Stack Exchange
log in

SnakeDoc

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
SnakeDoc
Oct 20, 2023 21:05
@ohwilleke What I am disputing is how these events would actually take place, regardless of what the theory may say. If a diplomat killed people in the US on purpose and for political reasons (ie. assassination), I find it impossibly unlikely the US just allows the person to leave. DUI, manslaughter, any sort of accidental killing is not the dispute, and diplomats/assassins being whisked away even before they can be expelled is also not the dispute. The dispute is someone waiving a diplomatic passport around and getting to kill indiscriminately. That's just absurd.
SnakeDoc
Oct 20, 2023 21:05
Does anyone have an example where an assassin went around killing people and claiming diplomatic immunity, then kept killing? This is a ridiculous debate to be having.
SnakeDoc
Oct 20, 2023 21:05
@ohwilleke The examples you have produced do not demonstrate the point you are attempting to make. The killer(s) were whisked away before capture, and fled the country. In none of your presented articles is there an assassin roaming the streets, killing people, then brandishing their diplomatic credentials and moving onto the next victims. Real life isn't a Lethal Weapon plot or something...
SnakeDoc
Oct 20, 2023 21:05
@ohwilleke How about you show me an example where a government assassin went around killing people, was caught, and then released back to their country. There are no such cases.
SnakeDoc
Oct 20, 2023 21:05
@ohwilleke Life isn't a movie. Foreign Agents are not allowed to kill on US territory, period. If they do, they will face legal consequences if caught. Diplomatic cover is specifically about plausible deniability for espionage and to provide a, on paper, valid reason for someone to be in the country. A spy, flatly, cannot just kill someone and fly away unless they are not caught (in which case it's no different than any other murder).
SnakeDoc
Oct 20, 2023 21:05
@knallfrosch The sentiment of your comment is sound, but that specific example is ridiculous. "Opened door too fast" is not a crime, so at most this is manslaughter (in the US, not sure what Germany would call it but it was not deliberate). Once the person leaves the country, what is Germany going to do about it? Invade so they can punish one guy for an accidental death? Not going to happen... Now, if that diplomat went around killing people as some sort of assassin/agent then they would 100% face legal consequences if caught.
 

 Discussion on question by Eternal_Eth…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
SnakeDoc
Mar 11, 2023 08:39
@CodeCaster It's a pretty reasonable expectation to assume a prospecting Software Engineer be capable of setting up a development environment for the language they are being hired to develop in. If it is difficult to setup that environment for an individual, it likely highlights a lack of skills in that specific language domain (and it's tooling).
SnakeDoc
Mar 11, 2023 08:39
@JoshPart Even starting from scratch, it's difficult to image any base environment requiring 3 hours to setup. Smells like a strong indicator OP is not currently ready for this environment at this stage of their career, and is probably learning as they go instead of already knowing it. This is likely one of the reasons this test exists - weed out those who may have inflated their resume to make the interview.
 

 Discussion on answer by Joe W: Did Gr…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
SnakeDoc
Dec 29, 2022 15:16
@computercarguy arguing against misinformation? By spreading your own misinformation? How cute.
SnakeDoc
Dec 27, 2022 23:26
@computercarguy All of which peddled outright fantasies put forth by the previous administration and now the current administration as-if they were actual facts. The point you seem to be willfully missing is all of these once-highly regarded institutions have all become click-bait farms and propaganda arms - none are credible or reliable - in any way you can use those definitions. Fox News is not unusual once bit... and I'd assert never was. The others just got more smoke cover for their BS because you agreed with their opinion.
SnakeDoc
Dec 27, 2022 23:26
@computercarguy again, there's nothing unusual about Fox News when compared to any other news media company these days. Conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods are peddled by the lines of CNN, Reuters, AP, NBC, Fox and others. Insisting Fox is unusual and should be singled out is so far outside reality that it's kinda funny.
SnakeDoc
Dec 27, 2022 23:26
@computercarguy lol but CNN is ok? There are zero news sources without overt bias these days... Fox News is not unusual.
 

