HN user
it’s every bit as deluded and cringeworthy as I’d expect.
Not deluded at all. Sorry if you didn't get it. It's very strange that puritanical adherence of America has been rolled back (mostly) but the pedo label is still so toxic in American culture that it's assumed that other cultures share the same values.
if you're worried about organized gangs replacing a thousand ballot boxes on your election day, you have more problems than voting systems.
The US certainly does. Should we throw up our hands and call it a non-issue? I don't think so.
Maybe the "hero" shouldn't be throwing insults on twitter like a child. I thought the insult was well considered because, in context, the diver was going after kids. It's a sly kind of funny that someone from another country might think is very funny.
Nothing will change because no one addressing or discussing the underlying causes
What exactly are you describing? I don't see the same world you do. These stories are top concern and referenced in almost every forum from niche game communities to political discourse (ie everywhere). The underlying causes are assessed and measured in various countries (eg http://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girl...) and is a topic of serious discussion. Seriously, what are you talking about, that you think it's being ignored in any fashion?
This implies they can be different with the same versions.
the more generalized term morality
Applied ethics, are what most people mean when talking about Ethics. They are industry specific and defined by the industry. Normative ethics are near equivalent to morality. Meta-ethics are what Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson like to argue about.
Having a cellphone != understanding the technology and how it works
That wasn't the assertion made, nor related directly to the assertion I responded to. Having an understanding of "how it works" is a weak way of couching a ton of assumptions without explaining what you mean. There's no point in trying to argue about what's in your head.
The statement I take issue with is:
Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?
Yes. How they work at a cursory level of practical operation and effect, is less sophisticated than any cellphone since flip-phones.
The only true authority stems from knowledge, not from position
Try telling that to the boss of your boss. Authority does not birth from knowledge. Compared to what you learn i school, processes and practices guide the vast majority of the decisioning you make day-to-day.
I don't understand why this is so interesting, as it doesn't seem to be anything about regression per se.
A userland tool supported functionality that it can't anymore, because it isn't available in a new kernel. This is not surprising, as people find ways to access and change data outside of published APIs all the time and they get patched away. The userland author said that the kernel upgrade would break old versions of the tool. So what?
Because voting softwares don't solve any real problem while creating a horde of its own
It solves some problems that have been introduced over time in most election systems. Primarily, time to count/verify, ease of access and verifiability. To say that paper doesn't have these problems shows a lack of understanding or a willful intent to mislead. The boxes of uncounted votes from the Bush/Gore election (https://www.theacru.org/horace_cooper_bush_v_gore_redux/) were a watershed moment that could have affected change beyond the locality.
Paper ballot is a perfect technology once you introduce optical readers, and when in doubt, you can always re-count everything again.
There are weaknesses with transport or tampering the same as any mechanical recording or electronic recording.
It's important to narrow the intent of a typical modern voting system, with "should haves" rather than hand waving away useful tools.
* Votes should have only been counted from voting membership (registered voters, for example).
* The intent (choices)/member information should have confidence that this data is opaque to inspection without a private/public key respectively. Yes, voters would have to generate their own, as that's an attack vector.
* A voting member should have the ability to track that the vote was counted at all in a given race via a reversible process, which would necessarily include the public and private key.
You can't get that kind of transparency with voting software.
You can, but the US wont. It's an important distinction that is patently obvious.
Today, most vote tracking systems are electronic, although the ballot was paper. What's the point of half the process being paper? The US government is too inefficient, demotivated, and lacking the impetus to retrain the populace to make any system that is reliable.
Why is half the blog post about SQLite? Use SQLite, because everyone has or will. Yea, got it.
Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?
What do you mean "No"? The ubiquity of cell phones alone makes it self-evident. What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.
Worse; even if the election was tallied faithfully by a computerized system, a demagogic candidate can whip up fervour and call the election into question.
That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.
The paper ballot industry doesn't exist.
Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers. It's a much stronger lobby than the "e-voting" block (if you can even cobble together such an alliance).
This story was part of a news report sourced by the daughter of a general on NBC. I saw it between 1987ish (I may be off by a year).
The project never recovered from this ignominious retreat, and it was canceled in 1944.
It was "cancelled" after a shockingly effective test because the first A-bomb was going to be ready. Multiple projects were going on in parallel. Because bat-instigated fire was still an uncontrollable and unpredictable force to unleash on a population, it was wisely cancelled (the research kept, which is all that mattered) in favor of a more pointed and well-understood system. A big targeted explosion.
