A monopoly is certainly a business success but not all business successes are monopolies. FB does not have any competitors and has near 100% control of its market. It's only initial competitor was myspace, FB was basically a myspace clone to begin with. Later google attempted to compete with it via google+ and found the monopoly unassailable. It has leveraged that to catapult instagram and FB messenger vs their competitors which do exist and that is illegal. It isn't illegal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to leverage it to prevent competition or promote new products.
People who don't believe in monopolies and didn't think Microsoft had them need not bother commenting, we've all heard you opinions before. Your opinion is basically that monopolies are just someone being successful and someone theoretically could beat them eventually. Got it, good to know. Not really relevant. By your logic only a perpetual monopoly would be a monopoly and as yet our species has yet to encounter anything that theoretically lasts forever.
No, that is what you are doing. This has nothing to do with ISPs okay, I regret having mentioned common carrier but it seemed like a simple enough concept to express as a generic concept.
Someone functioning as a generic relay of communications between users who shouldn't be inspecting, manipulating, or filtering them and also shouldn't be responsible for them because they also don't create them. That is what FB is. The Facebook network which underlays the Facebook website and messenger and instagram is nothing but a layer 5 or 7 (pick your model) network and that network has no real competition and nearly 100% market penetration which makes it a monopoly. It has been used to push new applications of FB such as FB messenger and Instagram.
Their size does matter. FB is not like HBO vs Showtime, HBO and Showtime are just alternative broadcast channels. They don't have monopolies, they COULD have monopolies if they controlled their market, they could be illegal monopolies if they were monopolies that utilized their market penetration to make new products successful. What is a normal and acceptable business practice stops being one when you are a monopoly.
"platform, known as Dragonfly, which was designed to blacklist information about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest"
Europe, you should remember this and that Chinese companies are state sponsored when deciding whether to support them and purchase and install their telecom equipment in your networks. If you aren't building your own gear it is a given that you are being spied on, to think otherwise is naive. But inviting someone with these kind of values out of spite because you are upset to have what your own intelligence agencies have certainly been aware of and ignoring for decades confirmed is a horrible mistake.
The US has been your strongest ally, we are at war, and you are smuggling resources to the enemy stronghold we've laid siege to instead of joining forces. And why are you stabbing us in the back? Because our President is a loudmouth with a bad tan?
MOD DOWN, mistaken and inaccurate. My own post is redundant but this correction needed to be more visible.
TFA is titled "This Company Will Pay You to Learn to Code, and Take 15 Percent of Your Income Later" written by Samantha Cole on 3/28/2019
You are referencing the next similar topic but unrelated FA on the page titled, "The CEO of a Failed For-Profit College Started a Coding Bootcamp" written by Jordan Pearson 2/24/2016.
There is no tuition stated or implied in TFA nor shady implications and details you refer to.
According to the TFA it will. I don't see why it wouldn't since they get 15% of your salary if that enables you to get a job or higher paying job. The have a profit incentive to make you look good, and their students all looking good only makes them look better and their services and staffing board a better sell.
"TFA implies that employers don't place much, if any, value in the certification."
That is going to be on an individual basis. You can apply for an entry level position with a resume that says "Voted Most likely to hangglide in high school" and "Shaved roast beef with precision at Arby's for six months" or you can put those AND "Attended Modern Labor Development Bootcamp" and reference the 15-20 production projects you contributed to and show examples of your work. You are getting shafted in that this is really on the job training for less than minimum wage being called a boot camp and then you are supposed to pay them back 15% of your salary for the next two years for the priviledge of having been given that gig. It's an extra bonus because they have a staffing board to get gigs off of and presumably get some kind of cut from that if the students use it as well.
Whether self study, a course, or a degree all it really shows is initiative towards learning, anything beyond that is experience and a track record and as an employer you can't or at least shouldn't expect an entry level employee to have one. You can self study or you can do Khan's but a boot camp which includes actual inbound for profit tasks is probably going to be more efficient. When you self study you have lots of gaps you don't know are there.
TFA is titled "This Company Will Pay You to Learn to Code, and Take 15 Percent of Your Income Later" written by Samantha Cole on 3/28/2019
You are referencing the next similar topic but unrelated FA on the page titled, "The CEO of a Failed For-Profit College Started a Coding Bootcamp" written by Jordan Pearson 2/24/2016.
