41–50 of 52 posts
Capability Based Security is essential to the continuation of a free and open internet, and democracy in the USA. Without it, nobody's computer is safe. Without that, we can't trust random sites on the internet, and get stuffed into walled gardens, and our privacy is mined for the profit of others. This is corrosive to democracy.
What's the best source of info on this topic?
Humans aren't nearly as intelligent as they've come to believe themselves to be. - PROT
And if it did exist, it would be invisible.
But, yes, in the short run, we can all be duped into believing SOMETHING, given the right circumstances.
What rules can we follow to reduce the chances?
Maybe LIMIT how much we consume from volatile sources like news sites.
Maybe act slowly.
One thing I've found is that it also really pays to explore something fully when you don't understand it. Just because someone isn't explaining something well may not be sufficient to dismiss it.
Any election's outcome will be the same whether I vote or not. It can't be truer, but somehow people get really mad at me when I say it.
Up to a certain threshold a spoiled ballot might be considered a mistake, but once over that threshold, it could me something more. For instance, that voters are not interested by the policies of any parties on the ballot.
There is only ONE
There is also ZERO, or no computation
Focus on yourself. Figure out what brings you joy. Follow it. Work hard. Don't complain. Be kind. And once you have something to share, offer it to everyone around you. Anonymously, unconditionally, shamelessly.
Many people seemed convinced that voting is a significant part of the solution. I disagree. Be the best version of yourself and then share that wealth with the ones around you.
Any election's outcome will be the same whether I vote or not. It can't be truer, but somehow people get really mad at me when I say it.
There is a third option, spoil your ballot. It's invalid then, yes, but it's a statistic that the election/party analysts will track. Up to a certain threshold a spoiled ballot might be considered a mistake, but once over that threshold, it could me something more. For instance, that voters are not interested by the policies of any parties on the ballot.
All fiat money eventually succumbs to hyperinflation
Eventually is a long time :-) Which is why this is true. But I doubt there aren't any currencies around from 1000 AD that haven't suffered that fate.
A decade? 2? a century?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any election's outcome will be the same whether I vote or not. Tied and one-vote margin elections are not at all unheard of.
This is only a concern with electoral systems that deny the losing group representation. Like winner-take-all. It wouldn't make any difference at all with proportional representation. And PR can even be implemented in the executive branch, as the Swiss have demonstrated.
Yes, it would.
Any PR system is going to have thresholding, so there will be some number of votes that do not effect the outcome. (Majoritarian elections are just one-seat PR with the Droop quota, maximizing ineffective votes.)
All fiat money eventually succumbs to hyperinflation
Eventually is a long time :-) Which is why this is true. But I doubt there aren't any currencies around from 1000 AD that haven't suffered that fate.
When an entity (e.g, the government) decrees (which, remember, is what the word "fiat" means) that some piece of paper or entry in a database is "money" is when the trouble starts.
I prefer my money to be a medium of exchange and account as well as a store of value that I can trust which, by implication, means it cannot be decreed to be so by some "authority".