This particular inmate has more posts in that site. This one discusses a cancer scare for which he didn't pursue an examination because of the degrading way they treat inmates with medical conditions in prison:
The only thing I know about prisons in the US is from what I’ve seen in movies so I’m shocked to read that inmates need to pay, per page, to access and send content like blog posts, newspapers, books, music and movies.
Questions going through my mind: Is it known what are the software and hardware capabilities of these JPay / kiosks? If I have an app that’s already in the App Store and Google Play, how can I make it more compatible / reliable for this environment?
US prisons are a hellscape. For any question you may have, the answer is “whatever is most convenient and cheapest, irrespective of any cost in living quality, dignity, or health of the inmates, unless it would be fun or satisfying to make them suffer, in which case do that. ”
> The only thing I know about prisons in the US is from what I’ve seen in movies so I’m shocked to read that inmates need to pay, per page, to access and send content like blog posts, newspapers, books, music and movies.
I'm curious about this. I can't think of anything I've seen in movies that suggests they have access to the net in general. Sure, I've seen stuff about prison libraries, whose services I generally presumed to be free, but never much more than that.
Jails and prisons don't let prisoners have net access.. Unless the jail or prison gets a cut. Typically a large, large company comes in and offers cash to the jail, and offers to foot all the hardware bill, and the support costs. The inmates have access, paying per minute. Seen as a wonderful revenue stream for the jail, and suddenly the free visits to the jail stop, but the "televisits" start at $20 or something.
It will be interesting to see how the research in CSI Chester is going. Will it affect the employees situation in prisons, and can it help rehabilitation in atleast some small sense.
The tablet capabilities are 5 years behind and twice the price, but they do get better every year. The main problem is that they use the world's worst app store.
Most apps aren't able to use storage, but those of us on the outside can create logins and change some account settings. iHeartRadio and PlutoTV are probably the best ones prisoners get access to; can't get save things locally but the websites will remember activity.
> A software change in my prison-issued electronic tablet ate up my drafts
I didn't realize that prisoners were allowed tablets. Evidently there is a business that will give prisoners tablets at no charge, but then basically charge them to use those tablets. This seems like something a non-profit could do a lot better job of.
Is there a reason, other than capitalism/entrenched interests, that the prison service doesn't have its own in house software? A non profit could perhaps assist.
I'm glad you asked. I work for a non-profit called Ameelio (ameelio.org) that is working on that. We started with free incoming (to the facility) mail (aka letters) and expanded to free video and voice calling, and are currently working on expanding further though I don't want to say exactly what at this point.
To answer your question though, yes entrenched interests and lack of competition. When you are sole provider, no matter how broke people's families are they are going to dig deep. Some states also allow a "kickback" system where the department gets a % of the fees collected by the providers. Fortunately some states have made this illegal and more are starting to now that we've shown how corrupt and gross the incumbent situation is, but there's still a way to go. I will also say that I've been impressed with a lot of people in the departments. Many of them don't like the current system either and they think it's wrong, so they've been really helpful/willing to work with us.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of what they're battling for or against, so please don't.
Every component of most American prisons has become a lucrative (frequently exploitative) source of revenue. From selling packs of ramen noodles to charging exorbitant fees to speak to loved ones over the phone, I would be amazed if this wasn’t just one more avenue for entrenched moneyed interests to extract even more profits from struggling families who have been broken apart.
For one, there isn't a single "prison service" in the US. There are somewhere between 51 and several thousand prison and jail systems, depending on how you count.
Profit extraction is one reason, and a large one. However, an equally large one is cruelty: these systems are designed to make prisoners suffer, and public accountability runs counter to that goal.
Sorry. You shouldn't be able to waive your right to a jury trial. Everyone should go through the trial even when they are dead to rights guilty. The state should have to prove to a jury that they did their job convicting you.
Plea deals become implied threats. Take this cheaper deal or we'll throw this massive set of stuff at you. Remember Aaron Swartz?
If everyone had to go through a jury trial (which I kind of agree that they should), what's your threshold for allowing them to remain out of jail before trial? How much are you willing to give jurors as a stipend for missing work? How much do you want to spend fitting out new courtrooms? Because if all three are not extremely generous by current US standards, you're going to be forcing innocent/kind of guilty people to sit in jail for years waiting for their trials - we don't have nearly enough judges, jury members or court capacity to give everyone the speedy trial with a jury of their peers.