You only pay 15% of your earnings, not 15% of your initial salary for 2yrs. If you lose the job you don't pay but if you get a new one you'll have to pay from that.
They actually have a staffing platform for finding gigs ranging from 1mo-FT
The sketchy part is they having you working on projects they are being paid for in order to get that $2k/mo, they push for 30hrs minimum but also push competition on number of hours worked coming to 45-60hrs so that equates to dramatically lower than minimum wage. So basically you work for less than minimum wage for 5months learning on the job (but apparently the requirements push for previous coding experience) and then have to pay back up to 3x that for the privilege of having worked below minimum wage.
The requirement does expire if you don't find a gig paying at least 40k within 5yrs.
The only bright side there is that you'll have a portfolio of projects when done.
TFA actually has info from someone in the program. They have you working projects, she indicated she's already completed 15. Afterward they don't guarantee placement but they have an optional staffing platform for gigs 1mo-contract to hires. So you produce actual work output as part of the camp.
I mean at face value it isn't that unreasonable. You don't need 4yrs to learn most development especially web front/backend development and getting it in one place alongside practical experience is all to the good. Technically it is a little sketchy wanting participants to work on projects the company is getting paid for AND wanting them to pay back what they make is a bit greedy but like you said, you DO need things to practice on and it will help build something for a resume if you are entry level or making a career change.
What is very sketchy to me is the 30hr minimum. They have an activity tracker app that monitors your usage to make sure you are actively working on everything for at least 30hrs a week and have people competing to log as many hours as possible 45-60hrs+. Which makes it dramatically lower than minimum wage AND they want to pay up to 3x whatever they are giving you back. Sweatshop style.
"TFA isn't clear, but it looks like they pay you $2000 per month, yet you are still responsible for paying tuition that exceeds that. So YOU are paying THEM in net payments even while you are still taking the class. "
I can't find anything on their website indicating that you pay any tuition at all.
They pay $2000/mo for the camp, if you get a job paying more than $40k/yr they get 15% for 2yrs with a cap of $30k paid to them.
It doesn't sound like the worst plan for a new college student, especially if it enables them to get an entry level position at a company with tuition reimbursement.
Of course but that is true of anything you learn in college as well. You just cut out the cruft they use to pad it, accelerate it how long it actually takes to learn that material. Either way if you actually want it to be functional you need to couple it with experience. These things are for entry level gigs. Sadly finding somewhere that doesn't want you to already have experience for an entry level position is going to be tough these days.
Yeah but 2 won't get an interview with your company, in fact if comments you've made previously are an indication 2 could have solved classically unsolvable computation problems or solved a few with previously thought impossible efficiency and you'd toss his resume in the trash because it doesn't list a degree.
"Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them."
Strawman. Saying something has an abstract logical similarity to something is not saying it is that thing and is not refuted or logically refuted by pointing out it isn't that thing.
You can't connect to facebooks social network which has a monopoly level market penetration. Competition would be myspace and google +, google + is defunct and myspace is effectively non-existent.
"It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong."
By that logic no internet based service will ever be a monopoly. I suppose you maintain Microsoft did not have a desktop monopoly because other programs existed or that IE didn't have monopoly browser share at one point. In both cases other mega entities have slowly over time nipped away market share with some level of success but that doesn't mean they weren't monopolies anymore than the eventual fall of Rome changes the fact that it had the power to abuse a massive empire at it's peak or that the British did not have an empire to abuse at one point. If a competitor can't enter the market and compete on more or less even terms they have a monopoly, not an illegal monopoly but a monopoly. If they are using that monopoly to promote or demote other things than their monopoly at their discretion that becomes abusive and potentially illegal.
Race is an artificial concept determined by self-identification because there is no definition. She didn't lie because you can't lie whatever box you check is what you are legally speaking.
Are you really claiming there is an option out there who hasn't done far worse than this? Seriously is that really the best dirt they can come up with to disparage the woman who spearheaded banking reform and is the reason you don't pay hundreds in overdraft fees because the bank reordered transactions when you really had one overdraft of.56 cents in the actual order you paid that day?
