precipice, not 'precibus'

Japanese people talk like this.

Um. Theres a peace deal in the making right now. not sure you are too well informed.

I hope so, but we have the head of NATO and numerous senior British officials (including the head of MI6, who is never normally heard from) talking about an impending major war. Maybe (hopefully) this is just hedging and something can be worked out

Mi6 didnt say that there was an impending major war. They said theres a growing threat from Russia.

When agencies like that put those statements out, its not just to warn the public. Its to put pressure on the other side.

There will be a peace deal in Ukraine soon.

Ive got 1300 records and I dont live in the USA. So there!

There was a brief period where ignorance reigned and Dan Brown was considered an actual historical writer. That drove a lot of book sales, when in fact Dan Brown doesn't write anything remotely historical.

I was reading Brown at like.... 12 years old. The idea that anyone legitimately thought of it as historical fact is hard for me to believe. Not impossible, though...

Did people also think of National Treasure as historically accurate?

The Da Vinci Code has a frontispiece page titled "FACTS" or similar, that lists various elements mentioned in the book and claims they're historically factual. That's the stuff lots of people believed (as did Dan Brown, one presumes).

I guess op didnt read that page!

Probably. Dan Brown got a lot more credence than Nick Cruise though. People will assume that a historical fiction is based on real history. Its like when Hollywood says "based on a true story."

As a Winnipegger, all I can say is im proud of the silly ol bear.

that argument helps a lot when someone is pointing a gun at you /s

What he's trying to say is that most people crimes under the assumption that they won't get caught, not that, if they get caught, they can withstand the punishment.

In the 'purely rational' crimes, it's going to be some sort of function of both right? The expected benefit, the risk that you get caught, and the severity of the punishment.

While I agree that people conducting corporate fraud think they will get away with it - I don't agree that the long sentences won't act as a deterrence. If you set the sentence for these sorts of crimes to 1 year rather than 15+, that completely changes the risk profile for people who think there is a 90% chance they will get away with it.

It's simpler than that. You just don't think about getting caught, it's not part of the plan.

Sentence length has a small effect on crime rates, but what really matters is enforcement levels. If you have a 99% chance of getting caught & punished, you don't bother.

Regrets that the cost-benefit analysis didn't work out, not that they fired anyone.

Huh? I thought they wanted a cashless society?

That was also my reaction. If they want csshless so badly, why not let them ?