Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oppose the Earn IT Act

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 570 posts

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#391

Post by mindslight »

newacct583 wrote: post #304
mindslight wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a person who broadly supports existing social structures. So yes, they're going to support law enforcement over privacy, the media industry over public access concerns We already have a word for this - conservative . And I do agree that conservatives have consistent and valid points, even if I do not agree. I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" as in the two-dimensional political space with re…

Again, you're playing semantic games. That's not what "conservative" means in modern political discourse, at all. And I'm sure you know this. In fact when journalists want to use the sense you cited they generally have to call it out explicitly (c.f. "small-c conservative", by reference to the Conservative parties in commonwealth nations). > I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" And for the same…

First, I'm not "trying to score points with hyperbole on HN by likening centrists to Nazis and Communists", nor "playing semantic games". The meanings of terms we use are important, as they carry latent bias.

> That's not what "conservative" means in modern political discourse, at all. And I'm sure you know this

I honestly don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean in the modern political discourse, besides simply referring to people who support the red team. Therefore, I think it's instructive to fall back to its general abstract meaning. For example, current Trump supporters are in no way actually conservative. Hence seeing ideological conservatives distancing themselves from that populist-reactionary ship of destruction.

> ["centrist" is] probably what you use too when you're talking to people in the real world

I've never heard the word "centrist" in the real world. As I said, it seems like a mainstream media term shifting the Overton window towards authoritarianism (away from libertarianism), following the idea that increased centralized control can be used to solve societal problems. I apologize for using this word that you are reacting strongly to, but I've yet to hear a different straightforward technical term that refers to ever-growing government involvement.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#392

Post by ClayShentrup »

godelski wrote: post #310
ekimekim wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is somewhat subjective, but I think they've got it backwards. Under approval voting, strategic voting and honest voting are basically the same: you vote for as many of the candidates as you can tolerate, and maybe if there's a candidate you really don't want to win you vote for everyone but them. Except elections rarely work like that. There isn't a set of options I can tolerate and a set I can't. I want my pr…

STAR, the system we're advocating, solves a lot of these issues though. Score voting is "like" approval voting but with more precision (really approval is just the binary version of score). STAR05 is often suggested because experimentation shows that it has enough expressiveness to generate good winners but is simple. You can always add more expressiveness by increasing the range in which you can score candidates, bu…

I'm a co-inventor of STAR voting. I explain it as, STAR voting is score voting on a 0-5 scale followed by an automatic ("instant") top two runoff. Whereas approval voting is score voting on a 0-1 binary scale. STAR voting performs a tiny bit better in computer simulations of voter satisfaction, but approval voting has the practical benefit of being super simple and requiring no voting machine upgrades. Both are superior to IRV.

Here's the first email I received from Mark Frohnmayer where he discussed STAR voting, following my speaking at his conference at University of Oregon, that gave birth to it. :) https://twitter.com/ClayShentrup/status/1278118075972202496

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#393

Post by bigwavedave »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #386
snicky wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah? And what if there are no other cars on the highway?

Killing yourself is still a cost to society. People have to come out and scrape you off the road, put all your bits in a box and bury you.

Hard to collect more taxes if you're dead.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#394

Post by ibejoeb »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #336
whatshisface wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument doesn't work because some people are so conformist that every detail about their personal lives would be considered 100% unobjectionable to anyone they know or work for. (This is impossible when you know or work for diverse groups, but inside of a monoculture it's possible.)

