Man, I'd love to go poking around on the dark web, specifically those black markets just to look around and satiate my curiosity but am to afraid that I'll be put on some NSA watch list for doing so.
The act of just searching/visiting Tails homepage gets you tasked into XKEYSCORE. Get generic linux live CD, apply sunglasses, obtain wifi then get the Tor Browser Bundle and go nuts (after about:config disable javascript).^^
AirBnB as your criminal conspiracy supply chain strategy seems like a bad idea, how trivial would it be for the DEA to get a list of addresses on past/current listings, then search USPS db history to find patterns to investigate.
The student is signing for the package, I bet the dealers reuse fake ID or reuse the same airbnb places. Now do controlled delivery next time those addresses with patterns have packages and merely threaten the student into cooperation or follow them for second controlled delivery and bust entire crew for conspiracy to traffic which is a decade in jail at least, especially interstate trafficking. This is a weak criminal scheme made weaker by taunting the police by telling a journalist about your scheme, now they have to bust you to save face.
If your threat model is "DEA busts darknet seller" they'd get a big stack of delivery addresses where drugs have been sent.
If a bunch of those addresses turned out to be AirBnB they could subpoena the details of who paid for the leases. Especially if their orders were large enough to indicate they were selling the stuff on.
> The facilitator rents a carefully vetted Airbnb and arranges for a naive student to be there to sign for the package. The student then takes it to a second location
I imagine the specific risk is the packaging getting intercepted and then the person receiving the package being confronted. As for the renter -- a headache, but not more than that. They'd be able to prove pretty easily that they were not at home at the time, more than likely.
But it getting down to that seems unlikely, given the number of 'levels' of plausible deniability are involved. That's the theory at least. It seems only feasible for very large shipments that happen often -- the DEA doesn't really do much in the way of small-time drug deal busting, it seems.
$63 an oz for cocaine that's a typo that must be the cost per gram. I just watched narcos on Netflix a kilogram in 1975 was worth like $35,000 and there are 35 oz in a kg.
Yes it is per gram. Just below the text mentioning the $63 is a sideways histogram showing price per gram. The largest bin is $50 - $99 per gram.
https://atlas.qz.com/i/atlas_4kISXhx5.png
I love studying economics like this article. It's the most counter-intuitive science. Unfortunately it's often a frontal collision with popular opinions, which brings a lot of hate against me (being white, I automatically get accused of unfairness). I wonder whether I'll ever be able to have a discussion about economics with less educated people, which means, will I ever be able to word it without hurting people.
Remove the following things from your two comments:
being white, I automatically get accused of unfairness)
less educated people
will I ever be able to word it without hurting people.
So I've defaulted to thinking it's a prejudice from the listener.
You imply a lot of ugly things about other people. It will get you ugly reactions to do that.
I have lots of unpopular/controversial opinions. I have found it enormously helpful to work on trying to express them without insulting my audience in the process. It can certainly be a hard row to hoe.
He asked for feedback. I gave it. I think I did so respectfully. If he sincerely hopes to learn to engage people effectively in meaty discussion about difficult topics, hopefully this will help him get there.
The reason you can't get along with people is because you write paragraphs with zero content and 80% insult. What particular economic proposition would you argue, if you were actually here to discuss economics rather than to troll pathetically?
Feels like that what I've tried for years. But your comment is the automatic response I get for any wording I use. So I've defaulted to thinking it's a prejudice from the listener. When is the last time you've discussed economy with someone who doesn't agree with you and didn't take it as condescending? and, bonus point, what did the guy say/not say?
As it happens, I occasionally rub elbows with folks who aren't particularly highly educated. I don't have much trouble discussing stuff like economics with them, or with technically-educated and economically-ignorant people, or with my 17-year-old brother who has no real grounding in any of it. All it takes is patience and empathy. And it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing; I almost never agree with, say, my father on anything economic or political, but it's not condescending, even if it gets heated.
Reading your posts, the way write (and, I would bet, talk) comes off as if you think everybody is an idiot and/or is out to get you. I am not unsympathetic, because I certainly have my moments of jerkassery (plenty of 'em around here, and I'm not proud of them), but dude, look inward. I mean, even what I would bet you think is innocuous isn't: why not ask a question in good faith instead of imperiously assuming anybody gives a damn about your "bonus points"?
And the benighted-white-male thing is really, really not a good look, FWIW.
> "Fucking worthless morons who would be dead if not for the shitty welfare state"
This comment breaks the HN guidelines. There's no legitimate point that needs to be made that way. Please comment civilly and substantively, or not at all.
When you expect problems from your interactions with someone ('frontal collision with popular opinions'), you tend to find them. This is the sort of belief that can be self-reinforcing, almost like a "self-fulfilling prophecy."
It's best to avoid things like speculation as to motives or intelligence of others. It only leads to mean words.
That sounds like a roundabout way of saying "filter bubble". Having to defend your opinions once in a while isn't all bad. If you have to surround yourself with people you find intelligent you might just be biasing your social circle towards people who agree with you a priori.
That is a definent concern, but I think it is possible to separate "intelligent" from "agrees with me".
For me, the biggest requirement to having an intelligent conversation is the ability to distinguish questions of fact, from questions of values. By far the most intelligent discussion group I have participated in, had me in the minority opinion in most discussions.
It's good to be able to distinguish different things. In my experience, however, reasonable people can disagree on questions of fact, on questions of value, or on both questions. It is an extremist position to require unanimity on either "facts" or "values".
This is a good point but I was not suggesting surrounding yourself with people who agree with you. I meant people who disagree with you without getting emotionally invested or spouting logical fallacies.
