One time I went to plug in my headphone and I accidentally plugged it into the USB port next to the jack… My laptop died and had to have parts replaced. Guy at the shop told me I shouldn’t have done that 🙄. I just said they shouldn’t have designed those ports to be right next to each other if the product breaks when you hit the wrong one.
Anyway, be careful about plugging shit into the wrong port.
Yeah, I meant 3.5 mm but I get lazy these days and call them all RCA jacks to mean “those perfectly fine audio jacks that have been replaced with usb and/or bluetooth”. As an unabashed pedant, I will try to do better.
BTW, it would appear that you are correct about which end is the jack: www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/audio-jackSo it was TIL that the jack is the hole you plug in to.
I definitely do not like Trump, and this comment is by no means me defending him. He has committed crimes and should be prosecuted. However, certain actions by Dems does suggest he was targeted.
One example is his tax returns. It is a tradition for presidents to voluntarily release them. He chose not to. Then democratic controlled congress fought for several years to have them be released for no real reason except to force him.
I also think that prosecutors in New York would have ignored his fraudulent business practices, which they likely ignored for several years prior, if he hadn’t become president and was seeking re-election.
Again, I am not defending him. Lock him up for his crimes. But I also don’t think the democrats motivation is solely coming from the idea of “justice for all.”
One example is his tax returns. It is a tradition for presidents to voluntarily release them. He chose not to. Then democratic controlled congress fought for several years to have them be released for no real reason except to force him.
Oh you poor delusional soul.
Those tax documents, while evidence of criminal acts, were just a small fraction of the literal 900 bankers boxes of fraud evidence against Trump.
People that understand how our system of government works, understand that Congress has the power of investigation.
I am pretty sure the New York fraud case that is sending Trump spiraling is the direct result of testimony that his fixer Cohen gave to Congress. You can probably find the relevant testimony on the youtubes. If memory serves AOC was doing some of the important questioning.
have them be released for no real reason except to force him.
Nope. Turns out that there IS a real reason why public financial disclosure via tax returns has become standards practice for presidential candidates: it’s to show the public that there’s no conflicts of interest to worry about.
That Trump refused to release his was one red flag amongst many indicating that he had foreign business interests that he refused to divest from. Such conflicts of interest are a national security threat in the case of ANY high ranking government official, let alone the president himself.
prosecutors in New York would have ignored his fraudulent business practices, which they likely ignored for several years prior, if he hadn’t become president and was seeking re-election.
So you’re saying that it’s unfair that he no longer gets a free pass to commit tons of crimes now that he’s more publicly visible? Cry me a river!
Again, I am not defending him
Yeah, you are. You may not think that you are, but you definitely are.
The best you can come up with is that they asked him for his tax returns to be mean?
Gestures around
Out of ALL THIS, that (and they should have continued ignoring his fraud) is your example of how the government is attacking him unfairly? A speck of sand compared to a dumptruck full of bullshit?
Then democratic controlled congress fought for several years to have them be released for no real reason except to force him.
Yes, they did, and he kept refusing to do so, as was his right even if it made him look sus as fuck, especially since his excuse was the lie about being under audit. Only once he was under investigation for fucking fraud were his tax returns actually released, as evidence in the investigations.
Rather than comment on each individual response I figure comment on my own.
I agree with all the points made here.
When they couldn’t get Capone for the murders and rackateering they got him for tax evasion because he deserved it. Trump absolutely deserves all these charges and should go to prison.
I do not believe Trump should get a free pass for his crimes. No one should. I was only suggesting that his crimes may have been ignored until there was a political motivation to look. It shouldn’t have to be that way, but that may have played a role on why they are just now investigating. If they had looked into it earlier it may have disqualified him from running in the first place; which to be clear, is a good thing.
Notice how I didn’t say the Georgia elections case was unfair. He was recorded trying to commit voter fraud and should be charged. There’s plenty in Jan 6th commission report to charge too and I am frustrated that hasn’t happened either.
Lets focus on the media, do you really think the news media tells the truth about trump always, or runs misleading or stories with bad sources on purpose?
