know why, but the class defined entrapment as including pressuring, which is his best guess. Considering that almost the exact same behavior (sexual advance is made, rejected, re-attempted) would qualify as textbook sexual harassment in a workplace, this would follow - especially given the OP's further indication that we're to assume "law-abiding" is considered "average" in this case.

Refer to the comments on the OP's post for clarification of his question, thank you.

I'll be around on our slack. Email me if you want an invitation :) [email protected]

Nps.

^ that's it, it's short

win.tue.nl/~bvasiles/papers/socinfo12.pdf

It must have been deleted when Kyle suspended Evan.

struggles to find it in the post That post has been through such an unprecedented degree of drama

A link to me linking to it in the thread or just to the study itself? ;)

Yeah :/ I sort of got pressganged into helping fix it, so your input here is helping me ferret out specific problems / pain points

There's a link to a study that captured and quantified the sexism Dawn, Julia and I were discussing at length sprinkled throughout that post.

She's the second user I know of who's been driven off Stack completely so far