Interesting article.
I love how they are not directly taking the piss out of the quote, but going out of their way to show how there's a vastly different meaning behind what he's saying in opposition to what he intended.
You know, in layterms, he doesn't fucking know the words that come out of his mouth.
Sounds like a bad idea considering:
a lot of past convicts that have been rehabilitated shouldn't be allowed into 87.3% of all jobs
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/
And further considering the innocence project claims that about 4% of those are false convictions.
https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/
Obviously I do not want to downplay the situation you're in, but making society better is not done with broad brush strokes. No single person without the respective systemic knowledge will be able to design a solution for this in a matter of months.
I mean you are making a fair argument that there's a distinction between your own morals and the binding rules in place. You are free to feel a lot of things that are very bad, but when you act on them you will bump into reality.
That said I think the original comment was meant to say that the only reason he is here is because society through the legal process has found him to be safe to work there.
Now to get beyond the feelings against him OP can obviously talk to HR and make sure they get some distance, but if the courts found him not guilty, he deserves to be there. Imagine serving years in prison, working on yourself until the government finally finds you fit enough to enter society again, only for ppl to kick you out of your job again because of something you tried so hard to leave behind. That's why the prison system usually focuses on rehabilitation instead of punishment in most civil countries.
What I'm saying is, the court's ruling does not have to change the way you feel, but the court also says you have no right to take his job from him unless he commits crimes again. No feeling can measure heavy enough to weigh up against the right for him to live a normal life.
Nur richtig, die Karriere-Straßenblockaden bei der FDP haben sich vor kurzem noch darüber eschoffiert dass die Koalitionspartner nix durchbringen, haben aber selbst inzwischen 3 verschiedene große Gesetze blockiert. Absolutes Kleinkinder-Verhalten.
I assume so. A lot of this is guesswork because obviously they won't straight up tell us.
I should also note that that was in Germany, and unfortunately I can't tell you which enemy fleet burnt down my sails but let's say it was one of the big ones.
They appear as torrent peers I think and log when they get a connection to share parts of the file to their system. I assume then they look up the IP and they try to find out if they got an IP from a known VPN provider or a private one. And then they send out the papers.
Note: In the paper it only says that they have evidence that my PC shared parts of that file 3 times in quick succession and that's it, the rest is my deduction / educated guess.
It really was
I think he needs a therapist...
Sometimes there's songs with next to no singing and I get this feeling of belonging and sadness, but I love those songs.
Side note: I have had a bad situation where the enemy fleet caught me, and I stopped doing torrents and started using DDL with a VPN. I have a hunch because some attorneys are laying out traps in torrents, DDL might be safer rn. I have read on a few sites that this might be the case, and I have been sailing a lot smoother since then as well.
So take that for what you will, and also if anybody can confirm if DDL with VPN is as safe as it's been for me, please do, because I'm curious.
Ppl are saying this is an AI article. Can someone confirm this / cross reference this?