 Discussion on answer by Schwern: Did …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
SnakeDoc
Dec 22, 2022 10:42
@Schwern I'm not sure why you believe there's no data. We have fatality stats from Florida, and their population is known - therefore we can extrapolate per capita rates rather easily. On that metric alone, Florida fared no worse than the average, if not better. Refuting the claim wholesale simply because there are various methods of calculating that fatality rate (age, demographics, prior health, economic status, etc) does seem to be throwing out the bathtub and the water. The claim is "Plausible" - to quote the Mythbusters, not "Busted".
SnakeDoc
Dec 22, 2022 10:42
@Schwern The entire update is basically an excerpt from the book "How to Lie using Statistics". It's nothing new. However, you seem to be casually throwing away the real data which does not align with your conclusion that the claim was baseless and unverifiable. We can look at per-capita and averages and have a very good idea. Is it perfect? No - but we can finagle the statistics all day until it tells the story you want instead of reality.
SnakeDoc
Dec 22, 2022 10:42
@Schwern Not really, because none of the various ways they reached this conclusion seem totally preposterous. We're debating what the absolute best method of determining outcome is, while ignoring all sorts of indicators the outcome for Florida was clearly not worse than any average. The rest is just an academic challenge... but the facts remain - Florida, by all measures thus far, did not fare worse than the average, and may have actually fared better than the average state's outcome.
SnakeDoc
Dec 22, 2022 10:42
This answer is like "based on a technicality we can't say it's true" despite every angle explored within the answer indicates the claim is true.
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
SnakeDoc
Dec 8, 2022 20:01
@ohwilleke While this is true, my statement was more of a counter to the prevailing sentiment that SCOTUS is a political tool and would simply deem things unconstitutional that don't appear to benefit a particular political party. The truth couldn't be further from this popular, yet niave narrative.
SnakeDoc
Dec 8, 2022 20:01
@jwenting Despite what the current cheap political talking points might have you believe, the SCOTUS doesn't get to just make up what is or is not constitutional.
 

 Discussion on answer by 0xFEE1DEAD: C…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv AVS is done at checkout though. You get a code, and depending on the merchants risk profile they will accept or decline some subset of those codes - or accept all codes and handle risk internally through other processes. Even if you get an X, indicating an exact match for the entire address - and it gets a chargeback, you are still on the hook. True story... we had a carder attempt ship a couple dozen packages to the actual billing addresses. All low value... we shipped maybe half before we caught it. A real CH called us saying they didn't order anything... that was a first.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
And in ecommerce, sitting on a paid order for longer than a couple days will significantly risk a chargeback - especially for higher dollar purchases. Real customer's get antsy, particularly on first-time purchases on unknown sites. You either ship the package or refund it... it's that simple. Everything else has no benefit to the merchant, makes no sense to do, probably won't have any desirable outcome anyway, and risks getting the chargeback none-the-less.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv I would be surprised to see CC fraud for tens of thousands, but I'm sure it's happened. OP probably isn't in that situation given the language in their question (they seem rather new to this, which is ok). Anyway, even for a thousand some odd dollars, it's not going to be worth anyone's time to track down. Just refund and move on. The CH will report the fraud eventually. Sitting on the order and attempting to chase down the real CH on the off chance it isn't fraud risks receiving the chargeback in the meantime - especially if it's a significant dollar amount like we're discussing.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv Look, the reality is all CNP fraud could be stopped dead at the issuer level. They literally know everything necessary to make a really good guess if something is fraud or not. However, they shift blame to merchants who get stuck paying for fraud majority of the time (or paying additional fees to offload the burden), making for a near zero incentive to do something about the problem.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv You cannot decline a transaction that is already settled. Majority of online CNP transactions are settled immediately these days. Some places still pre-auth, yes, and for those you do have time to maneuver - I'll grant you that. But that's probably not OP's situation anyway. Which brings us back to square one - no one is calling folks hours or days later to ask if some old already shipped transaction happened to be fraud. It's just not the reality for ecommerce.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv You're assuming they get a hold of this customer in a timely manner. Or that they get a hold of the customer at all. You're assuming the processor will even care enough to call the issuer who will care enough to call the customer... maybe you heard about this happening at your place but it doesn't happen in reality. If fraud will be stopped by the issuer, it's at checkout either with 3DS or some other internal screening mechanism (location, etc). It's not through a phone call hours or days later... sorry, not buying that one bit.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv And while all that phone tag is going on a chargeback lands and the merchant eats it + the fee anyway. It might feel good to be the Good Samaritan, but it just doesn't work that way out here in the real world unfortunately. Refund it immediately if you think it's fraud and move on... that's just how it works. Besides... no one with real volume is going to chase down every possible fraud attempt anyway. It works this way because the issuers are never stuck holding the bag, and therefore the incentive to fix this situation is not present.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv The processor will never tell a merchant to proceed or not, unless the merchant has opted into their typically paid fraud detection mechanisms... the merchant is on their own - consequences and all. Been doing this a while... you just do not win chargebacks pretty much ever.
SnakeDoc
Nov 19, 2022 00:30
@littleadv No it won't, if it's unauthorized there is no defense the merchant can mount sufficient enough to avoid the chargeback and it's penalty fee. The only way to avoid the chargeback is to refund before it is filed. As an aside, a chargeback is your most powerful weapon as a consumer - it hurts merchants and they nearly never "win".
 

