Sadly we live in an age where non-tech people, a bit like LLMs do, can say all those words and not understand them.
I genuinely think using PDP-11 level (in feel, can be more performant) machines as our PCs (with hardware accelerators for cryptography, some sound and some graphics) would be beneficial for the humanity. Limit them to things they can use differently from a squirrel using a wheel.
Digital voting is just the same human error with more steps. Nearly all of the issues with paper voting are present in digital voting and then some.
I wonder if one can use ghost keys for an anonymous voting system, which still ensures that a voter only votes once, and still makes all votes verifiable.
That would have much fewer issues.
Running unique code that cannot be run elsewhere, and is 100% open source such that the source can be viewed by anyone without exposing itself to risk that a smart enough bad actor can cause havoc?
No need to use some fantastically obscure hardware. Source code being open is not bad.
A voting system is the easiest thing to emulate. Except for load.
Would it be a weird question to ask how many Black people were in that commission?
I mean, sometimes racism can take priority over party affiliations.
Well, thx, but I already have a couple of noname Chinese cables with braided cover (to avoid breaking) which seem to be as good as anything else I’ve touched, and were kinda cheap.
No strategy was involved in buying them, though, so I’ll remember you advice.
Impaired social abilities mean smaller attack surface for propaganda and groupthink.
Seems obvious, that’s the main thing autism is, that’s why it’s called a u t i s m .
“This shit” was said in the context of a society exactly opposite to anglosphere, where being “poor” is an indulgence for violating every moral rule, every promise, every obligation and every law.
More than that, it was said about the exact people who are, relatively speaking, not poor, rather almost privileged, but are hateful and envious of everyone actually doing useful work, and consider corruption good because in their opinion a bureaucracy worker stealing something entrusted to them is “a respected in the society person collecting rent from their position” or something like that.
The profession of a schoolteacher in Russia pays shit, which is why 3 kinds of people want that - those who are too dumb for other work, those who are idealistic, and those who want to feel that they are important and powerful (power over children) even more than to be paid well.
There are more people of the 2nd kind than you think, but those were of the 3rd undoubtedly. 1st kind is almost extinct - it’s not hard to find a job that pays better, if you don’t want power over children.
I think it’s clear how the 3rd kind intersects with sympathies to sociopathic behavior, and sympathies for corruption and organized crime.
EDIT: Oh, I just realized you thought they were bootlickers and hateful of poor people in this memory of mine. No, they considered that BS to be good for poor people. Basically hateful of capitalism most when it’s many small businesses honestly competing, but thinking oligopoly and state capitalism would be better. They considered me to be on the side of some “rich” people who hurt the poor. While big company owners and such were not, because they are apparently doing lots of charity etc and are respected people. So the “rich” they’d hate would be the “middle class”, not the “boss class”.
Being successful and not talented doesn’t make you talented even if success pays the bills better.
Doesn’t mean Taylor Swift is not talented in her own way, I don’t get what triggered all you guys. It seems sometimes that the expected variety of thought among English speakers is less than among Russian speakers. Where even in the toxic Russian Web people would ask first, you guys go stampeding.
Just like, say, Azerbaijan having oil to bribe politicians and wage war doesn’t mean they have history and culture and Armenia doesn’t. They would very much like to buy history and culture, but they can’t.
Judges are not supposed to work for the majority. They are supposed to work for justice.
Justice in most cases means opposing political power (formal in this case).
Thus they should be selected in some way radically different from how political power is formed.
Sortition is one way, if you don’t want some entrenched faction reproducing itself. Would be better than US too. But still sortition from the pool of qualified people, that is, judges, and not just every random bloke who applies, of course.
I mean, Australians won’t care a lot after Europeans have scraped their continent
OK, where I live the price difference is not the same.
Now, what does it say about you - to pull all this shit out of your imagination without any real reason whatsoever?
Also
That you didn’t and continue to attack anyone who questions your silliness
… is a normal reaction, behave like a moron - receive all kinds of insulting responses. Just admit it and move on.
and you know it will charge your phone at the fastest speed it’s capable of
Are you really advocating for buying an Apple-branded USB-C cable?
That’s not surprising, but if that doesn’t change, things won’t get better.
Objectively, she has a net worth that pisses off quite a few liberals because we tend to think having billions of dollars is millions of people living in abject poverty.
Good that you noticed.
By all objective measures, this woman is a really damn good singer.
There’s no such thing as objectively good singer.
That said, my initial comment didn’t make my opinion any more “objective” than yours - one subjective opinion against another.
The numbers I cited above, taken from Billboard are very objective numbers based on how often songs are bought and streamed. While it’s very subjective for individual viewers (and I agree, she’s not my cup of tea either!), the objective fact is that Swift speaks to a lot of people, and your personal disdain for her doesn’t change that fact one stinkin’ bit.
Disdain? Could you stop whiteknighting please?
It’s a very Salty Rightie thing to do to come in an attack a woman with some serious musical awards and accomplishments and say just because he didn’t like her, she’s no good.
You have a weird mind.
Anyone pulling this crap right now really looks defeated, humiliated, and just plain utterly SAD, a sad sack of a bitter and scorned rightie angry that a pretty girl rejected their Emprah and endorsed the other side.
I don’t live and don’t vote in the USA ; that aside, Trump winning would mean existential risks for part of my family.
Now, what does it say about you - to pull all this shit out of your imagination without any real reason whatsoever?
You don’t want oligarchy and she’s on oligarchy’s side. Please remember what made Trump win the first time.
I don’t expect her to improve things at all. Only compared to what would happen if Trump would win.
It’s just hard to trust them. So - buying an Apple laptop to install Linux there? Doesn’t seem to make much sense, though Linus Torvalds seems to be of a different opinion.
I don’t have to be asked that by some moron to express my opinions.
I’m not sure you know what the word “objective” means.
anticommunist propaganda
As if that was needed to show how communists do things.
people feel like they’re getting fucked, and Trump offers a clear, simple narrative of who is fucking them
Correct.
Kamala comes across more as representing the political establishment, and her messaging doesn’t tap into that dissatisfaction or contrarian nature
Not only that’s correct, but she’s still your enemy. It’s just a situation where one has to choose what’s worse. From my point of view far from USA - Trump is immediately worse. But that doesn’t mean Harris is going to radically improve things.
It’s sad you have no third strong grassroots movement, but that seems to be the case in every shitty election.
Russia, when it supposedly had those, first was choosing between Yeltsin and his “kinda democrats, but with that smell” and “red-brown” communists with Stalin pics and swastikas, second between Putin and senile communists, the third one was between thinly masqueraded Putin and rich city kids, and then it kinda lost meaning. Trump is kinda similar to the “red-brown” side in the first example.
One can find many such example.
He says that fear is a bigger motivator than love.
He’s correct in a sense you may not notice.
Those voters fear Harris and what she represents, and love some idea of what GOP could in theory represent.
So the fact that Trump is shit means less for them as it’s on the side they love, while Harris being stronger makes them even more afraid.
That is, the best strategy for Dems to insure victory would be to successfully present Trump as having a potential to win to his own voters. Then they would care about him being a felon and such.
Where does that capitalization style come from? Asking as somebody who’s never been in the USA.