Somebody prove it by posting their email password. If we require encryption backdoors, the odds of it all ending up on Pastebin at some point is about the same.

hey, if you type in your pw, it will show as stars

  ********* see!
--------

http://bash.org/?244321

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#395

Post by ClayShentrup »

ekimekim wrote: post #297
elihu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when people talk about RCV (in the context of single-winner elections), they're almost always talking about the same thing as IRV. "Ranked voting" is the more general term. > Ranked voting is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked (or preferential) ballot to rank choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. There are multiple ways in which the rankings can be counted to det…

> This is somewhat subjective, but I think they've got it backwards. Under approval voting, strategic voting and honest voting are basically the same: you vote for as many of the candidates as you can tolerate, and maybe if there's a candidate you really don't want to win you vote for everyone but them. Except elections rarely work like that. There isn't a set of options I can tolerate and a set I can't. I want my pr…

> I would note that IRV has the advantage of being actually put into practice at scale (Australia, Maine)

This is exactly why it makes no sense to waste our limited activist energy and resources on IRV.

https://medium.com/@ClayShentrup/momentum-e5fd12ffce2a

> and also comes with the nice property that it can be fairly easily adjusted to work with multiple winners (ie. STV)

Score voting (and by extension STAR voting and approval voting) have a proportional multi-winner analog that's much simpler than STV and arguably better.

scorevoting.net/RRV

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#397

Post by ClayShentrup »

godelski wrote: post #290
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm certain everyone in the Condorcet camp would vote for STAR and everyone in the STAR/Score/Approval camp would vote for Condorcet (specifically RP) if given the chance. Eh... I'm in the STAR/Score/Approval camp and I would be somewhat inclined to vote strategically against Condorcet, because it's worse than what I want and once it was implemented it would be even harder to dislodge in favor of STAR/Score/Approva…

> Eh... This is fair and I won't really push back against it. This is the reason I push so hard against IRV. Because once IRV is the status quo it will be hard to continue moving forward. After all, we already have the capabilities. If you have to chose to eat acid, plain oatmeal, or chocolate pudding you don't eat the oatmeal then the pudding, you just jump straight to the pudding. > It's also a false compromise bec…

> STAR 5, Score: 4 (4.5), Approval: 4, RP: 3 (3.8), Schulze: 3, IRV: 1 Plurality: 0

I'm pretty similar. I like STAR and score about the same because I like simplicity, and don't see STAR as that huge an improvement over score. So maybe:

STAR: 5, score: 5, approval: 4, *Condorcet: 3, IRV: 2, plurality: 0

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#398

Post by [deleted] »

el_dev_hell wrote: post #302
cortic wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My nothing to hide argument is a little different; Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? Surly you want to hide your children from abusers and predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves.. Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or your blood type from some rich mobsters with kidney probl…

I like this argument. My normal response to "I have nothing to hide" is: "Cool, can I take a look at your browser search/reddit history?".

[deleted]

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#399

Post by ericd »

nitrogen wrote: post #60
ericd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First past the post voting tends toward a two party system, because there are strong incentives for smaller parties to consolidate to get to a majority.

Since this is a subject I find fascinating, I'll add this link that I first encountered here on HN long ago: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ It's a mathematical model and accompanying explanation that shows that simple plurality (first past the post) voting produces bi-polarization, while other voting methods like approval voting do not. It also shows that the instant-runoff voting method that people are trying to replac…

Neat link, thanks!

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#400

Post by godelski »

ClayShentrup wrote: post #392
godelski wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

STAR, the system we're advocating, solves a lot of these issues though. Score voting is "like" approval voting but with more precision (really approval is just the binary version of score). STAR05 is often suggested because experimentation shows that it has enough expressiveness to generate good winners but is simple. You can always add more expressiveness by increasing the range in which you can score candidates, bu…

I'm a co-inventor of STAR voting. I explain it as, STAR voting is score voting on a 0-5 scale followed by an automatic ("instant") top two runoff. Whereas approval voting is score voting on a 0-1 binary scale. STAR voting performs a tiny bit better in computer simulations of voter satisfaction, but approval voting has the practical benefit of being super simple and requiring no voting machine upgrades. Both are super…

> I'm a co-inventor of STAR voting.

Utila? I think I ran into you on Reddit yesterday. Good to see you're also on HN. Small world (if not, then from your tweet I met Mark).

Post reply on HN