I worked in a bank for a bit. Literally any transaction that's large and unusual for the account will be flagged. Also people do bonkers things with their money for the stupidest reasons all the time so all that one has to do if they're making large transactions is be prepared to talk to the bank and explain what's going on. Unless of course you are handling money in relation to organized crime, in which case you were fucked the moment the money touched the banking system

That takes zero ingenuity.

I blame the idea of the 00s and 10s that there should be some "Zen" in computer UIs and that "Zen" is doing things wrong with the arrogant tone of "you don't understand it". Associated with Steve Jobs, but TBH Google as well. And also another idea of "you dummy talking about ergonomics can't be smarter than this big respectable corporation popping out stylish unusable bullshit". So - pretense of wisdom and taste, under which crowd fashion is masked, almost aggressive preference for authority over people actually having maybe some wisdom and taste due to being interested in that, blind trust into whatever tech authority you chose for yourself, because, if you remember, in the 00s it was still perceived as if all people working in anything connected to computers were as cool as aerospace engineers or naval engineers, some kind of elite, including those making user applications, objective flaw (or upside) of the old normal UIs - they are boring, that's why UIs in video games and in fashionable chat applications (like ICQ and Skype), not talking about video and audio players, were non-standard like always, I think the solution would be in per-application theming, not in breaking paradigms, again, like with ICQ and old Skype and video games, I prefer it when boredom is thought with different applications having different icons and colors, but the UI paradigm remains the same, I think there was a themed IE called LOTR browser which I used (ok, not really, I used Opera) to complement ICQ, QuickTime player and BitComet, all mentioned had standard paradigm and non-standard look.

You are more than welcome to cite the actual Geneva convention to show where I'm wrong.

The main difference being the consequences that might result from the surveillance.

Yes I did, on page 243: It was employed in the Philosophical Transactions by the Dutch astronomer N. Cruquius; ÷ is found in Hübsch and Crusius. It was used very frequently as the symbol for subtraction and ``minus´´ in the Maandelykse Mathematische Liefbebbery, Purmerende (1754-69)

I really can't stand this guy. What a slag.

Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.