In every company, there's a whole system of decision makers, challenges, and strategies. shaping the future of business at every level. That's why we're running a special three-part Decoder Thursday series looking at how some of the biggest companies in the world are adapting, innovating, and rethinking their playbooks. We're asking enterprise leaders about some of the toughest questions they're facing today.
revealing the tensions, risks, and breakthroughs happening behind closed doors. Check out Decoder, wherever you get your podcasts. This special series from The Verge is presented by Adobe Express. Hey everyone, Ellie here wishing you a happy Friday. So there was a great story in New York Magazine that really caught my eye this week by a reporter named James Walsh. And it's about...
the prevalence of chat GPT, especially on college campuses. Essentially, the thesis of his article is everyone's cheating now. That's a little bit of an oversimplification, but wow.
Check this piece out. I'm fascinated by it. I'm going to have James on with me when I host SiriusXM next week. I'm doing a bunch of days, 2 to 3 p.m., filling in for Dan Abrams. I teach... college undergrads and I've started to have discussions with them about this and generally what came out of a recent conversation I had with them is
They will use it to help them come up with ideas, but they deny, at least to my face, although the article would suggest that it's unlikely that this applies to all of them, but they say they don't use it to actually write their papers. I hope that's true. I'll tell you how I use it. I've played around with it recently just because I think it's interesting. I have never and will never use ChatGPT. Maybe I shouldn't say will never.
I hope I will never, but I certainly have never used ChatGPT or any sort of AI to write a single word that I've put out there as my work. I played around with it. I even had fun with it when I was trying to come up with the title for my last book. It didn't help at all. It had some crappy ideas. We came up with a great title eventually, but that was Humans Not Chat GPT. And I think it can be moderately helpful if you're saying, what are some examples of XYZ?
So that's where I draw the line for now. I've never used it for anything really work-related, but I promise you, any word you hear me speak or write will be my own. I am looking, though, at... whether there's some useful way to use chat gpt or other ai instruments anyway check out the piece by james walsh in new york magazine listen for when i have him on i think it's going to be wednesday of this coming week
okay completely unrelated to this week's topic i like to do these new tops as something completely unrelated to the actual topic. Why not? On with this week's story relates to a very interesting case that's playing out in federal court in my old stomping grounds, the SDNY. As always, send your thoughts, questions, or comments to letters at The federal criminal trial of Sean Combs, also known as Diddy, is overwhelmingly likely to end with the fallen hip-hop mogul's conviction.
The charges brought by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are serious. A wide-ranging racketeering conspiracy, including allegations of arson, kidnapping, and drug trafficking, plus various sex trafficking offenses. The evidence, including testimony from four alleged victims and surveillance video of a vicious physical assault by Combs on one of those victims, seems sound.
And the vast majority of federal trials result in guilty verdicts, typically around 80% according to the broad lens data, which is consistent with my own experience. But upon close inspection, we can see subtle cracks in the prosecution's case. No, Combs won't be outright acquitted. I don't see any way that 12 New York jurors vote unanimously to let him off the hook entirely.
But this won't be a cakewalk for prosecutors who need to step carefully around certain traps they've embedded in their own indictment. If prosecutors focus on the prurience and the scandal of it all more than the technical criminal charges, then Combs has multiple routes to a palatable defense result.
What's the single most memorable piece of evidence in this case? That's right, the 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant, which were essential to the infamous, quote, freak-off sexbenders depicted in the indictment. Runner-up is the intravenous drip used to rehydrate participants. It all makes for a golden late-night comedy fodder, and sure, it offends our collective prim and proper sensibility.
But there's nothing inherently criminal about a thousand bottles of baby oil or 10,000 or three ways or four ways or wild sex parties. Indeed, it seems this will be a primary defense. Maybe Combs was a freak, maybe he had outrageous sexual appetites, maybe he even treated people horribly, but none of that is criminal. If prosecutors lean too heavily into the nastiness of it all, and the indictment does tend towards graphics and at times gratuitous descriptions of sex,
then they risk falling into a trap of their own making. And even if Combs was involved in a long-term, physically abusive relationship with Cassie Ventura, the primary victim and prosecution witness, and other women, that conduct would likely violate state level assault laws, but not necessarily the specific federal crimes charged here. prosecutors must show more and something different than a series of domestic assaults committed within toxic relationships.