 Discussion on question by Jontia: Doe…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
SnakeDoc
Oct 20, 2022 18:29
Ah yes... we don't get our way sometimes and therefore there must be something wrong. Great line of logic and reasoning there...
 

 Discussion on question by Enhtur Tuva…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
SnakeDoc
Sep 7, 2022 12:49
@stackoverblown To be pedantic, the Queen, and the British Monarchy hasn't ruled anything of value in a very long time. They are quite literally the Kardashians of the UK - nothing more.
 

 Discussion on answer by FreeMan: What…

Imported from a comment discussion on aviation.stackexchange.c...
SnakeDoc
Mar 3, 2022 05:34
@J... Not really... I mean, what is "full-scale war"? Neither side has declared war... Crimea conflict had planes, tanks, troops, missiles etc, too.
SnakeDoc
Mar 3, 2022 05:34
@J... It's not a "no brainer" actually... previous flare-ups around the world haven't automatically resulted in civil aviation avoiding the area... including during the previous Crimea conflict - see MH17: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
 

 Discussion on answer by Dave: Did Don…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
SnakeDoc
Aug 4, 2021 20:07
Dave, yes but is that Trump's own personal account, or is it the account of one of the businesses Trump happens to own? Big difference... one would indicate this Trump-owned business was paid a reasonable fee for whatever services they provided the PAC, the other indicates Trump took the money and put it into his own personal piggy bank. It's a very politically charged question - so it deserves the extra nuance.
 

