Edit: paper linkHis other work was definitely more bombastic.
he really blew up in popularity
Shortcut for others like me who aren’t familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski a.k.a the Unabomber.
Is it for portraying Jim on The Office? That show was such a success that he really exploded onto the scene
He really turned a pipe-dream into a reality.
Probably his carpentry skills, man really knew how to build a cabin.
PDF warning for those on smartphones
“scandal noted”
Came here for this.
I’m out of the loop, what’s the context?
From Urban Dictionary:
Created by Pete Holmes, comedian. While referencing a celebrity in a conversation for their popular unique quality, but not in relation to a current or past scandal, saying “scandal noted” acknowledges the issue, and avoids a tangent in the conversation.
On a somewhat related thought: There was a star trek voyager episode about using the findings of some war criminal to perform life-saving surgery.
The doctor ends up deleting the information in the end after the surgery and I always thought that was a seriously stupid take.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_Human
To me, even if information is obtained via awful means in the past, preserving knowledge is the far better choice in all circumstances, other than in the rare occasions where it will continue hurting others (not even sure when this would be the case).
And obviously upholding moral standards for research now and in the future.
Fruits of a poisonous tree: The idea is to not give these crimes justification and vindication. To prevent people from committing crimes in order to claim they did it for the greater good: some maniac could abduct and torture people and release the findings, accepting the consequences be it prison or death. But in their mind they are justified because their findings would help people eventually. If you don’t accept the findings, then the criminal has no justification because no, there is no greater good. you just committed crimes.
similar to the right to privacy preventing police from using evidence from unlawful searches. you found a body, but you didn’t have proper reasoning for the search so now the body doesn’t exist as far as the courts are concerned. because otherwise the police would violate people’s privacy all the time and eventually justify it by finding something.
