Kim Dotcom's Extradition to the U.S. Given Green Light by New Zealand

Re:Kim Dotcom's Extradition to the U.S. Given Green Light by... by glitchc on Friday August 16, 2024 @12:52PM (#41268103)

Thank you for dodging my point with a non-sequitur. The contrived example does not diminish the potential real harm that exists in the original use case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Kim Dotcom's Extradition to the U.S. Given Green Light by... by pmarreck on Friday August 16, 2024 @04:19PM (#41269993)

> potential

You don't seem to understand that "potential" is not "actual" (and also conveniently says nothing about actual probabilities). I could claim almost anything is "potential".

Eating grapes could "potentially" result in choking. Living in a house made of wood could "potentially" result in dying in a house fire. Driving over 70MPH could "potentially" result in hydroplaning if it is raining.

Why do we not care more about the "actual" harm (and its probability), as measured by science?

Oh, of course- Things that are banned are difficult to study, which is why people can invent any beliefs about them that they want to.

[ Parent | on HN ]