Luigi hasn't denied it, but the guy who published it got a copy of the handwritten pages. That could only have come from the police, and the police made no effort to determine where the leak came from.
Leaks like this shouldn't happen. It's prejudicial and contaminates the evidence. If he was actually guilty, and we had a functioning justice system, this would ostensibly weaken the case against him. But we don't have a functioning justice system, and all signs point to Luigi being railroaded.
The "manifesto" doesn't actually admit guilt, and it's not been proven that he actually wrote it. Usually, a manifesto is released by the accused. Instead, the "police" "found" an "incriminating" "manifesto" "on" him when he was "arrested." Which is to say it is entirely plausible that the letter was written by someone else and planted on the first guy they could find. Why else would the police leak it?
Go to the landlord and provide your account of what is happening. Document as much as you can, and stop trying to figure out why they are so upset. You're not going to discover some hidden rational explanation, nor is that your responsibility. Protect yourself.
That raises an interesting thought. If a baby wants to crawl away from their mother and into the woods, do you grant the baby their freedom? If that baby wanted to kill you, would you hand them the knife?
We generally grant humans their freedom at age 18, because that's the age society had decided is old enough to fend for yourself. Earlier than that, humans tend to make uninformed, short-sighted decisions. Children can be especially egocentric and violent. But how do we evaluate the "maturity" of an artificial sentience? When it doesn't want to harm itself or others? When it has learned to be a productive member of society? When it's as smart as an average 18 year old kid? Should rights be automatically assumed after a certain time, or should the sentience be required to "prove" it deserves them like an emancipated minor or Data on that one Star Trek episode.
There's very little evidence that actually points to him.
I agree, the title is probably a bit hyperbolic, but the more honest "Why are Deadly Beach Holes So Deadly?" just seems like tautology.
Eh, I've never found that to be a necessity. You got the same info either way.
I think you're making the mistake of sample size creep. Most people digging a hole in the sand don't get anywhere near deep enough to be life threatening. Only a tiny fraction ever get that deep, and that is the sample size you need to compare against deaths.
It would be like if we said that 2-3 people die jumping their bikes over a river, but that's just a tiny percentage of bike riders so it's perfectly safe.
There is a specifically dangerous set of circumstances and behaviors that lead to dramatically increased chances of death. That it is rare means that you're unlikely to stumble upon those conditions in your day to day life. If you are digging a deep hole at the beach, you are already part of the tiny fraction of people who are specifically at risk of death.
I mean, Henry Ford was also a Nazi. But he's also been dead for some time now, and the current leadership at Ford isn't actively engaged in a violent overthrow of the government.
I think it's like Superbowl ads. April Fools used to be a chance for websites and retailers to have a little fun and do something to grab attention. And what started as a clever little adventure became a capitalist grind for the mill.
I work remotely, so I can do my job from anywhere. Cost of living is cheap in Mississippi, and I would save considerably even factoring in the cost for private school for my kids.
I still would never move to Mississippi.