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

Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

passingtime.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#271

Post by lmm »

the_optimist wrote: post #253
lmm wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. How does checking an ID ensure eligibility better than what's already done? And similarly for ballot casting - how would IDs make a better uniqueness/registration check than what we have? > a) id requirements disenfranchise voters and b) official collusion is the “only way” are st…

There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. Papers referring to voter ID disenfranchisement rest almost entirely on addre…

> There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment.

OK, and what is it that ID checking would change about this?

> Papers referring to voter ID disenfranchisement rest almost entirely on address-field-correctness deficiency (people move)

And? Supposing that's so, what difference does it make?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#272

Post by lmm »

nerdponx wrote: post #263
lmm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The assertion that the deep state skews Democrat is so preposterous it sounds like an SNL sketch. Imagine a bunch of G-men sitting around in a conference room with oat milk lattes while the Cigarette Smoking Man lays out plans for the next year Pride parade. The top LGBT-friendly employer these days is Raytheon. Even pre-Trump the Dems were the party of big government, unions, urbanity, education...; now they're al…

> The top LGBT-friendly employer these days is Raytheon. The what? Slapping a pride flag on a jet engine isn't exactly a political bias, it's a marketing / reputation-washing gimmick. > Even pre-Trump the Dems were the party of big government, unions, urbanity, education "Even pre-Trump"? This goes back to the 1950s. > now they're also the party of military interventionism, the media, and really most of the establish…

> Slapping a pride flag on a jet engine isn't exactly a political bias, it's a marketing / reputation-washing gimmick.

Oat milk lattes and pride parades were your chosen example. Raytheon is there.

> You are implying that the Republican party is not also this.

In the Trump era they're not - the media/establishment has been firmly anti-Trump, and he's been loudly calling for scaling back overseas military activity.

> Voting or voter registration -- citation needed.

I mean the 70+ lawsuits are widely reported.

> Voter fraud is a criminal offense, the courts can do plenty.

Against an individual who voted fraudulently, if they can prove it was wilful and if they can even find the person, sure. Against an official who "forgot" to make a required check, or "accidentally" allowed someone to register past the deadline, or didn't manage to connect up a database that was supposed to be connected up? Very hard to prove anything, and hard to get past qualified immunity too.

> Or are you claiming that the irregularities only were irregular in the Democrats' favor, and that they lost in spite of committing widescale voter registration fraud?

No fraud of the sort that you'd find a smoking gun for - no-one directly lying, no orders to break the law in so many words. Just a bunch of procedural errors and mishaps, probably not even coordinated, that add up to nudge the vote a few tenths of a percentage point in one direction. Not enough to tip the balance when the margin is as big as it was this time around.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#273

Post by lmm »

toyg wrote: post #255
lmm wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If true, that obviously cuts both ways. It does, but ultimately it adds up to a drift towards what a typical government employee would want to do rather than what the elected representatives decided - and government employees are not a representative sample of voters. > If you really think any low-level minion, or even middle-manager apparatchik, will risk their jobs by substantially fiddling numbers against the wi…

As you say yourself, those things are typically bullshit anyway (mostly targeted at disenfranchising minorities), and they're definitely not something that can substantially and continuously influence a presidential election in a single direction in a country of 400millions.

> As you say yourself, those things are typically bullshit anyway (mostly targeted at disenfranchising minorities)

Maybe, but I do think it's a worsening of partisanship - time was when the civil service felt a responsibility to remain strictly neutral and implement the policies of our elected leaders, right or wrong. Now people put their personal morals first and are less willing to implement a law they disagree with, and while there are good sides to that, it's also reducing trust in government services.

> they're definitely not something that can substantially and continuously influence a presidential election in a single direction in a country of 400millions.

Could they overwhelm a popular landslide? No. Could they nudge the vote enough to tip the balance in a knife-edge election? Perhaps.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#274

Post by nfw2 »

nerdponx wrote: post #260
vekker wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, the legacy media is confidently wrong about all kinds of matters too, all the time. Why would they have the right to broadcast misinformation, and popular podcasters not? The answer to this isn't censorship. It's in education and teaching people to think critically.