Just because a candidate had a stated (or misstated or unstated) viewpoint doesn't mean a vote for that candidate is a vote for that viewpoint. That's not how any representative-elected political system has ever worked.
Your whole "easy" solution is not a solution. You just avoid the condition and expect it's solved.
The Streisand effect applies to getting attention to something that wouldn't have otherwise, and gaining momentum because of it. This is about providing a platform to someone who willfully spreads lies.
Those aren't orthogonal. They seem to both be true in this case (what "it is about" is subjective).
Or you just overestimate how many kids who were dumb enough to get an ARM wanted to settle down and buy a house. More likely, the numbers are misleading in some way.
Standups are (in my experience) usually a symptom of a low-trust environment
and or a high volatility process and or poor information flow. All of these things occur at different times throughout any company. Standups mitigate these issues and are not supposed to be these hour marathons that I see everywhere.
The blame ultimately rests with them,
This sort of rhetoric, specifically has hurt democratic culture. If something you dislike happens, it's because you didn't do ENOUGH instead of the intended realization that everything is impermanent and open to revision.
All good things in politics come from vociferous arguing
I would hope you recognize the opposite. The natural inclination is to increase aggression to try again when battles are fought viciously and lost. The idea of losing as commonplace and safe is not reinforced enough. While I don't trust a single representative (very bad sign), I also don't think the arguments should be full of frothing.
Because of risk. Just because there's 10k people out there that can afford to borrow and repay, doesn't mean you set 100k loans hoping you got some of them.
You are trying to use a universal solution to a specific problem
Wat? It (UBI) is a self described universal solution. Inability to avoid becoming degenerate (where your daily situation will gradually worsen) in the western world is not a specific problem. The idea that leveraging UBI for 2 years (which is oddly specific) is beneficial, is laughable. Almost every degenerate (not a pejorative usage here) started from a stable lifestyle, belies the problem with that approach. You've staved off a few years, but not addressed the underlying issue. If you aren't adapted (intelligent, able bodied, whatever) to survive in modern western society, is sterilization (or lawful restriction on childbirths) for permanent UBI moral? This avoids the octomom welfare queen issues. It's worth thinking about, I believe.
This sounds like the latest in a long line of economic theories and ideas cooked up by people who LOVE the game of pricing things and can't understand why others don't share that love. Basically, economic wankery.
Same with democracy.
This sounds like the latest in a long line of political theories and ideas cooked up by people who LOVE the game of voting about things and can't understand why others don't share that love. Basically, political wankery.
You have to do lots of things in society you don't like to have it run smoothly (for you and others) in what might be considered an egalitarian effort. Whenever you don't force it, pareto and bad actors end up capitalizing on the gaps. The western nations have relied on the populace's generous nature for long enough that information technology has given people a chance to see how sub-optimal it is. You now have competition between wants and don't cares, where the don't cares have been outmaneuvered into borderline poverty and below.
This similarity leads me to believe Glen Weyl is on to something.
Whitespace means tab (0x09) or space (0x20).
Newline means LF (0x0A) or CRLF (0x0D0A).
Complicating things from the start. Not a good sign.
The compiler can do anything a linter can do. Multi-pass multithreaded compilers are not unheard of. eg While compiling to temporary storage, I do a linting in another thread. At the end, check for successes and move the artifacts into the output directory.
Because assignment is an expression. It has nothing specifically to do with the position being a conditional.
No, but it has a lot to do with the way humans write code. This is the source of the bug, not the logic. eg Why bother having whitespace that the compiler can't use (typically)? Human readability.
The concession to not take into account human failing, is pathological.
I'm still puzzled to why would a compiler allow assignment in an explicit conditional (outside of loop syntax). It's like a baked-in blindspot that most people just want to ignore for some reason. Some languages actually guard against this well enough (eg Kotlin) and say "don't". Even with guards in place, it's not all that complicated to work around in the edge cases where you might want to do it.
that point of view ceased to matter to me.
Except that you still feel the need to talk about them. eyeroll
I think you troll topics masquerading as legitimate commentary (almost every assertion you made is an ad-hominem), because you don't really know the difference. This is a common problem with people who have superiority complexes.
Diplomacy gets you promoted
That's an interesting viewpoint, usually coming from people who believe that their world is governed by fairness. I'm not sure that's reflected in reality.
I've always understood race as a person's genetic background and ethnicity as a person's cultural background
I've heard that maybe once every 20 years. It just isn't the way the language is used. It may not be anyone's fault, but the conflation is the way it is AFAIK.