My wife works in finance, she hates Warren as a worker for all the reasons she supports her as a candidate. All those consumer protections in lending she put in. If you aren't filthy rich you should be supporting a Sanders/Warren ticket. Don't let a man making $250k/yr (or whatever senators are up to now) buying a $600k beach house within his means or a woman who supposedly fibbed on a form when she was a kid throw you off. The other options either aren't qualified or definitely have way more dirt in their closets than this.
What matters is how they vote and who they fight for. Not any dirt someone comes up with for a smear campaign no matter what it is. I don't believe either of these are up to anything particularly dirty but even if they were I don't really care. We have executives and politicians pocketing millions and even billions all over the map and we shouldn't throw away people in the system who are actually going to fight for real people just to pick another one of those who is better with laundry.
"Sorry you are so fucking stupid that you don't realize whatever news outlet you use has outright lied to you for two years and I guess you still believe them."
No, I'm just not stupid enough to believe there is one that doesn't lie. The problem with the liberal media post Trump is that they've become more like Fox which has never had problems lying not only through omission but with outright false reporting all along.
That's like saying ISP isn't a monopoly because the internet is just one channel, you could always mail a letter or pick up a phone. Or isn't a monopoly because you could always start your own internet. Facebook and some of their other apps like Instagram, FB messenger, are required to connect to that network which everyone is on.
"I once bought a low-mileage ex-government vehicle that I knew would have problems because it had not been driven much, so I bought the extended warranty. Best decision I'd made in a long time, as over the three years I owned it, I doubled my money on repairs versus warranty cost. Warranty was $1,200, repairs ended up a shade over $2,500."
Yes, I should have been more careful with my wording. Sometimes they don't turn out to be a waste of money but spending money on them is a bad decision in nearly every case. Just like sometimes putting money in a slot machine turns out not to be a waste of money sometimes. But it is almost always a poor choice to put your money in a slot machine. Why? Because it is only a good decision if you have some kind of insider information about the state of that particular slot machine or in hindsight having already made what was a poor decision and gotten lucky against all odds. Hell, the slot machine may be the better choice because at least those actually pay out if you the exception.
Also, it is worth pointing out that technically you can't lie about those things. Race is literally defined as what you identify as legally. That was firmly established because many Hispanic Puerto Ricans identify as white and there aren't actually legitimate definitions for race.
Something only possible because of laws that discriminate against her racially.
That is like striking someone's hand when they are about to pull the trigger. Sometimes you have to commit a small evil to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice. Our founders did that when they rebelled against England. Granted, the severity is less than either of those two examples but nonetheless she committed a small offense to prevent a great one.
I would think most sane people identify as black women on any forms these days.
Article II, Section 2 states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
The limitation of impeachment is explicit which makes a claim of any other limit weak. The fact that limitation is the recourse including in the Constitution for checking the President if he does something wrong makes it very clear this lack of limit applies to himself as well. Further just like congress, prosecutors, and even foreign dignitaries he is immune while in office. The fact that nothing prevents you from charging him in the first place when you couldn't convict him regardless is a mere technicality being used politically to preemptively have him judged in a court of public opinion and undermine him. Doing so isn't just a political victory it prevents him from executing his oath of office and obstruction of the Presidency is a very serious thing.
The founders repeatedly and explicitly set up a justice system wherein preventing unjust punishment is heavily prioritized over making sure to punish everyone who is guilty. They did that for very good reason and left jury nullification in place in order to prevent the state from passing unjust laws and imprisoning the people in a power grab. The same is true with the President, his ability to pardon himself protects him to a certain extent from being made to betray his office in response to blackmail.
"Regardless, Barr is in charge of thousands of on-going prosecutions, probably dozens of which are obstruction where the effect was unsuccessful. I guarantee you he will not be dropping a SINGLE ONE of those, which essentially proves that he knows his assertion is bullshit."
I would not make such a broad assumption. Moreover, I'd venture there are probably thousands of cases where he or his staff have opt'd not to prosecute in the first place. That is in fact the job and discretion of a prosecutor.
"Under your rules, you can only be charged if the obstruction is successful and you get caught."
This suggests there needs to be a single black and white set of rules that always works. Life is too grey for there to ever be justice under that scheme. That is why prosecutors have discretion and why juries have nullification because even the most just law will result in injustice in some cases.