> we don't have nearly enough judges, jury members or court capacity to give everyone the speedy trial with a jury of their peers.
Then perhaps we are arresting far too many people for things that don't matter?
If you remove low-level drug offenders from the system, suddenly there is a LOT more capacity.
Or, mentioning my earlier example, why the hell was a federal prosecutor gung ho to go after Aaron Swartz? Apparently there wasn't anything more important to be spending time on. That doesn't look like a very overloaded court system to me.
If the general public had to actually PAY for the justice system, perhaps they'd suddenly discover that they want it a lot smaller.
The root cause is that a huge portion of the US population sees prisons entirely from a punitive point of view. Want to reduce prison sentences? Improve conditions? You're soft on crime!
It seems like there might be room for improving conditions in ways that will help prevent them from being back in prison later. Education and working in a way that develops skills are two ways that come to mind.
Good luck making that argument to the median voter. The entire conservative wing believes prisoners deserve torture (unless it’s them or their immediate family); half of the center-left is too busy projecting a “tough on crime” image to give much thought about improving conditions.
Even if you can prove a non-profit, non-funded program reduces recidivism, if it also happens to make prisoners’ lives marginally better in the process, that’s an immediate no.
I don’t understand why they can’t use, like, Word or notepad and just pass around text files or something like that.
I mean, most of the people involved in the prison system have decided to work in a place where the users aren’t there willingly or able to change service providers, so I guess they would trend toward minimal competence, right? The more they can leverage software written by anybody else, the better, I guess.
Well, you need the hardware that will run applications like Word and even Notepad. Those are both Windows apps, and I'm sure the tablets mentioned in this article aren't Windows devices. They include exactly the software the system allows, and stores data in exactly the way the system dictates. They're unlikely to have the freedom to "pass around text files."
At which point the prison service will be responsible for bugs/unimplemented features/support. Often, simply offloading responsibility is worth a lot bureaucratically even if features would be technically identical.
I've seen a lot of talk recently about crime and calls for various people to be imprisoned; everyone from carjackers to right-wing vigilantes. In the midst of these conversations, please remember: prisons exist to torture prisoners.
Excerpts from another recent Marshall project article:
> An officer who broke his baton hitting a prisoner 35 times, even after the man was handcuffed, was not fired. Neither were the guards who beat a prisoner at Attica Correctional Facility so badly that he needed 13 staples to close gashes in his scalp. Nor were the officers who battered a man with mental illness, injuring him from face to groin. The man hanged himself the next day.
> Magalios, who was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, was kicked and punched by a guard after hugging and kissing his wife hello during a visit. Court records show that another officer held Magalios down while a third watched. All three officers still work at Fishkill.
> The Marshall Project identified more than 160 excessive-force lawsuits that the state lost or settled, paying $18.5 million in damages. The corrections department’s records show that officials attempted to discipline an officer in just 20 of those cases. They fired six guards.
If your child made the choice to steal someone's car, you would be upset with them. But would you want them to be subjected to decades of unchecked abuse and inhumane treatment?
If the purpose of prisons was to torture prisoners, then they would beat all prisoners with moderate severity rather than a few prisoners with heavy severity. The system that's working intended in your examples are unions protecting bad officers. It's another example of why we shouldn't have public sector unions.
Have kids grow up in terrible families (in part due to the government shitting on poors), put them in a cell for how they turn out, torture them and then expect them to become a better person who is ready for "normy life" from the terrible childhood + torturing in jail.
The US is probably the only developed country in the world where this line of thinking is accepted as "yep, makes sense, pretty good approach"?
> From wikipedia on recidivism "According to an April 2011 report by the Pew Center on the States, the average national recidivism rate for released prisoners is 43%." If 43% of all prisoners are re-arrested after they are released, then you can make a pretty good assumption that they were not committing crime they would have, if they were not locked up.
Or you could assume that the current prison system, in the States, is actually making recidivism rates worse by treating its inmates in such an inhumane way - hurt people hurt people.
One could discriminate between the two assumptions by comparing its recidivism rates with recidivism rates in the rest of the world.
> As you know, though, different crimes are punished in different ways, which makes sense.
Different crimes are punished in different ways. In most of the civilized world, punishment ranges from fines to more-or-less harsh limitations of one's freedom of movement. I don't remember corporal punishment being one of the possible consequences for theft.