Whats unfair about the lawsuits against Trump? Afaik, the most unfair bit is that (federalist society weirdo) judge Canon is working her ass off to stall till after the elections.
Oh, so, is the defamation case something he didnt do (despite the rock solid evidence), or something he should get away with because other people do it too (the ultimate 6-year-old excuse)?
And does everyone claim their property is worth 500%-800% more for decades on their loan applications?
Have other people gotten away with hiding top secret files in their bathrooms, and lying about having them? Or did that not happen, despite the people moving them being on film?
I don’t even care about the case about campaign finances.
You mentioned four different things, let me address the one I know the most about and is the most obvious. You can claim that your house or property is worth as much as you want, how the process works is that you ask for what you want and claim whatever you want, and then the bank does their underwriting and comes to their own determination of value and how much they want to lend. He did nothing wrong t hat I am aware of.
So if you list your house for more than its worth on zillow is that fraud? Who is harmed by claiming you house is worht 600% more (which he didnt actually do but is perfectly fine)?
Obviously, a loan provider is harmed. Interest rates are calculated based on the radio of debt to assets. If you put a 10k mortgage on a 500k asset, you’re paying far less interest than if you take a 450k mortgage on the same.
That’s such a basic question, anyone who is into real estate shouldn’t have to ask this.
So then its fraud to claim or believe that your property is worth more than it is?
I am just explaining how the process works. Its like if I am selling a car and claim its worth $20k, its up to the buyer to agree or disagree, its not fraud for me to claim its worth $20k and the kbb value is $10k.
Look, you obviously haven’t even briefly looked into the case if you’re saying “it’s just someones opinion”, or that might be what fox news is saying.
I buy a Ferrari that can go 400mph and is worth 10 million because of it. But then I have a limiter installed that caps it speed at 90mph. Then I go to an accountant and say “hey, could you value the Ferrari I bought?”, and they say “based on the info you gave us, we say it’s worth 10,120,000”.
Then I go to the bank and say “hey bank, could you loan me a million bucks, and if I don’t pay you back, you can have this car that independent accounts say is worth 10,120,00”. The bank agree, charging you all of 0.5% interest, because you agreed to give them a car worth 10 times the loan.
But because of the limiter you had installed, the actual value is more like 430,000, because it can’t do what you claimed. So you intentionally lied to the accountant, and took that false info to a bank with the express purpose of benefiting financially of off those lies.
And you then repeat this by asking for a valuation of a 30,000 square foot apartment, which is actually only 11,000 square foot, and going to a different bank with another fake valuation.
So the one things you claim he lied about was the size of the apartment, which is misleading because of how you calculate square footage. The value is in the property not the building. But again, the bank verifies what you are saying, they will literally send someone there to look at everything, its part of the underwriting. Can you show me where they bank said they were defrauded?
So the one things you claim he lied about was the size of the apartment, which is misleading because of how you calculate square footage.
From the documents you didn’t read:
in opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that the calculation of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation . NYSCEF Doc . No. 1293 at 20. Well yes , perhaps , if the area is rounded or oddly shaped, itis possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing results due to user error . Good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20% , not 200%
Seriously, if you didn’t look at the documents, I’m not going to copy paste it piecemeal. The court wrote it all down in very clear language.
Sigh, I am talking about the inclusion of “finished” vs “unfinished” space. But that doesnt even matter the important part of my comment is that that value is in the land, and they will verify all of the information they care about. Can you show me where they bank said they were defrauded?
I am aware that a judge wrote a thing, who I know is poltically motivated. The supreme court voted 9-0 against what the court did in colorado, so just because a thing was done, doesnt mean its just.
The answer as to why the state is charging him is on page 3. The fact that you don’t care enough to look it up says that this discussion is entirely pointless. There are witness statements from the lenders spelling out they wouldn’t have granted the terms based on accurate valuations further on in document.
If you can’t even be arsed to open the document and read 1.5 pages, then I don’t see why I should bother.
Literally the only questionable thing I have heard you or anyone say is that he overinflated the size of the residence. Do you understand what underwriting is?
