We disagree on what a working sewage system means. Tanker trucks aren’t it. Dubai may have had a working sewage system for a year now. Not great but better than I thought was the case.
Your definition involves strange mental gymnastics to turn a perfectly functional albeit expensive sewage system into a non-working sewage system.
The end user experience of the sewage system in Dubai is no different than in regular Western cities. That’s really all that matters when trying to figure out if it’s “working” or not.
There are definitely people who are enslaved in the UAE under the Kafala System. It’s unclear to me how widespread it is, but it does happen. When I was there, I personally met a woman on Tinder, and on our date she told me she had been forced into prostitution by the person who brought her to the UAE. She had to earn tens of thousands of dollars to get her passport back from him.
This is absolutely illegal and you can get your passport back within a day or two by just calling MOHRE.
A decade ago this stuff may have been more common, but the government has cracked down heavily to the point that it doesn’t exist any more than it does in Europe.
I mean I’m deliberately neglecting to mention all the European restaurants like L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon, LPM, Gaia, COYA, Zuma, Cipriani and so many others.
Most of these aren’t my favourites, but they’re definitely well loved in world class cities like London.
Do I think Dubai is a world class city? Nah. But it’s not very far.
Personally I’m really not a fan of the place, I’d only ever visit to meet with lawyers. Too warm, too much sand, most of the restaurants can also be found in much better cities (Monaco has most of the aforementioned within a short distance, and vastly better beaches)
I think what makes a world class city is not that it has those sorts of restaurants/shops/etc, but that it incubates those things. Quite a long way from that.
> How are you not totally creepy and demented yourself, since you're the one who's losing your shit when somebody truthfully points out that you're a sock puppet
I make that fact clear in my messages, I don’t make any effort to hide my multiple accounts.
It’s weird and creepy that he continues to follow me around after that.
> why are you so desperately trying to conceal your numerous false identities?
I’m obviously not, put down the pipe.
> It was also spectacularly unwise for you to go on the record with your threats to commit extortion and fraud and libel and identity theft. But you be you. You can't unring that bell, and I'm sure Dan will be happy to provide the IP addresses of all of your sock puppet accounts to the authorities, if it comes to that.
Nobody cares lmao. Back in the real world you won’t be able to find a single police officer interested in these kinds of things, much less many police officers in several countries which it would take for anyone to even reach me.
We've banned this account and related accounts for breaking the site guidelines repeatedly and ignoring our repeated requests to stop. Also for using multiple accounts abusively, and (it seems) also for crossing into aggressive attacks outside this site. Seriously not cool.
What exactly am I supposed to do when another user is stalking me besides tell them off?
How am I using multiple accounts abusively? I’ve been using them to make substantive comments when prevented from doing so by ratelimits, which is something actively encouraged by your webdesign.
I write a good comment, get hit by the ratelimit, am I just supposed to throw it away? That’s shitty. The right and proper thing to do would be to inform me of the ratelimit before I waste my time writing a comment I can’t post.
I don’t think you can criticize the comment histories of my other accounts like https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=doldols , I’ve been using them to make substantive contributions, not to abuse people.
Your account was rate limited because you have a history of breaking the site guidelines. We've warned you about doing that, and asked you to stop, many times.
Replying to your frequent postings on a public forum and stating the fact that your accounts are sock puppets, which you don't deny, is certainly not stalking.
If you're terrified of people publicly replying to your public posts, then don't post in public, simple as that.
If you bravely decide you have thick enough skin to tolerate people replying to your posts, and you hit the rate limit, then post later, simple as that.
On the other hand, your creepy and unlawful actions of launching massive denial of service attacks against other users and threatening to spend thousands of euros to ruin their lives by committing fraud and identity theft is DEFINITELY stalking.
You went WAY beyond "telling them off". So don't pretend we all don't know what you really are.
Except it doesn’t. Twitter doesn’t usually ban accounts for tweets like these. And when they do, they’ll automatically unban you if you delete the tweet.
It’s not like someone randomly tweeted child pornography or bomb threats from his account.
The fact that jacquesm could immediately recover his account by deleting this tweet completely discredits this theory.
Exactly! It makes way more sense for a person who tweeted something deeply out of character to try and disavow it in this way, than for a person that regularly tweets this kind of things.
Would someone pleading the 5th count as probable cause? I would hope not. That would go against the idea that you can't be punished for exercising a right.
Go on. How is forcing someone to testify against themselves with the threat of criminal charges (tax fraud!) and then using that information in a criminal investigation not a 5th amendment violation.
I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know anything. I’m just curious.
I believe that the current legal situation goes further than just keeping people from being compelled to testify. Pleading the 5th also can't be used as evidence against someone (because that would be a form of compulsion), or even as probable cause.
I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.
Would this not taint any investigation started on the basis of coerced testimony? Why would the exclusionary rule not kick in here?
As far as I understand in a criminal context no adverse inference may be drawn from ones refusal to self-incriminate. How would investigating someone for refusing to self-incriminate to the IRS not be exactly that?
>I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.
Again, you did no such thing:
> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?
An investigation can be initiated, and can proceed, without any testimony whatsoever from the accused.
Which coerced testimony are you attempting to refer to? The cops show up and ask you about your tax return, and you say "". Either they continue to investigate you or they don't, but you have not been coerced into saying anything at all.
> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?
>I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.
This kind of revisionist interpretation, that a poster will engage in to make an altogether different assertion, is not uncommon on HN. Pointing it out gets downvoted, overall making the conversations worse because it's viewed as nitpicking, when it's really just trying to avoid bad faith...wasn't there an article posted about this recently?
If the government asks if you, Bill the graffiti artist, painted any graffiti on the wall of a giant chicken, and you said no. They could still apply a penalty for lying to an LEO if that exists as a law if they can catch you later.
What if everyone included "I plead the fifth" in their tax filings? Perhaps as a form of protest, or because CFAs and distributors of tax-filing software started adding it to their boilerplate?
It’s not like they’re making residents pay high taxes to pay for the tankers either.