> That is not how these things work. The general public can only call for a investigation
Sure, anybody can ask anybody else to investigate anything, but also anybody can investigate anything themselves. Of course, not everybody might have full access to everything, but access is earned by presenting convincing evidence thusfar. If you discover any evidence that openAI killed this person, it can be forwarded to authorities, who can use it to justify a more extensive investigation of their own, with subpoenas, etc.
Otherwise, we can expect a normal amount of investigation, like into any other apparent suicide.
> What you call a contrived description is in fact what is sometimes called a modus operandus, signature, or staging
What you previously called evidence, and now only call a modus operandus, signature, or staging, is in fact a contrived, self-serving, narrative description (one which you might have had even before this person passed away). I find that disparaging someone's reasonable skepticism here, is toxic to discourse.
Evidence is something like: Sally saw someone shoot the dude; we found an email from saltman ordering the hit; a video caught the whole murder on tape. Have you seen any actual evidence? I haven't. Only contrived, conspiratorial, self-serving narrative descriptions. Evidence warrants investigations, narratives about hypothetical motives don't.
> they were silenced
The 1 person we're discussing, evidently seems to have taken their own life, rather than being "silenced". It's tragic, but please don't exploit their memory for your own agenda with such unfounded, conspiratorial assertions. Prefix such assertions with "I personally believe...", and if so desired, "...based on no direct evidence thusfar...".
> Sure, anybody can ask anybody else to investigate anything.
Have you dealt with government workers before? Do you know any of them that would re-open an investigation on their own from submissions from an independent person that shows they got it wrong (egg on face)?
What would convincing evidence even look like to spur the necessary action after an investigation has been closed solely based on a medical examiner's report?
If a mistake was made from lack of direct evidence, how many reports are actually amended after-the-fact?
The truth is there isn't anything in the world that would meet sufficient criteria to offset the sloth or the general resistance when the establishment makes a mistake and closes investigations early. To say the contrary amounts to a pleasant idea nothing more.
No government worker is going to create more work for themselves after someone else has closed prelims, which is why this needs to be done carefully and properly the first time not haphazardly closed.
> What you previously called evidence ....
Yes, what I called evidence for an investigation, the operating context was and remains investigation. Same word different context and now you are trying to confuse and change it after the fact.
I don't want to impugn your reading ability/comprehension but this was clear from the very beginning in the first sentence. You are confusing yourself unnecessarily.
> I find that someone disparaging someone's reasonable skepticism here is toxic to discourse.
What you are calling disparaging I and everyone else call disagreeing, and pointing out reasoning flaws.
Disagreement is not toxic, it is a mandatory requirement for intelligent rational conversation. In order to think and generally be intelligent, one must risk being offensive, and in order to learn one must risk being offended.
If neither are possible, because you associate any disagreement as disparagement, you end up in a delusion, divorced and not accounting for reality. This state is not sustainable, and brings with it questions related to Darwin's fitness for individual survival.
> contrived, self-serving, narrative description
While not contrived, of course this is self-serving, as it should be for you too if you are a citizen. If you blew the whistle, died, and someone made it look like you killed yourself before you could relate that information, wouldn't you want justice? Wouldn't you want closure for your family so they can properly grieve?
What you seem to find reasonable, I find highly dubious because it can hardly follow reason when the basis is fallacious, lacking in identity, and circular.
There is a duty of care to properly investigate when people die. When there are many suspicious deaths, even moreso.
When such preliminary investigations are closed immediately because its convenient politically, its the duty of any citizen to call it out and apply the appropriate political pressure so that a proper investigation occurs and justice gets served.
There was physical evidence of blood in areas that don't match the narrative being pushed (suicide), that in fact contradict it.
> The 1 person we're discussing...
It has been inherent in the conversation and media that there have been three whistleblowers that have died in the past year under very suspicious circumstances, that were all ruled suicide with little preliminary investigation, and it sure looks like OpenAI pulled a Boeing.
> Please don't exploit their memory for your own agenda
I have no agenda aside from wanting justice served.
You are talking yourself in a circle, where overwhelming evidence that isn't quantifiable must be present before investigation, when such evidence can only be acquired in an investigation, and ignoring physical evidence reported that contradicts, it is completely irrational. These are well founded assertions that should be properly investigated.
It is clear from your stance that you would err on the side of doing nothing, not even properly investigating when suspicious deaths occur, and the resulting injustice would go unchecked.