Yes, I do. Why do you keep asking this question? What is your point? And, more importantly, why aren’t you looking up the question yourself? Is it because you don’t want to see it has already been adressed?
Page 1, because I’m way too nice, and for the benefit of anyone who reads this later and is just as lazy as you:
Donald Trump and entities he controls own many valuable properties, including office buildings,hotels, and golf courses. Acquiring and developing such properties required huge amounts ofcash. Accordingly, the entities borrowed from banks and other lenders. The lenders required personal guarantees from Donald Trump, which were based on statements of financial conditioncompiled by accountants that Donald Trump engaged. The accountants created these “compilations” based on data submitted by the Trump entities. In order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting infraudulent financial statements. When confronted at trial with the statements, defendants’ fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility or to impose internal controls to prevent future recurrences. As detailed herein, this Court now finds defendants liable, continues the appointment of an Independent Monitor, orders the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance, and limits defendants’ right to conduct business in New York for a few years
And why is that a problem? the Law (page 2):
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegalacts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in thecarrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply… for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section fourhundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirtyof the general business law, and the court may award the reliefapplied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word“fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device,scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud”or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carryingon of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated”as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall besubject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
And the judge adds (page 4):
Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict onthe marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” isall the more reason tostrive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite thefalse financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments ontime; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.
And in the read, the judge specifically this bullshit series of “Where is the victim” that you’re parroting, in addition to some other bullshit that you’ll mostly find on Truth social, Fox news and similar nonsense-spewing media (and right here in this thread too)
Indeed, materiality under this statute is judged not by reference to reliance by or materialityto a particular victim, but rather on whether the financial statement “properly reflected the financial condition” of the person to which the statement pertains.People v Essner, 124 Misc 2d830, 835 (Sup Ct, NY County 1984) (“there need be no ‘victim,’ ergo, reliance is neither an element of the crime nor a valid yardstick with which to test the materiality of a false statement”).
Materiality has been one of the great red herrings of this case all along. Faced with clear evidence of a misstatement, a person can always shout that “it’s immaterial.” Absolute perfection, including with numbers, exists only in heaven. If fraud is insignificant, then, like most things in life, it just does not matter. As an ancient maxim has it , de minimis non curat lex, the law is not concerned with trifles. Neither is this Court.
But that is not what we have here. Whether viewed in relative (percentage) or absolute(numerical) terms, objectively (the governing standard) or subjectively (how the lenders viewed them), defendants’ misstatements were material. United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously, or infamously, declared that he could not define pornography, but that heknew it when he saw it. Jacobellis v State of Ohio, 378 US 184, 197 (1964). The frauds foundhere leap off the page and shock the conscience.
Wisely, courts have refused to define “material” in a “one size fits all” fashion. At trial, thisCourt attempted to get the experts to go where Courts have dared not tread. Not surprisingly, afirm definition could not be found. But in the present context, this Court confidently declaresthat any number that is at least 10% off could be deemed “material,” and any number that is atleast 50% off would likely be deemed material. These numbers are probably conservative giventhat here, such deviations from truth represent hundreds of millions of dollars, and in the case ofMar-a-Lago, possibly a billion dollars or more.
Yet another great red herring in this case has been that different appraisers can legitimately andin good faith appraise the same property at different amounts. True enough, as appraising is anart as well as a science. However, the science part cannot be fraudulent. When two appraisalsrely on starkly different assumptions, that is not evidence of a difference of opinion, that is evidence of deceit.
Would you like to ask more questions where the answer is almost literally written out in the decission, instead of looking them up yourself?
Like I told you, I dont care about what a corrupt judge has to say, I care about the actual facts and what happens in real estate transactions. The worst thing I have heard (and I have heard it multiple times) is that they said the square footage was different than reality, is this the worst thing he did? If not be very specific on somethings worse. If it is the worst thing, then it doesnt change the value much, and would be caught in underwriting. And again, who was the actual party that was harmed?
I dont care about what a corrupt judge has to say, I care about the actual facts
Those are in the decision.
The worst thing I have heard (and I have heard it multiple times) is that they said the square footage was different than reality, is this the worst thing he did?
