How ks the drill baby drill crowd going to compete against mini stars in a can?
Nu-Cu-Lar Bad? That’s…about as far as they’ll make it. To be fair, that might be as far as they need to. It’s all the oil companies will approve of them learning, at least.
Of course, it sounds like the big problem of how to remove more power from it than you spend keeping it reacting remains an issue, presuming they can continue to extend reaction lifetimes to be functionally unlimited.
biologically no
Biologically still kinda yes in that most of the world was mostly reproductively isolated from each other for most of history, and as such something as hypothetically meaningless as skin color correlates with likelihood of a whole array of other genetic things.
For example, the bigger a threat malaria was in your ancestors’ part of the world the more likely you are to inherit sickle cell (which has a bunch of downsides but also makes you resistant to malaria). It’s the reason frequency of lactose tolerance varies based on where your ancestors are from. It also impacts organ transplant availability, because the organ compatibility markers are not uniformly distributed across all racial/ethnic groups.
Sorry, got my racist propaganda films that still show up in film school because they used revolutionary techniques in film making and are thus important pieces of cinematic history mixed up. The Birth of a Nation is the US one, Triumph of the Will is the Nazi one I was thinking of.
(and no I am not glorifying those monsters)
You don’t have to glorify their beliefs to admit they were fantastic at propaganda and aesthetics. Birth of a Nation was used in film schools for decades afterward for a reason and that reason wasn’t that film schools were all secretly run by Nazis.
You support the message that attacking a group people are born into and a group people choose to identify with are equally bad?
Q: Are Not All Proud Boys Like That? Or does it only extend to groups you support?
They are bad because their website is literally godhatesfags.com.
Always found it weird that there are people who believe that the immortal and all powerful creator of the universe is for some reason deeply, deeply concerned with what ~10% of a particular branch of weird hairless apes decides to do with their genitals enough to do things like call down plagues and natural disasters over it. Like that’s just…such an extreme level of being a gooner that it’s even more absurd than the whole monotheistic God of everything idea to begin with.
Clearly the universe was created by committee - that’s how you end up with things like the platypus when the bird team and the mammal team are forced to compromise on a design to get the product shipped on time.
I wasn’t suggesting it as “font list and you’re done”. I was using it as an example because it’s one where I’m apparently really unusual.
I would think you’d basically want to spoof all known fingerprinting metrics to be whatever is the most common and doesn’t break compatibility with the actual setup too much. Randomizing them seems way more likely to break a ton of sites, but inconsistently, which seems like a bad solution.
I mean hypothetically you could also set up exceptions for specific sites that need different answers for specific fields, essentially telling the site whatever it wants to hear to work but that’s going to be a lot of ongoing work.
The crazy part about fingerprinting is that if you block the fingerprint data, they use that block to fingerprint you. That’s why the main strategy is to “blend in”.
So, essentially the best way to actually resist fingerprinting would be to spoof the results to look more common - for example when I checked amiunique.org one of the most unique elements was my font list. But for 99% of sites you could spoof a font list that has the most common fonts (which you have) and no others and that would make you “blend in” without harming functionality. Barring a handful of specific sites that rely on having a special font, that might need to be set as exceptions.
In other words, they went public and must now maximize gains for shareholders.
I’ve often wondered what sent J.K. down the path she’s on.
Her views are more or less bog-standard 2nd wave trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Which would have been the common variety of such when she was college aged. She just didn’t move on to be 3rd wave or intersectional as the dominant flavor changed.
Ranked choice voting has the added benefit of everybody can understand what the fuck it is. It’s very simple and it’s much better than first past the post.
Approval is better than Ranked Choice at this. And it lacks the weaknesses of RCV. Literally the only major change from FPTP is that you can vote for as many candidates as you’d like on your ballot. No spoiler effect because there’s nothing to spoil. Strategic voting isn’t remotely as bad either. RCV is in many cases a step up from FPTP (but not always and the more voters actually understand it the worse it gets) but it’s still a bad solution to the problem.
I’d support STAR over RCV because it’s mathematically better but my go to is Approval, mostly because of the specific issue with STAR you’ve pointed out - it’s more complicated to explain, vote under and report on than FPTP or Approval.
As to knowing who wins. Well, that’s always the rub. There is no system that lets you know who wins before all the counting is done.
Not knowing who wins, but knowing who your ballot will be counted as a vote for in the end. The answer is you can’t know and it might just be tossed as no vote depending on how everyone else votes.
Imagine we’ve moved to STAR and leading up to the first STAR election for President someone asks you how to be sure their ballot will in the end be counted as a vote for Jill Stein. The answer is that you can’t, because until every other ballot is counted it’s impossible to know if any ballots at all can be counted as ballots for Jill Stein in the end. Let alone trying to report on the count as it happens in a coherent way your grandparents might understand.
Mathematically it’s great, but it fails at being easy to explain, easy to implement, and easy to report on. Especially to people used to FPTP. It fails in the parts that it needs to most succeed at socially to be a viable option to see adoption.
I assumed this is why Musk is tweaking algorithms to show more positivity now that he is president
What algorithms would he tweak to “show more positivity”? Remember, one of the Dem arguments was basically looking at macroeconomic indicators and claiming things were going well, which was wildly out of line with what people on the ground were actually experiencing.
By and large, working class folks don’t give a shit about macroeconomic indicators, they care about being able to afford what they need to live their lives and ideally being able to not spend every penny on necessities. “Inflation and stuff” as the user above put it, but as seen at checkout rather than on a spreadsheet.
That’s fair. I just think being able to sell people on it is a high value part of any solution, and any system where you can’t know how your vote will be counted until you count all the other votes is necessarily a harder sell. As is any system where they will have to do something radically different.
As you said, STAR is arguably better in some ways but Approval being dead simple to explain to people and technically already supported by existing voting machines is worth a whole lot on its own as far as being a good voting system.
Try explaining STAR or Approval to someone who is only familiar with FPTP, see which one they understand more quickly.
Because “Vote for everyone you’re OK with winning the office and it counts as a vote for any of them, whoever gets the most votes wins” or “It’s just like what we’ve been doing, but you can pick more than one person and your vote counts for all of them” explains Approval voting.
As opposed to having to do a cumulative total across all ballots to figure out if your ballot counts as a vote at all, before figuring out whether your vote actually counts as a vote for someone you voted 5 for or someone you voted 2 for.
Right, but because most of humanity has been mostly reproductively isolated from each other for most of history there is a correlation between expressed phenotype in the handful of things that we think of as “race” and a boatload of other assorted genetically linked things.
Like how dogs with certain eye colors are more likely to go deaf.