If left unchecked by others, those shallow beliefs would lead to great destruction as a society.
When you support doing nothing and not even properly investigating, what you actually support is vigilantism or a brass verdict, and by extension the resulting additional victims (when information is false/incomplete but sufficient to spur others to action).
You either support a working system of non-violent conflict resolution which requires proper investigation upfront, or you end up supporting the latter (through inaction) and all the broad consequences that come with it.
Inaction is also an action. It is slothful to remain inert when action is dictated, but this is commonly seen in complacent people who have succumbed to the banality of evil. Left unchecked, this becomes a radical evil.
> There is a duty of care to properly investigate when people die.
Yes, usually every death is already investigated and run by a medical examiner. This is a proper amount of investigation, unless there is evidence to support a more extensive one.
> When there are many suspicious deaths, even moreso
Is there any evidence linking this death to the others you mention, and any consensus that all of them were suspicious, other than in your personal narrative of events? I have seen neither.
> Have you dealt with government workers before? Do you know any of them that would re-open an investigation on their own from submissions from an independent person that shows they got it wrong (egg on face)?
Obviously they wouldn't (and shouldn't) do it if you didn't have any evidence showing that the previous conclusion was wrong, and I have not seen any presented here.
> What would convincing evidence even look like to spur the necessary action after an investigation has been closed solely based on a medical examiner's report?
I've answered this twice, once in each of the above posts, suggesting what direct, non-circumstantial evidence might look like. A conspiratorial, self-serving personal narrative, conflating unconnected events, unfortunately isn't that.
> You are talking yourself in a circle, where overwhelming evidence that isn't quantifiable must be present before investigation, when such evidence can only be acquired in an investigation
This is actually a circle that you are talking yourself in. Things like search warrants can't be granted on the basis of 'another person [out of billions] also took their own life a while ago while under stress, that seems sus to me', and that doesn't sound like a good justification for focusing resources, either. What, then, are you proposing a new investigation should do?
Have you seen any direct, non-circumstantial evidence? Witnesses? Videos? Communications ordering a hit? Documents discussing it? Anything like that?
I haven't. And unfortunately you did not answer this question previously, so now it must be re-asked. I'm genuinely asking here. Maybe I missed some direct, non-circumstantial evidence. You mentioned something about blood, could you please [link] us to what you're talking about there?
Do you really think any proper investigation can be completed in the time it took them to close this?
For the record, that time was 40 seconds from the time they arrived at the scene. They couldn't even have had the firearm ownership information by that point.
The parents also found blood spatter where it shouldn't have been if it were a suicide, and signs of a struggle in the bathroom.
There needs to be a proper investigation. The duty of care has not been met.
Thanks -- can you please elaborate on the specifics of the "signs of struggle" and "blood spatter", as claimed by the family?
As for the investigation, your link says it was worked on, and is still ongoing. A private autopsy was completed, and from what I can gather, it did not prove the conspiracy either. What specifically are you proposing the investigation do, then?
Sure, anybody can ask anybody else to investigate anything, but also anybody can investigate anything themselves. Of course, not everybody might have full access to everything, but access is earned by presenting convincing evidence thusfar. If you discover any evidence that openAI killed this person, it can be forwarded to authorities, who can use it to justify a more extensive investigation of their own, with subpoenas, etc.
Otherwise, we can expect a normal amount of investigation, like into any other apparent suicide.
> What you call a contrived description is in fact what is sometimes called a modus operandus, signature, or staging
What you previously called evidence, and now only call a modus operandus, signature, or staging, is in fact a contrived, self-serving, narrative description (one which you might have had even before this person passed away). I find that disparaging someone's reasonable skepticism here, is toxic to discourse.
Evidence is something like: Sally saw someone shoot the dude; we found an email from saltman ordering the hit; a video caught the whole murder on tape. Have you seen any actual evidence? I haven't. Only contrived, conspiratorial, self-serving narrative descriptions. Evidence warrants investigations, narratives about hypothetical motives don't.
> they were silenced
The 1 person we're discussing, evidently seems to have taken their own life, rather than being "silenced". It's tragic, but please don't exploit their memory for your own agenda with such unfounded, conspiratorial assertions. Prefix such assertions with "I personally believe...", and if so desired, "...based on no direct evidence thusfar...".