No, it’s a single example, I’ve quoted other points above.
If not be very specific on somethings worse.
Already did, in the past above, and the rest is in the decision, very clearly spelled out.
And again, who was the actual party that was harmed?
That’s also in the quoted bit, bold for your convenience and you still didn’t read it.
I’m starting to seriously if you’re just ignoring everything or if you have serious reading comprehension problem. Or maybe it’s hard denial of everything you don’t like? All your questions have already been addressed.
I repeat it because underwriting is the thing that makes everythng that is claimed to be irrelevant. If you need another opinion, just listen to Kevin Oleary talk about this, or any number of other people that do real estate.
I dont watch the show, but I am going to assume he does that. As a person that finds trump annoying, and am not going to vote for him, and has been involved in dozens of real estate purchases and sales, this whole case is such a load of crap that its hard to describe what a miscarriage of justice this is. I would recommend you actually listen to someone like Kevin Oleary talk about this because he will give a lot longer more detailed explanation becuase its not in text form.
I literally never listen to trump, I hear the stories and then find out the truth. If you dove deep on any of the things I am talking about, the facts back up what I am saying (or I wouldnt be saying it).
Pemdas isn’t as arbitrary as people in this thread think it is.
I love maths, and I’m going to butcher any attempt to explain why pemdas isnt totally random. But you can look it up if you wanna know more I guess
Besides no one ever uses that notation - by the time you learn about quadratics, you leave multiplication symbols out of the equation entirely and much of the notation changes shape, with division exclusively being expressed as negative powers or fractions.
At that point you aren’t going to make mistakes, since each hyperlevel uses a different style of notation. Pemdas is used to teach 4 year olds, and it’s fucking dumb. What happens with a log, or sine function. Don’t even get me started on integrals and derivatives.
Pemdas is shit, but not because it’s abirtary. In fact it’s shit because it’s a shithole acyromn
Pemdas is mostly just factoring, kinda. That’s how you should think of it.
2x4 is really 2+2+2+2.
That first 2+(anything else) can’t be acted/operated upon until you’ve resolved more nested operations down to a comparable level.
That’s it. It’s not arbitrary. It’s not magic. It’s just doing similar actions at the same time in a meaningful way. It’s just factoring the activities.
It is, in fact, completely arbitrary. There is no reason why we should read 1+23 as 1 + (23) instead of (1 + 2) * 3 except that it is conventional and having a convention facilitates communication. No, it has nothing to do with set theory or mathematical foundations. It is literally just a notational convention, and not the only one that is still currently used.
Edit: I literally have an MSc in math, but good to see Lemmy is just as much on board with the Dunning-Kruger effect as Reddit.
If you don’t accept adding and subtracting numbers as allowed mathematical transactions, multiplication doesn’t make sense at all. It isn’t arbitrary. It’s fundamental basic accounting.
I had a call to fix a guy’s printer. Look at the back and he’s managed to somehow jam the USB-B plug in upside down, destroying the port. He was elderly, and I don’t know how he managed to apply the force needed. Luckily this printer also can be connected via ethernet. Unluckily, he had previously jammed it into the ethernet port, also destroying it.
While walking past an office I got called in, the headmaster’s secretary and the music teacher were struggling and told me the flash drive they had does not work.
So I take a look and pull the flash drive out of the Ethernet port and plugged it into a USB port and told them they need to plug it into the correct port.
The look on their faces.
But then I admitted to them that I had never seen this happen before and that I didn’t know that the Ethernet port was the right width to take a flash drive.
I mentioned this can be done on a Discord server I am on and nobody would believe me so I just told them to give it a try. They probably think I was trolling to this day.
You need to consume to live. This means you need to manipulate your surroundings in order to survive. So you need to work to have your basic needs meet. You don’t just get to live with zero effort.
You didn’t read the article, did you? We already live in a post scarcity society. All of our scarcity, at least the kinds that are meaningful to the working class, is manufactured. We throw away perfectly good food in the dumpsters behind grocery stores because nobody paid for it, while people on the streets starve. Properties sit empty as an investment for corporations while people die out in the elements.