Slashdot Mirror
A monopoly is certainly a business success but not all business successes are monopolies. FB does not have any competitors and has near 100% control of its market. It's only initial competitor was myspace, FB was basically a myspace clone to begin with. Later google attempted to compete with it via google+ and found the monopoly unassailable. It has leveraged that to catapult instagram and FB messenger vs their competitors which do exist and that is illegal. It isn't illegal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to leverage it to prevent competition or promote new products.
People who don't believe in monopolies and didn't think Microsoft had them need not bother commenting, we've all heard you opinions before. Your opinion is basically that monopolies are just someone being successful and someone theoretically could beat them eventually. Got it, good to know. Not really relevant. By your logic only a perpetual monopoly would be a monopoly and as yet our species has yet to encounter anything that theoretically lasts forever.
No, that is what you are doing. This has nothing to do with ISPs okay, I regret having mentioned common carrier but it seemed like a simple enough concept to express as a generic concept.
Someone functioning as a generic relay of communications between users who shouldn't be inspecting, manipulating, or filtering them and also shouldn't be responsible for them because they also don't create them. That is what FB is. The Facebook network which underlays the Facebook website and messenger and instagram is nothing but a layer 5 or 7 (pick your model) network and that network has no real competition and nearly 100% market penetration which makes it a monopoly. It has been used to push new applications of FB such as FB messenger and Instagram.
Their size does matter. FB is not like HBO vs Showtime, HBO and Showtime are just alternative broadcast channels. They don't have monopolies, they COULD have monopolies if they controlled their market, they could be illegal monopolies if they were monopolies that utilized their market penetration to make new products successful. What is a normal and acceptable business practice stops being one when you are a monopoly.
"platform, known as Dragonfly, which was designed to blacklist information about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest"
Europe, you should remember this and that Chinese companies are state sponsored when deciding whether to support them and purchase and install their telecom equipment in your networks. If you aren't building your own gear it is a given that you are being spied on, to think otherwise is naive. But inviting someone with these kind of values out of spite because you are upset to have what your own intelligence agencies have certainly been aware of and ignoring for decades confirmed is a horrible mistake.
The US has been your strongest ally, we are at war, and you are smuggling resources to the enemy stronghold we've laid siege to instead of joining forces. And why are you stabbing us in the back? Because our President is a loudmouth with a bad tan?
MOD DOWN, mistaken and inaccurate. My own post is redundant but this correction needed to be more visible.
TFA is titled "This Company Will Pay You to Learn to Code, and Take 15 Percent of Your Income Later" written by Samantha Cole on 3/28/2019
You are referencing the next similar topic but unrelated FA on the page titled, "The CEO of a Failed For-Profit College Started a Coding Bootcamp" written by Jordan Pearson 2/24/2016.
There is no tuition stated or implied in TFA nor shady implications and details you refer to.
According to the TFA it will. I don't see why it wouldn't since they get 15% of your salary if that enables you to get a job or higher paying job. The have a profit incentive to make you look good, and their students all looking good only makes them look better and their services and staffing board a better sell.
"TFA implies that employers don't place much, if any, value in the certification."
That is going to be on an individual basis. You can apply for an entry level position with a resume that says "Voted Most likely to hangglide in high school" and "Shaved roast beef with precision at Arby's for six months" or you can put those AND "Attended Modern Labor Development Bootcamp" and reference the 15-20 production projects you contributed to and show examples of your work. You are getting shafted in that this is really on the job training for less than minimum wage being called a boot camp and then you are supposed to pay them back 15% of your salary for the next two years for the priviledge of having been given that gig. It's an extra bonus because they have a staffing board to get gigs off of and presumably get some kind of cut from that if the students use it as well.
Whether self study, a course, or a degree all it really shows is initiative towards learning, anything beyond that is experience and a track record and as an employer you can't or at least shouldn't expect an entry level employee to have one. You can self study or you can do Khan's but a boot camp which includes actual inbound for profit tasks is probably going to be more efficient. When you self study you have lots of gaps you don't know are there.
TFA is titled "This Company Will Pay You to Learn to Code, and Take 15 Percent of Your Income Later" written by Samantha Cole on 3/28/2019
You are referencing the next similar topic but unrelated FA on the page titled, "The CEO of a Failed For-Profit College Started a Coding Bootcamp" written by Jordan Pearson 2/24/2016.
There is no tuition stated or implied in TFA.
