Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custode?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custode?" wrote ancient Roman satirist Juvenal. Who will guard the guards themselves? Or, as it's often translated more simply in modern times, Who watches the watchers? I thought about that classic phrase when I saw the news Thursday that Santa Clara's highest law enforcement officer, Sheriff Laurie Smith, was found guilty on 6 charges of corruption and official misconduct.

The most widely discussed of the charges was that Smith created a pay-to-play system around issuing permits for carrying concealed weapons (CCW). Donors to her campaign and people with prominent political connections were granted the rare permits while others' applications were ignored seemingly without regard to their merit. In addition to that charge she was convicted of concealing gifts given to her and blocking investigations into deaths of people in custody of law enforcement.

A conviction on any one of the 6 charges would've been enough to remove Smith from office. She was convicted on all 6. In a surprise move earlier this week she retired from office. Her attorneys argued the judge should dismiss the case on that basis. The judge refused. It seems her move was a ploy to avoid public embarrassment after seeing the amount of evidence presented against her— and likely an attempt to protect her extremely lucrative pension. Smith had been a member of the sheriff's department for nearly 50 years and had served as County Sheriff since 1998— 24 years. Update: Smith's retirement is estimated at $250,000 plus benefits per year. Because the conviction is on civil charges, not criminal charges, there's no forfeiture of her pension.

How should people feel about this? On the one hand, these are relatively minor transgressions. On the other hand, as the thought behind the quote Quis custodiet ipsos custode has been used in both ancient and modern times, those in positions of enforcement over the rest of us must be held to strict ethical standards. And while these charges may seem venial, when a leader is convicted on this many charges of self-dealing and coverup it is 100% legitimate to wonder what else she did that hasn't come to light yet.

Undersheriff Ken Binder, acting sheriff now, sought to reassure us with a statement, "The actions of a few people are not a reflection of the great work that our deputies do every day." Here's the problem... it's hard to believe it's just a few people. Smith was in the department for nearly 50 years and the head of it for 24 years. Are we supposed to believe that none of the undersheriffs were aware of what was going on? Are we supposed to believe she didn't spend 24 years guiding the hiring and promotion to all levels of the organization people who agreed with her? The sheriff's department needs a complete house cleaning. Fortunately there's an election next week where we at least have the possibility of electing an outsider (with years of law enforcement experience elsewhere) to the top job here.

Laptop Goes In for Repair

Not even three months after getting a new MacBook Air laptop the computer is now in the shop for repairs. Actually I could've taken it over a month ago— that's how soon after purchase the problem appeared— but I delayed as the problem wasn't severe enough to overcome my procrastination in dealing with it. What's the problem? The screen is covered with thin, gray horizontal lines stretching all the was across. There's also a fat, dark vertical stripe near the right edge. Apparently it's a bad connection between the display and the graphics card, and it's not uncommon in the new M2-powered MacBook Airs.

I put off starting the repair process for weeks primarily because I feel like dealing with the morass of suck that modern customer service is. Like, how many times was I going to have to say, "Yes, it's plugged in! That's why I'm saying there are stripes all over the screen instead of saying, 'Duh, everything's covered in black!'" I didn't have the energy for that. My anticipation was unfounded, though, as Apple customer service was its usual way-better-than-average self. To wit:

1. When I called phone support yesterday, my wait time was less than 2 minutes.


2. A phone support agent quickly acknowledge the problem is a hardware problem and that it would be covered under warranty.


3. The agent booked me an in-store appointment for today to have the computer sent to a repair center. I also had the alternative of waiting for prepaid shipping materials to be sent.


4. At the store today I did have to wait for about 30 minutes— but that was because I was early for my appointment, and the store was very busy.


5. The in-store agent quickly confirmed the problem is a hardware problem and started the process to send the computer off for repair.


6. They'll overnight it both ways to/from the repair center; I may get it back as soon as Wednesday next week.

For now I'm back on my older computer. Yes, it's the one that's now almost 7 years old. I'm glad I still have it & that it works!

Elon Musk to Charge $8 for Twitter... or $20?

Billionaire Elon Musk, the world's richest man, completed his purchase of Twitter this week for $44 billion. It's widely believed that he paid way too much. Even Musk believed that his offer was too high— as he tried for months to get out of it after making a formal offer. He only went through with the purchase when Delaware Chancery Court turned aside his requests to halt a lawsuit filed by Twitter for non-performance of contract. Obviously he thought he would lose... worse than lose, actually. He would have been forced to purchase the company for $44 billion and been embarrassed by public release of various documents about his behavior. So he paid his $44 billion to stay in control of the narrative.

As "Chief Twit" one of his first narrative choices was announcing that Twitter verified accounts, those marked by the blue check mark, would cost $20/month to keep.



Musk was stung by criticism that he was out of touch. Memes flew, including variations on this classic quip from character Lucille Bluth in the TV series Arrested Development, poster woman for unempathetic rich people.

Musk lowered the proposal to $8 and fired back with a meme of his own, as seen in this tweet:



In case you can't see the picture, Musk compared people whining about $8/month for Twitter Verified to those thinking $8/cup for a Starbucks coffee product is a bargain.

Aside from whatever sneering disdain one may have for $8 Starbucks drinks and/or people who spend $8/drink at Starbucks, there's a fundamental mismatch in this comparison. When you spend $8 at Starbucks, or even $1.95 at Dunkin' Donuts, you're the customer and you're buying a product. That's it.

With Twitter, everyone who tweets is giving Twitter the product, i.e., their content, for free. Twitter then uses that free content to attract audiences that it sells to advertisers. Verified users with those blue check marks are generally those most frequent contributors vendors giving Twitter stuff for free. Now Musk wants to charge these vendors without whose unpaid work the company literally would be nothing.