 Discussion between Yanick Salzmann an…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
When Hire & Fire is used, it's often seasonal employment (where everyone knows it's short term, but often contracts aren't used in my experience either). This would involve warehouse work, retail stores, restaurants, etc. Plenty of teenagers and college kids willing to work under these conditions... getting stuck paying them months of salary would be ruinous to the organization, however.
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
@YanickSalzmann Yes, not IT - IT tends to be the ones most often escorted out the door since they have the most power to damage the organization in spite. Unfortunately OP is now in a situation where this fired employee has zero motivation to be productive, and gets 3 months salary regardless. That part, alone, is what is boggling my mind, not the "escort them away" part (although that's just good practice to do for numerous reasons, none of which include "We Germans just don't do bad things to former employers")
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
@YanickSalzmann Hire & Fire isn't really that common in the US, in my experience. What is more common is small businesses not having thorough onboarding processes and iron-clad probationary periods... and end up with a very unproductive (or harmful!) employee as a result. Big mega-corps can tolerate 3 months salary, a small business, not so much. I don't know the small business scene in Germany, admittedly, but this is a very anti-small business law which greatly favors the "mega-corps".
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
@YanickSalzmann It changes how many people the organization is willing to hire, since apparently any hire means being committed to long term employment or expensive unproductive "buy-outs". This means seasonal hiring will be reduced, on-demand hiring will be reduced, and a company on the verge of needing an extra hand will have to think very carefully before actually conducting interviews. It has the impact of making organizations be far more careful about needing to hire someone, which is a net-reduction in available jobs. The GDP per Capita seems to highlight this productivity loss.
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
@YanickSalzmann I imagine is results in fewer hires, unfortunately. Most of the US is at-will employment, meaning you can leave whenever for whatever reason, and you can be fired whenever for whatever reason (short of some contract the organization is holding themselves accountable to). Different philosophies on who's responsibility it is to care for employees expenses (food, house, etc) I suppose... in the US, it's your responsibility, not a burden of the company.
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
@Tom And, what? If you're firing someone, it means you don't want them around anymore. Yes, it's bizarre to be required to pay them weeks/months of salary after you've made it clear they are so bad at their job you're actually terminating employment. Escorting someone off the premise isn't hostile, it protects the organization - which is why it's sometimes done in the US. People become emotional, angry and irrational after learning they no longer have a job... and sometimes can be destructive or subversive. If they knew they had 3 months of pay regardless, perhaps they're less willing though.
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
But as previously said, that puts an awful lot of burden on the employer, unfair burden in my opinion. It makes hiring someone new a very potentially expensive proposition if you have to get rid of them for whatever reason, and likely weighs into hiring decisions of employers in that country. Like I said, there's a happy middle-ground, but I would not characterize the US "way" as hostile, it's just standard procedure and not personal, and isn't very common in reality.
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
It's Germany, they have some bizarre employment laws.
SnakeDoc
May 12, 2021 19:37
@Tom no, instead you roll exactly like the OP's problem... a deadbeat employee that knows they're gone in a long time and is utterly unproductive now. Now, the employee wins the jackpot and gets 3 months of pay for doing nothing, all because they did nearly nothing before. There's got to be a middle-ground somewhere where neither the employee nor the employer get screwed over like this. After all, it's not the employers responsibility to take care of this employee and ensure they have a roof over their head... that's the employee's and they're doing a terrible job at it.
 

 Discussion on answer by Fattie: Did s…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
SnakeDoc
Mar 21, 2021 14:15
Seriously Fattie, you know better than to make this your answer. Condoning unethical behavior because other unethical employees do it behind the owner's back? Rethink your answer please, this is not the quality you normally put forth.
 

 Discussion on question by programmer:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
SnakeDoc
Mar 11, 2021 15:37
I'm becoming more and more convinced this website needs to be shut down. The knee-jerk reaction it always, always to accept what OP says as absolute fact, sue every employer because they're out to get you, and OP's can do no wrong, ever! It's becoming toxic.
 

 Discussion on answer by Philip Kendal…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
SnakeDoc
Feb 18, 2021 13:33
@Barmar Additionally, the vagueness of "health issues" could potentially make someone pass on hiring you, since there could be a very real risk to impacting the business based off some medical issues you have. Illegal as that might be in the US... it's reality. Everyone understands Cancer and how dreadfully awful it is... but it clearly would not impact the business.
SnakeDoc
Feb 18, 2021 13:33
Why say "health issues" when "cancer" is already self-explanatory and can have a positive message of overcoming life challenges behind it?
 

 Discussion on answer by Ted Wrigley: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
SnakeDoc
Jan 29, 2021 13:23
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
 

 Discussion on answer by Joe Strazzere…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
SnakeDoc
Sep 28, 2020 11:40
@m.raynal for cheap image censor scanners, ya sure - not for proper scanners. And I'd assume it's about putting up a barrier that's challenging enough for average joe to want to be bothered with for faking their buddy's time card.
SnakeDoc
Sep 28, 2020 11:40
The point of the finger print scanner for time cards is to eliminate the possibility of having someone else punch you in or out. Passwords, pin codes, badges, RFID chips, etc can all be given to someone else to forge time card punches. A finger print, cannot.
SnakeDoc
Sep 28, 2020 11:40
@David And sound like a crackpot paranoid person? Great plan.
 

 Discussion between jdunlop and SnakeDoc

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
SnakeDoc
Aug 6, 2020 23:41
anyway, I appreciate your moderation here. I have to go now, and will leave any edits up to your discretion. thank you for your time! :)