Wrong. The intentions of the ruling class are not to oppress others but merely to protect their own interests, which is a far more difficult matter to confront.
The fundamental basis of capitalism, being the state's violent protection of the right to accumulate capital, defines the predominant motives of oppression. Members of the ruling class have little choice but to expand their personal power and control, lest they lose it all. This tendency alone results in the private prison industrial complex and erodes citizen rights.
No, that's not really accurate. Crime and punishment are part of an important narrative in American conservatism. Making prisoners suffer, especially black prisoners, is viewed as a plus, and that creates a climate where overt cruelty is condoned and even encouraged.
The article talks about Jim Crow juries, unconstitutional jury rulings where the defendant gets convicted even when the jury is split. These were created to try and stifle the voice of black jurors, and they did, right up until just a couple years ago. Sheriffs like Joe Arpaio stay in office by marketing themselves to voters as being as cruel to prisoners as possible; it's just another facet of the enduring Southern Strategy. The system is working as intended.
This brings back memories of Tank (1984) which was my first contact with the concept of prison violence as an 8 year old. The movie itself is rather B-ish, but it was still the first time I realized that police dealing with judges and the prison system is a rather horrifying concept which would literally require military force to actually win against...
I'd go as far as to say that prisons are a profitable business, and if the prison operators or their cronies can convince the masses that stuffing prisons to the brim is a good idea, that's just more profitable business.
I don't think the prison industry or upper class are cruel for cruelty's sake. The American Conservatism is simply convenient to them. I'd go as far as to say that even voters who appear to embrace being cruel to prisoners aren't deliberately trying to be cruel, but are by and large the disenfranchised poor people with zero upward mobility, whose miserable existence is made slightly more bearable by having a class with even fewer privileges than them.
> The intentions of the ruling class are not to oppress others but merely to protect their own interests
You're exactly right. But oppression is a useful tool to protect one's interest. Demoralizing people and showing them that you have them by the balls is an effective tactic. "Oh, you want to come at me? Have you seen our prison system? It's not worth it, not in a thousand years"
There are a lot of other reasons why prisons exist (safety, money, jobs, etc.). One big one: applying power, usually to an weaker group. Cause, that's just what Homo Sapiens do.
Non violent and violent offenders should be treated differently. Hurting someone’s car is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The author of this article killed someone. Making sure he is comfy is a bit disrespectful to the deceased and their family.
I don’t know all the details but it has always seemed a bit messed up that someone can hurt or kill you and your societies main concern would be how to rehabilitate that person.
There are several philosophical approaches to the purpose of prison.
1. Revenge
2. to keep society safe from dangerous/anti-social people
3. to provide a safe space for rehabilitating people for re-integration.
I tend to view (1) as the worst possible option, even discounting the fact that we are completely 100% aware of the existence of false convictions. You are entitled to believe that revenge is a valid society choice, but I will definitely judge you for believing that.
I don’t fully buy into rehabilitative Justice. I’ve not read an account of how to handle one off crimes. Things like manslaughter or negligence. Crimes with extremely low rates of recidivism. Should people who commit these crimes be let off without consequence? If the point is character building, do you simply keep people imprisoned until their character improves. I’m not saying you have these answers but I haven’t seen them elsewhere.
Does some people deserve a shitty life, in general that is not something we should strive for.
There are two things I feel about this, first is prisons as they are in many countries are really bad for the employees, lots of suicide etc. As a prisoner being put away for years with minimal contact with the outside world is a really heavy punishment even if you live a life without constant fear.
A society that mistreat people is not something to strive for, and making prisons as bad as they can get will affect society as a whole. Paying prisonguards a little extra to take the risk of suicide seems really rotten to me.
If those people are extremely unlikely to commit a crime again, why should there be continuing consequences for them? What purpose does it serve beyond satisfying someone's feeling of revenge?
And if they are still dangerous, then, yes, you keep them locked up. But even then what's the point of making them suffer beyond the restrictions that are necessary to ensure the safety of the rest of society?
Prison should be either removing you from society because you don't fit (being and having act on liking to kill people for example) OR for forced education/correction of social behavior.
Communication with families on the outside are a critical part of avoiding recidivism once the inmate is released. This is a mechanism the prison industrial complex uses to ensure that the inmates are not rehabilitated and are highly likely to return.
