Or if they weren’t organized enough or able to commit to going early on, but still have the purchasing power to pay a higher price?

I don't know what the truth is, I just disagree with your conclusion based on the logic you present.

> Depending upon its sensitivity classification, customer data is AES-256-GCM encrypted at the server-side before storage. Postman environment variables are covered in this classification and we strongly encourage you to use them to store your authentication keys and passwords. We have also added sessions in the 6.2 release onwards of Postman. We recommend using session variables for any data that you do not want to be synced to Postman's servers.

The idea isn’t ”if we legalize opiates and opioids, no one will ever get hurt from them again”. It’s ”when they are illegal, even more people get hurt”. Just like how alcohol is a substance that causes a very large amount of direct and indirect damage to its users and those around them, yet its prohibition in the US increased the net suffering substantially.

As long as there are opiates/opioids around, they will be abused in a self-destructive way by some (and they are cheap and easy to make, so they will be around as long as there’s demand). We’re currently trying to limit this through enforcing prohibition, which is not particularly effective and has well-known drawbacks. We could instead try to do the same with increased spending on education and treatment. Through that, we could make people less likely to want to use them, we could make people use them as safely as possible when they do, and we could make it so that less of the people who use them start to abuse them in ways that affect their lives negatively. Perhaps this would have better effect than criminalization, while increasing safety and decreasing associated violence.

Of course, this is all very complicated and messy, and every possible policy has negative effects and causes collateral damage. I’m open to arguments saying that this is not how it would play out. But I think the chances are better than with the current approach.

Since we’re speculating freely anyway, why does the revenge have to come in the same form as the initial affront?

> How pay is determined

>"This is a haphazard process. The payment mechanism is to a very large extent bonus-based. So the contracts usually have a minimum pay segment in it, which is more or less established by tradition. And then the interesting part in this contract is how much is left to the peer review process, which is very complicated. It involves various layers of mutual assessment. "In companies like Microsoft or elsewhere, usually the bonus is something between 8, 15, 20 percent of the basic salary. In Valve, I'm told, there's no upper limit to bonuses. Bonuses can end up being 5, 6, 10 times the level of the basic wage." "Gabe [Newell] had this view from the beginning. He wanted a community of partners, he didn't want to be the boss of anyone or to be bossed around by anyone."

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/how-valve-hires-how-i...

If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power.

>> Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack.

> Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards

Surely the context of this exchange is whether a police officer who has been accused of a crime still should be on active duty? Also I didn’t say ”punish”, I said ”get rid of”, which is effectively what happens if a cop is taken off duty pending investigation and potential court case.

> But, yeah, still blame it on the programmability of the people.

Yes indeed, because the people affected by those problems tend to vote for the side that, to a much more severe degree than its counterpart, doesn’t have any real vision for solving them, but instead makes its base feel good with populistic propaganda.

You’re basically just saying there are real issues that people care about. Yeah, absolutely. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t also being manipulated and that it’s not something worth trying to solve.

I might be dense, what's the issue with congratulating someone? It can of course be for something untoward, but there are surely a lot more valid reasons for giving coworkers props ("congratulations on the promotion", "congratulations on your good work on project X", etc).