They have alleged that Combs led an organized, systematic criminal effort to use threats in force to carry out an ongoing enterprise that committed various acts over more than a decade to promote and protect his wealth and public reputation. Juries are good at distinguishing between bad conduct on the one hand and criminal conduct on the other. And you can bet Combs' defense team, led by Mark Agnifolo, a former federal prosecutor and experienced defense attorney, will underscore the distinction.
Relatedly, watch for the defense to argue that prosecutors have targeted Combs and now hold them up as the mastermind of an alleged criminal enterprise consisting of... one person. The lead charge against Combs is a racketeering conspiracy, which typically involves multiple players. The O in the acronym RICO stands for organization. After all,
I charge federal racketeering cases frequently in the SDNY. They'd range from five or six defendants on the low end to 25 on the high side. Yet Combs stands alone, a racketeering enterprise of one. While the indictment references other participants in the alleged criminal operation, some of whom have been given free rides in exchange for their testimony, nobody else has been charged. Holmes will be seated alone with his lawyers at the defense table, alleged ringleader of, well, himself.
From the prosecution's perspective, a one-man racketeering conspiracy is like a one-man band. It's technically possible, but it's far from ideal. Watch for Combs' defense to exploit that charging structure and claim that prosecutors have joined a self-serving pile-on. The defense will argue that the victims, some of whom had long-term relationships with Combs, saw a dollar sign.
when the civil suits started flying in 2023 and joined in to get their piece of the action. At the same time, the defense argument will go. The prosecutors are engaging in a bit of trophy hunting of their own. They singled out Holmes because he's famous but deeply unpopular, because he has faced scurrilous allegations in civil suits, and the media has demanded a scalp, and because these DOJ hotshots want to snare a headliner to add to their resumes. Trust me.
I've heard and been subject to arguments just like this one in federal court, and I'm not especially moved, given the evidence as we know it, against Combs. But the defense game here isn't necessarily to persuade all 12 jurors that Combs is innocent, that would be impossible, but rather to hook just one or two jurors who might reject the prosecution's tactics or who might sympathize somehow with Combs. If the defense team can do that, the jury might return a surprising verdict.
Split juries sometimes compromise to reach mixed verdicts. For example, Combs faces the racketeering charge plus two counts of sex trafficking by fraud, force, or coercion, which carries a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison and a max of life. and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, which carries no minimum sentence, and a 10-year max.
If the jury finds Combs guilty only on the lesser prostitution offenses, he'd likely face a sentence of a few years but not decades behind bars. That would be a win for Combs by any reasonable measure. Or the jury could hang. Even one holdout out of 12 jurors will tank the case. Hung juries are rare.
But the risk of a deadlock is inherently higher when a celebrity defendant is involved. If one juror is enamored with Combs or his fame, or if a juror decides Combs has been unfairly targeted because of his celebrity or his wealth or his race. then the stage can be set for a deadline.
While a hung jury is a tie of sorts, technically, prosecutors can choose to retry the case, take my word for it, having endured a couple deadlocked juries myself. Anytime the jury hangs, the defense team rejoices while prosecutors mourn. If I was supervising this case back at the SDNY, my advice to my fellow prosecutors would be to keep it lean and keep it focused. Don't dwell for long on the sex stuff. Don't parade around the courtroom with the lube and the IV drip.
Don't sermonize or finger wag. We want to vilify this defendant, for sure, but don't ever let it seem like we've got it in for him or we resent his wealth or his fame. Focus sharply on the victims and the violence. The jury won't convict Combs merely if they believe he's horrible and greedy and grotesque. They'll convict him only if prosecutors prove he's a criminal and that he broke the specific laws they've chosen to charge. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed.
It's been reported that one in four people experience sensory sensitivities, making everyday experiences like a trip to the dentist especially difficult. In fact, 26% of sensory sensitive individuals avoid dental visits entirely.
In Sensory Overload, a new documentary produced as part of Sensodyne's sensory inclusion initiative, We follow individuals navigating a world not built for them, where bright lights, loud sounds, and unexpected touches can turn routine moments into overwhelming challenges. Burnett Grant, for example, has spent their life masking discomfort in workplaces that don't accommodate neurodivergence. I've only had two full-time jobs where I felt safe, they share.
This is why they're advocating for change. Through deeply personal stories like Burnett's, sensory overload highlights the urgent need for spaces, dental offices, and beyond that embrace sensory inclusion. Because true inclusion requires action with environments where everyone feels safe. Watch Sensory Overload now streaming on Hulu.