Likewise, if you take someone as a prisoner, you take then into _your_ custody. You are responsible for that person. You are literally their custodian now. You have an obligation to ensure that their rights are being protected. How we expect for profit institutions to do this on behalf of the state is entirely beyond me.
You're expected to feel the limit. What is the sufficient punishment for a 2nd murder? Does it include being arbitrarily robbed of your work? What is the lightest transgression that deserves being treated with implicit promises about basic freedoms followed by taking them away without a warning?
I grew up around people like this, thus I have little sympathy. They all sound terribly repentant, until teacher is gone and you look at them the wrong way.
Yes, private prisons are corrupt profit centers, and this is what voters have chosen. When the other options are pay more taxes to incarcerate criminals, or let them run free, how could things be any other way? They are voters, not saints.
As for "The Marshall Project", another non-profit funded by the same batches of plutocratic blood-money as all the other non-profits. Why are office people so gullible as to think that plutocrats who would wreck an entire economy, or poison a whole town for a quick buck are suddenly public benefactors after passing their ill-gotten gains through a 501(c)(3)?
PS) for the downvoters: Vote as you will, but after you vote, please ask yourself: Did you go to a "rough" school? Have you lived in a "rough" neighborhood for more than a year? I am glad to accept your judgment from experience, but if you are judging from propaganda, it is time for you to stop and reflect.
Do you have a source that it isn't the cheapest way?
(Not that I wrote anywhere that it even was the cheapest way, but that voters would pay more taxes. If you think about it for a moment, you will see that these two statements aren't identical.)
> Not that I wrote anywhere that it even was the cheapest way, but that voters would pay more taxes. If you think about it for a moment, you will see that these two statements aren't identical.
Take the JPay tablet in the article, for example. Currently it is paid for by the prisoner, through either his prison work wages, or stipends from friends & family.
If the service is to continue, but the prisoner no longer has to pay, who picks up the tab?
The way it normally works is that the one making the claim is the one having to provide the source. I'll take that as you don't have a source for it then.
Why would I need to supply a source for something you equivocated and/or misread?
I just remember from my readings of the county register, the prisons put these services up for competitive bid. The amount paid by the department of corrections was usually minuscule, if not zero, since the prisoners paid for these services directly out of their own earnings.
And if you dig into the article itself, he mentions the JPay tablet:
> Inmates can purchase the $69.99 tablet from a kiosk in their facility or someone can purchase it for them. To communicate with inmates, people can access JPay's web platform or get the free JPay app on iPhone or Android. To email or send video-messages, inmates and people on the outside need to purchase 40 cent stamps each time.[0]
This question, like most of the commenters here, is confounding the public-private prison issue with all contracted services. Private services are frequently contracted to public prisons. Public prisons here have been using private contractors for things like phones (ex: Global Tel-Link), meals, maintenance, etc for ages. The prison is still publicly run & funded. And like the JPay tablet, the phone charges were paid by the prisoner, not the taxpayer.
Public prisons have switched to this model because a) US prisoners are rough on things, and if you try keep them fully-stocked without a cost mechanism, the correctional system will go bankrupt. b) in the long-run, it's cheaper to pull-in an outside contractor who is making a profit off of the prisoner and/or his relatives than to hire full-time public employees, who are very difficult to fire, and tend to have defined-benefit pensions instead of defined-contribution ones (like most of the private sector). That is to say, the public employee may end up being 20%-30% cheaper than the contractor while the work is being performed, but the public employee also comes with the open-ended obligation of his pension (i.e. defined benefit) however many years into the future, while the contractor doesn't (defined contribution).
Short answer would be that JPay can pull a tremendous amount of money out of each prisoner's hide for a service that the government could have provided less expensively, and still be a net savings to the taxpayer, since the taxpayer isn't the one footing the bill. While if the government did provide the service, the taxpayer could be exposed to an obligation later on. The prisoner's wages are outside of the equation, since we have to pay those either way.
I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just a guy who used to work for a county government and read the budgets and the contracts.
Private prisons cost taxpayers 2-3x more than a public prison. And that doesn't include the lawsuits taxpayers are on the hook for if the private prison gets sued.
Most non-profits are funded by government grants or by donations from normal people, not ex-finance bros.