You only pay 15% of your earnings, not 15% of your initial salary for 2yrs. If you lose the job you don't pay but if you get a new one you'll have to pay from that.
They actually have a staffing platform for finding gigs ranging from 1mo-FT
It isn't mentioned in the TFA either.
The sketchy part is they having you working on projects they are being paid for in order to get that $2k/mo, they push for 30hrs minimum but also push competition on number of hours worked coming to 45-60hrs so that equates to dramatically lower than minimum wage. So basically you work for less than minimum wage for 5months learning on the job (but apparently the requirements push for previous coding experience) and then have to pay back up to 3x that for the privilege of having worked below minimum wage.
The requirement does expire if you don't find a gig paying at least 40k within 5yrs.
The only bright side there is that you'll have a portfolio of projects when done.
TFA actually has info from someone in the program. They have you working projects, she indicated she's already completed 15. Afterward they don't guarantee placement but they have an optional staffing platform for gigs 1mo-contract to hires. So you produce actual work output as part of the camp.
I mean at face value it isn't that unreasonable. You don't need 4yrs to learn most development especially web front/backend development and getting it in one place alongside practical experience is all to the good. Technically it is a little sketchy wanting participants to work on projects the company is getting paid for AND wanting them to pay back what they make is a bit greedy but like you said, you DO need things to practice on and it will help build something for a resume if you are entry level or making a career change.
What is very sketchy to me is the 30hr minimum. They have an activity tracker app that monitors your usage to make sure you are actively working on everything for at least 30hrs a week and have people competing to log as many hours as possible 45-60hrs+. Which makes it dramatically lower than minimum wage AND they want to pay up to 3x whatever they are giving you back. Sweatshop style.
"TFA isn't clear, but it looks like they pay you $2000 per month, yet you are still responsible for paying tuition that exceeds that. So YOU are paying THEM in net payments even while you are still taking the class. "
I can't find anything on their website indicating that you pay any tuition at all.
They pay $2000/mo for the camp, if you get a job paying more than $40k/yr they get 15% for 2yrs with a cap of $30k paid to them.
It doesn't sound like the worst plan for a new college student, especially if it enables them to get an entry level position at a company with tuition reimbursement.
Of course but that is true of anything you learn in college as well. You just cut out the cruft they use to pad it, accelerate it how long it actually takes to learn that material. Either way if you actually want it to be functional you need to couple it with experience. These things are for entry level gigs. Sadly finding somewhere that doesn't want you to already have experience for an entry level position is going to be tough these days.
Yeah but 2 won't get an interview with your company, in fact if comments you've made previously are an indication 2 could have solved classically unsolvable computation problems or solved a few with previously thought impossible efficiency and you'd toss his resume in the trash because it doesn't list a degree.
"Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them."
Strawman. Saying something has an abstract logical similarity to something is not saying it is that thing and is not refuted or logically refuted by pointing out it isn't that thing.
You can't connect to facebooks social network which has a monopoly level market penetration. Competition would be myspace and google +, google + is defunct and myspace is effectively non-existent.
"It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong."
By that logic no internet based service will ever be a monopoly. I suppose you maintain Microsoft did not have a desktop monopoly because other programs existed or that IE didn't have monopoly browser share at one point. In both cases other mega entities have slowly over time nipped away market share with some level of success but that doesn't mean they weren't monopolies anymore than the eventual fall of Rome changes the fact that it had the power to abuse a massive empire at it's peak or that the British did not have an empire to abuse at one point. If a competitor can't enter the market and compete on more or less even terms they have a monopoly, not an illegal monopoly but a monopoly. If they are using that monopoly to promote or demote other things than their monopoly at their discretion that becomes abusive and potentially illegal.
But not white supremacy.
Basing policies on something you can't even define is immoral not checking a box to get around the immoral policies.
Race is an artificial concept determined by self-identification because there is no definition. She didn't lie because you can't lie whatever box you check is what you are legally speaking.
Are you really claiming there is an option out there who hasn't done far worse than this? Seriously is that really the best dirt they can come up with to disparage the woman who spearheaded banking reform and is the reason you don't pay hundreds in overdraft fees because the bank reordered transactions when you really had one overdraft of .56 cents in the actual order you paid that day?