I really don’t think you understand how many people are in this world. Sure grocery stores donating food instead of throwing it away would help some. But providing good quality food to 8 billion people is not possible. Imo.
Is there a point of disability at which you no longer believe someone should be cared for? Like, say someone is colourblind and has no other conditions, do you think that person needs to earn their life?
It’s really hard to actually accept that as a capitalist’s opinion. Liberals tend to say all kinds of nice things, and then turn around and pass policies that completely contradict that. Like, y’all say I deserve to live and then you don’t implement a UBI. It’s like you’re lying to yourselves that you’re actually nice people.
You mean at once? Heroin and cocaine. Over a lifetime? Good health, useful work, kind deeds, meaningful relationships, safety, self-determination, knowledge, and fun.
This is the natural order, yet paraplegics live, why? Because we live in a society that attempts to circumvent the natural order in many ways, for the good of all.
You should take a broader materialistic look on society, who does the work (the working class), who benefits from the work (the owner class), and instead of focusing on amping up people to devote their lives to serve the interests of capital, instead focus to reframe the goals of society to serve the interests of workers, which includes working less, or even not at all. Work is not labor.
That’s an entirely different argument. I agree with you on that topic. Reframing capitalism to fit human well being is what we should do. But feeding everyone for free with zero work from anyone just isn’t possible. Saying there are starving people because capitalism is just straight up wrong. There have always been starving people and probably will always be. Feeding everyone is logistically crazy difficult. If it ever did happen it would take a ridiculous amount of work and money from a lot of people.
Socialists use work and labor to describe different things. Work is the set of actions a worker is coerced to participate in by capitalists to align with the interests of capital. Labor can be something you engage in as part of work, but that’s not always the case. Sometimes people have jobs that are so inefficient or bullshit that they literally don’t labor at all at work (read Bullshit Jobs).
Labor is necessary (currently), work is not. Aligning with the interests of capital is not synonymous with the interests of humanity (think ad work, literally encouraging greater consumption, especially around harmful products like tobacco/alcohol/sugar. Most western countries now have bans on tobacco advertising, but still let advertising in general flourish).
On the topic of feeding everyone, it would be very logistically difficult in the 1600s no doubt. Now we have a massive international trade system, I can easily get massive amounts of goods shipped from the other side of the world in weeks or maybe months at the worst. We also produce enough food currently to feed 12 billion people, and that’s with our incredibly inefficient system of converting edible plant matter (mostly soy) to animals.
The issue is, under capitalism, poor people don’t deserve to eat. If they lack money, they’re better off dead than alive and consuming resources without paying for them, so that’s what the global international capitalist system does, it moves more than enough food great enough distances to feed everyone as it is. It just moves it to the rich countries where obesity has been a massive issue instead of the global south, because people in rich countries have the money to pay for food, and so they deserve to live (and overeat/waste food) but people born in Africa deserve death.
Capitalists often lose sight of what an economy is for. An economy isn’t something of value in and of itself, it’s about setting up incentives and systems to benefit humanity. Capitalism fails to do this in everyway that is uniquely capitalist. Anything it does right is attributed to the general functioning of markets, which existed before capitalism and can exist after capitalism (market socialism is a real thing). There are problems with markets no doubt, but capitalism really has no redeeming qualities when compared to market socialism. If you compare it to feudalism, it does do better at mobilizing productive forces, of course at the massive detriment to workers.
We can provide shitty cheap unhealthy food to everyone sure. It wouldn’t be easy but yeah we could probably do that. But we absolutely would not be able to give people the kind of food they actually need.
It should be sure. But that’s not our reality. Even if you take away monetary value things still hold more practical value. Try collecting and making food for 20 people. Go outside and find all that or grow it or whatever you have to do to get it tell me how long it’s you and how difficult it was to do. Now multiply that effort to 8 billion people.
I will play along with your experiment if you give me control of the government. That seems only fair, since we’re talking about the government providing for everyone.
It takes 3 tries no matter what the lighting conditions are. Also, neither of my laptops have ethernet ports. :-( Dell for work, Lenovo Carbon X1 for personal
lemmy.ml
Active