Moreover, a non-profit financed entirely by a single wealthy donor is not a 501(c)(3), by definition. It is a 501(c)(4) private foundation, and there are very strict rules governing the finances of a 501(c)(4) entity. (The Marshall Project is a 501(c)(3), while it was initially funded by an ex-finance bro the majority of its funding since then comes from other donors.)
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Arnold Ventures, Ford Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Jacob and Valeria Langeloth Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Maverick Capital Foundation, Neil Barsky, Open Society Foundations, Propel, Rockefeller Family Fund, Timothy and Michele Barakett, the Tow Foundation and Trinity Wall Street [0]
And you will need to source your "2-3x more", since even sites arguing against private prisons are stating a far more modest difference:
According to the study, it costs a private prison about $45,000 a year to house a prisoner, compared to the general cost of about $50,000 annually per inmate in a public prison, resulting in roughly $5,000 in savings per year.
A 2011 study estimated a prisoner’s value of freedom for 90 days at about $1,100 — already taking a large chunk out of the advertised taxpayer and city savings from private prisons.
Moreover, there are other additional costs that are difficult to quantify.
Mukherjee listed some of them, as “the cost of injustice to society (if private prison inmates systematically serve more time), the inmate’s individual value of freedom, and impacts of the additional incarceration on future employment.”[1]
The link you cited points out that private prisons...drive up the cost of prison.
While private prisons are cheaper on a per-day basis, they hold prisoners behind bars longer than public prisons (an average of 90 days) due to increased use of behavioral infraction citations, which negates most of the savings. The link also notes that other costs, like the lawsuit settlements, negate any remaining theoretical savings that exist from using private prisons. WSU researchers noted that this this increased incarceration period alone cost Washington state taxpayers an additional $10.6 million/year over what it would have cost to house those prisoners in public facilities. (https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2020/09/15/privatized-pri...)
And indeed, an audit by Georgia noted that private prisons cost at least 10% more than public prisons on a per-day basis for each prisoner incarcerated (https://apnews.com/article/af7177d9cce540ab9f2d873b99437154), and that a substantial portion of the behavioral infractions issued to justify extended incarceration terms were unsupported by evidence.
Yes. The usual suspects.
Today I learned that an engineer, the family of the UPS founder, the Ford family, and one of the pioneers of the American metallurgy industry are the "usual suspects" in destroying the economy. Leaving aside the fact that the Ford company revolutionized industrial manufacturing, introduced the concept of "fair wages," and was one of the first companies to embrace the shortened (i.e., 5-day) work week that you enjoy today. Or that Langolier pioneered the American metallurgy industry and played a vital role in its existence. Or that UPS was one of the pioneers of the telegraph and parcel delivery, and played an instrumental role in making non-local commercial sales a viable market. Or that Heising is an EECS that owns 6 patents in integrated circuits. Or that MacArthur was an insurance and real estate tycoon who built most of Palm Beach and conducted his business from one of the shops (out of hundreds) that formed in the cities he built.
You wrote 2-3x. Per Wikipedia, WADOC has an annual budget of $2.2B.[0] Even if private prisons did cost Washington taxpayers another $10.6M a year, that is nowhere near 2-3x in a budget that large. Add another 10% to that, and we're still nowhere near 2-3x.
Where did I accuse anyone of "destroying the economy"? (Oh, I kinda did in my first post. And in the case of George "Open Society Foundation" Soros and Thailand, and probably some of these other hedgies, that is also the case.) But for the most part, these people have done wonders for the economy, and if by "the economy" we mean the sort of people who work at and buy into hedge funds, doubly so!
Ordinary people and the environment, however, are another story.
Why won't you cite that research then, instead of these baby numbers--quoting a top estimated savings of under $11M over an entire state system (i.e. with budgets on the order of billions)?
The one I originally cited, which was arguing against private prisons, conceded that private prisons were nominally $5,000/yr cheaper than public prisons, but taking the 90-extra-days (on average) spent at private facilities into account incurs a "value of freedom" cost, which they have estimated at $1,000 per sentence. The paper they were paraphrasing[0] from claims, "delayed release erodes half of the cost savings offered by private contracting". In other words, the other half of the cost savings are still intact.
Or there's this Brookings paper[1], which is a little more in your favor:
> Private prisons cost the state an average of $46.50 per prisoner per day in 2012, while the state’s comparable public facilities ranged from $35.11 to $40.47.
Taking the smallest state figure, the private prison is 32% higher; the largest state figure, and the private prison is 15% higher, neither of which are 2-3x more.