My wife works in finance, she hates Warren as a worker for all the reasons she supports her as a candidate. All those consumer protections in lending she put in. If you aren't filthy rich you should be supporting a Sanders/Warren ticket. Don't let a man making $250k/yr (or whatever senators are up to now) buying a $600k beach house within his means or a woman who supposedly fibbed on a form when she was a kid throw you off. The other options either aren't qualified or definitely have way more dirt in their closets than this.
What matters is how they vote and who they fight for. Not any dirt someone comes up with for a smear campaign no matter what it is. I don't believe either of these are up to anything particularly dirty but even if they were I don't really care. We have executives and politicians pocketing millions and even billions all over the map and we shouldn't throw away people in the system who are actually going to fight for real people just to pick another one of those who is better with laundry.
"Sorry you are so fucking stupid that you don't realize whatever news outlet you use has outright lied to you for two years and I guess you still believe them."
No, I'm just not stupid enough to believe there is one that doesn't lie. The problem with the liberal media post Trump is that they've become more like Fox which has never had problems lying not only through omission but with outright false reporting all along.
That's like saying ISP isn't a monopoly because the internet is just one channel, you could always mail a letter or pick up a phone. Or isn't a monopoly because you could always start your own internet. Facebook and some of their other apps like Instagram, FB messenger, are required to connect to that network which everyone is on.
"I once bought a low-mileage ex-government vehicle that I knew would have problems because it had not been driven much, so I bought the extended warranty. Best decision I'd made in a long time, as over the three years I owned it, I doubled my money on repairs versus warranty cost. Warranty was $1,200, repairs ended up a shade over $2,500."
Yes, I should have been more careful with my wording. Sometimes they don't turn out to be a waste of money but spending money on them is a bad decision in nearly every case. Just like sometimes putting money in a slot machine turns out not to be a waste of money sometimes. But it is almost always a poor choice to put your money in a slot machine. Why? Because it is only a good decision if you have some kind of insider information about the state of that particular slot machine or in hindsight having already made what was a poor decision and gotten lucky against all odds. Hell, the slot machine may be the better choice because at least those actually pay out if you the exception.
Also, it is worth pointing out that technically you can't lie about those things. Race is literally defined as what you identify as legally. That was firmly established because many Hispanic Puerto Ricans identify as white and there aren't actually legitimate definitions for race.
Something only possible because of laws that discriminate against her racially.
That is like striking someone's hand when they are about to pull the trigger. Sometimes you have to commit a small evil to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice. Our founders did that when they rebelled against England. Granted, the severity is less than either of those two examples but nonetheless she committed a small offense to prevent a great one.
I would think most sane people identify as black women on any forms these days.
Did you seriously just reference a fox story? What next the weekly world news? CNN?
Article II, Section 2 states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
The limitation of impeachment is explicit which makes a claim of any other limit weak. The fact that limitation is the recourse including in the Constitution for checking the President if he does something wrong makes it very clear this lack of limit applies to himself as well. Further just like congress, prosecutors, and even foreign dignitaries he is immune while in office. The fact that nothing prevents you from charging him in the first place when you couldn't convict him regardless is a mere technicality being used politically to preemptively have him judged in a court of public opinion and undermine him. Doing so isn't just a political victory it prevents him from executing his oath of office and obstruction of the Presidency is a very serious thing.
The founders repeatedly and explicitly set up a justice system wherein preventing unjust punishment is heavily prioritized over making sure to punish everyone who is guilty. They did that for very good reason and left jury nullification in place in order to prevent the state from passing unjust laws and imprisoning the people in a power grab. The same is true with the President, his ability to pardon himself protects him to a certain extent from being made to betray his office in response to blackmail.
"Regardless, Barr is in charge of thousands of on-going prosecutions, probably dozens of which are obstruction where the effect was unsuccessful. I guarantee you he will not be dropping a SINGLE ONE of those, which essentially proves that he knows his assertion is bullshit."
I would not make such a broad assumption. Moreover, I'd venture there are probably thousands of cases where he or his staff have opt'd not to prosecute in the first place. That is in fact the job and discretion of a prosecutor.
"Under your rules, you can only be charged if the obstruction is successful and you get caught."
This suggests there needs to be a single black and white set of rules that always works. Life is too grey for there to ever be justice under that scheme. That is why prosecutors have discretion and why juries have nullification because even the most just law will result in injustice in some cases.