ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
Not only that, but the advertising necessarily appears alongside the content to which they object. How could you convince them that consumers don’t see and associate the as to the content that’s directly next to it.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
This has really jumped the shark.
It’s not “pressure into silence” to say that a firm doesn’t want their brand advertising shown alongside content they don’t like.
I don’t see lots of firms advertising on PornHub or DraftKings, that doesn’t imply they don’t believe PH l/DK can do their thing.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
• except for voters out of the area (e.g. overseas) or disabled (e.g. bedridden), voting should be done in person on Election Day
Assuming the provision about doing it in person, what does having it be all crammed onto one day do for either fairness or security?
Why not everyone votes in person at a secure location (e.g. city hall) and voting is open for 10 days before election day to spread the load. That doesn't make it less fair, nor does it materially impact security under reasonable assumptions.
Traditionally, this would be on the moderators not as enforcers of the rules but to note the norms about good faith and so forth.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
Perhaps some were sad to see that standard of charity dwindle to the point where further engagement couldn't be sustained.
A commitment to charity can't work when it isn't reciprocated.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
Yes, we can debate a threshold vs no-threshold model here. My understand from the empirical results studying Motor Voter and similar programs is that they do something which suggests that there is at least some sensitivity to effort.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
That depends on the distribution of reasons for the set of voters in the least likely 20%.
Above /u/FiveHourMarathon suggests that part of the holdup is that some typically-male jobs don't accommodate ducking out to vote. That's one example of a reason that's not likely to have a large skew on those voters.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
Fair point. And indeed a lot of the INA is maddeningly non-specific.
At the very least, though, when the President does anything that can be defended under the statute (+Chevron deference), we ought to assign responsibility.
The whole thing is a vicious cycle. Congress' vague language enables massive discretion, the assignment of responsibility ("Obama did", "Trump did") fuels further for Congress to pass the buck.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
It would seem that Congress did not agree with your fiat that the public charge rule meant what Trump said it meant, or else it would have amended the statute to say so. Congress is more than capable of being precise when it suits them and conversely of being extremely vague when they'd rather pass the buck. And Trump could very well have asked for specific language to that effect but AFAICT he didn't make a specific push for it.
What I mean to get at here isn't the object level of any particular provision, but more broadly that the government is a huge ship and the best way to make policy change is to get both Congress and the President steering in the same direction at the same time.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
Looking here (select interval --> cumulative and check box "relative to population"), middle of the road looks like 2000-2500 deaths per million, and that's for counties that had the benefit of vaccines that worked to reduce severity considerably.
China's population of 1.4B multiplied by that range yields considerably more than 2M, and that's before you account for an older population and higher rates of smoking. Or putting it backwards, in order to stay under 1M, the would need a death rate under 600pm, which would be 1/4 that of wealth countries.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
To put out an alternative to all the theories you'll frequently see here about women controlling soft power, maybe women just have more follow through?
The conventional wisdom is that "easy voting" (i.e. policies that reduce the friction to vote) helps the left. If your theory is correct, then that's partially backwards -- the follow through required in a low-barrier system would result in more men voting, which in turn would (in aggregate) help the right.
I'm not convinced (at all) of this, but it seems like an interesting corollary.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
Trump did what he could but was sabotaged by the courts and political insiders at every step.
It's the job of Congress to set immigration policy, not the President. The focus on the President as the end-all of the American government is understandable but misplaced. Congress is a large body and it's difficult to assign individual responsibility to particular legislators so its gets kind of diffused out. But for better or worse, they are in a far stronger position to steer the ship of state than the President.
In any event, looking at the tally it seems fairly clear that this policy doesn't command anything close to a majority of the House even when it was GOP controlled.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
What is taboo in the West is to point out that, when they did say these things, Russian elites were not merely pretending to be worried about NATO as a front for their dastardly neo-imperialist designs.
I think it's taboo to point it out without caveating (as the article does) that this worry was "to a large extent irrational" (his words).
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
I doubt there's any going back to all day-of voting. Even Florida offers early voting that's flexible to anywhere in your county, run by the county itself, sometimes every day for 10 days before the election.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
a chunk of humanity's wealth wiped out by supreme chutzpah
Not that much wealth was wiped out because there wasn't much there to begin with.
There was a bunch of imaginary internet dollars, people assigned them high valuations based on various hedges and pegs to other imaginary internet dollars. That value was untethered (hah) to anything meaningful as they were neither a medium of exchange nor a store of value, but they were easy to collateralize and so the shit show went on until it couldn't anymore.
That's not to say that no one lost real money, but it's nowhere near the notional value of the deposits held by FTX (or others). If a Nigerian Prince says he'll wire me $7M once I pay his attorney friend $2000 good faith money, I'm only out two grand.
ZorbaDHut
Not Zorba
1yr ago
There's a good number of reasons blockchain is the wrong technology for a voting system, not least of which is that it's hard to create one such that you can prove to the voting system that you voted but you cannot prove to any third party how you voted.
There are a number of cryptographic proposals around voting systems that try to provide integrity, anonymity, repudiation, verification and so forth. My take is that the goals are simply non-orthogonal and any such system basically has to give up on some property that folks will agree is worthwhile. The same is true for the existing system, it sucks in terms of integrity/speed but is far more anonymous and provides repudiation and so forth.
What's Lucifer then? He's not a fallen AI (that's us) ...
More options
Context Copy link