I always have trouble with posts like these, the comments are full of people who ask why prisons exist, and seem to imply they would rather crime and criminal behavior not be punished at all.
They also chafe at the idea that prisons should be allowed to inhibit their inhabitants’ freedom in anyway. As if prison should actually be a really nice free hotel that we send people who commit murder and rape.
I totally get that someone can sound eloquent in written form, especially if a professional editor spends some time cleaning up the grammar, etc. but that doesn’t change the fact that this particular person ended someone else’s life in cold blood and is now whining about not being able to send his daughter poems in stanza form. The other guy can’t send anything to his daughter at all because he’s dead. Maybe you should recognize you deserve to be punished.
I don't like scumbags who commit those crimes any more than you do, but honestly, if we just want to be as f'd up as possible to them, then it starts to get pretty close to the "just do capital punishment" argument. If on the other hand we'd like them to reform themselves so we don't just have to keep them locked up forever or kill them, various forms of psychological torture run counter to those goals so we actually should care that they're not being subjected to cruelty.
If you look at prison as a whole, I don't think the needle is anywhere close to "so pleasant that people don't even want to stay out of it" so no, I don't think it's necessary to make every aspect of it worse just to spite them. It won't bring the victims back. And just having them locked up at all is sufficient to keep the rest of society safe.
The USA imprisons more people than any other country on the planet.
Don’t generalize that no one wants no prisons. Our prisons should not operate like Abu Ghraib. Why are drugs, weapons, sexual assault and violence occurring in what is supposedly secure facilities? Why are prisons allowing/encouraging tribalism along racial/ethnic lines? Why is rape and sexual slavery permitted?
Our tax dollars fund all of this.
Other industrialized nations have better training for law enforcement and much better prison systems, which don’t operate like hellholes.
They don’t promote a private prison industry which lobbies for longer sentences so that their firms get to bill the state and enrich their owners.
> they would rather crime and criminal behavior not be punished at all.
If it's possible to do so and sufficiently discourage crime up front, still reduce recidivism, and keep society from harm, then yes, absolutely.
Being the real world and lacking such a perfect solution doesn't mean that can't still be the direction we aim in.
The goal is maximizing net benefit to society.
There's absolutely some amount of benefit to the satisfaction the punitive approach can have for those harmed, there's definitely benefit to getting people to choose to not commit crimes due to consequences (but with diminishing returns), and there's absolutely benefit to keeping actively dangerous individuals separate from society. However, when we make prisons so bad that people come out as dangerous or more dangerous than they went in, has society actually benefitted on the balance?
Are we, collectively, better off because one murderer was made utterly miserable for 15 years who is just as likely to murder again than we are if that same murderer was made moderately inconvenienced for 10 years, but is less likely to murder again?
That's not necessarily true in all jurisdictions, as the elements defining degrees of murder are not universal. But, interestingly, in the case of Michigan (which applies here), you may be correct, insofar as a "premediated killing" is construed as a killing performed "in cold blood".
Michigan's statutes indicate that first degree murder includes any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. [1] Whereas second degree murder includes all "other kinds" of murder which do not fall under the specifically enumerated conduct rising to the level of first degree murder. [2]
While the second degree murder statute does not expressly describe what circumstances would precipitate those "other kinds" of murder, the statute outlining the scoring system for crimes involving "intent to kill" suggests that second degree murder would be committed where the offender had unpremeditated intent to kill or created a very high risk of death knowing that death was the probable result. [3]
Yikes - you can't post like this here. We ban accounts that do, so please don't do it again. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
We've had to warn you about breaking the site guidelines multiple times before, though it doesn't look like you've been making a habit of it lately (that's good!).
Responding with more snark and flamebait is not helping.
If another commenter is breaking the site rules, you're welcome to bring that to our attention. (There are far too many comments for us to read them all, so it's possible we missed something.) But even if you're right, it's no excuse for flouting the rules as you did. Commenters, including you, need to follow HN's rules regardless of how bad other comments are or you feel they are.
Are we not allowed to simply have academic conversations and raise points for the personal education and edification of others (and not necessarily limited to those who are the immediate parties to a conversation, but also with respect to the community at large)? What's the problem exactly? Sorry for offending you.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/01/28/i-m-having-a-c...
His last post is from July 2022. I wonder if he is still alive.