If you are being lied to, then the liars are at fault. If you know that you are being lied to and keep on listening without at least increasing your level of skepticism, then you are a collaborator and an enabler and a public-information-well-poisoner. I maintain that you should not get a free pass to consume bullshit just because you personally find it entertaining , regardless of whether it comes from CNN or a podc…

> Attempting to censor all liars sounds like a catastrophe waiting to happen, for example.

This is the whole point of libertarianism. No one thinks lying is morally good.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#275

Post by talldayo »

nixosbestos wrote: post #247
Centigonal wrote: post #3

There was the opendoor ipo, there was Jason Calacanis "sharpening the knives" ahead of the Twitter acquisition, there was what David Sacks did to Zenefits, and there's more. People are going to keep trusting these guys, simply because they have a hard-on for charismatic people with a lot of money, an extremely short memory, and refusal to believe that they will be the next ones to be scammed.

> People are going to keep trusting these guys, simply because they have a hard-on for charismatic people with a lot of money, an extremely short memory, and refusal to believe that they will be the next ones to be scammed. What a perfect week for people to read this line and go "well that doesn't mean me , nah!" This thread is literally CHALKED FULL of people being like "but I like the vibes despite the obvious sign…

Hacker News: a website where the founders fight the founders, the investors argue with investors, and engineers look on in complete and abject contempt, wondering who gave all these morons money and how they can get their cut.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#276

Post by the_optimist »

lmm wrote: post #271
the_optimist wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. Papers referring to voter ID disenfranchisement rest almost entirely on addre…

> There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. OK, and what is it that ID checking would change about this? > Papers refer…

A) repeating: ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration or uniqueness. Because of these deficiencies, it is impossible to identify even the most basic forms of fraud.

B) It’s administrative and readily-solved.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#277

Post by kirso »

Centigonal wrote: post #3

There was the opendoor ipo, there was Jason Calacanis "sharpening the knives" ahead of the Twitter acquisition, there was what David Sacks did to Zenefits, and there's more. People are going to keep trusting these guys, simply because they have a hard-on for charismatic people with a lot of money, an extremely short memory, and refusal to believe that they will be the next ones to be scammed.

Palmer actually addressed Calacanis really well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vjIx3S09gQ

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#278

Post by seadan83 »

skissane wrote: post #183
seadan83 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers license or a hunting license are acceptable but student ID is not acceptable to vote does not make sense. Further, it is a superficially reasonable solution to a non-problem. Fwiw: "time and time again, voter photo ID laws are proven to be ineffective tools to fight voter fraud — in the rare instances it does take place. While voter photo ID laws aim to prevent in-person voter impersonation, an almost non-exi…

> Drivers license or a hunting license are acceptable but student ID is not acceptable to vote does not make sense. Drivers licenses are issued by a single state-wide government agency in each state and there are national standards for their security. Student IDs are issued by thousands of educational institutions, both public and private, and they don't have the same security standards. It is much easier for electio…

If a persons goal is to disenfranchise young & poor voters, but enfranchise those that hunt and or have more money (which closely associates to being white), then hunting license & drivers license makes perfect sense while rejecting student licenses.

To your point of how official they are to obtain: "Hunting licenses can generally be purchased at any retail outlet that deals in hunting and fishing equipment, such as sporting goods stores." [1]

University ID cards are generally hard to get, and significant if forged. Let's not gloss over the other side of this coin where this type of fraud that is prevented by voter id is vanishingly small. To be blunt, it really is just a modern poll tax, a way to disenfranchise specific demographics.

[1] https://www.fws.gov/initiative/hunting/purchase-hunting-lice...

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#279

Post by lmm »

the_optimist wrote: post #276
lmm wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is little-to-zero validation or uniqueness check currently, and there are near-zero verifiable data points. We can count envelopes/ballots and eyeball signatures, and there is batch-level attachment between the two. Everything else is “trust me bro”-level security, relying on the assumption of a non-existent high-security environment. OK, and what is it that ID checking would change about this? > Papers refer…

A) repeating: ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration or uniqueness. Because of these deficiencies, it is impossible to identify even the most basic forms of fraud. B) It’s administrative and readily-solved.

> ID check is productive at 1) registration - ensure eligibility and 2) at ballot casting - ensure the voter is registered and unique. The inverse is true without ID: no insuring eligibility and no ensuring either registration or uniqueness.

So what is the concrete difference an ID check makes to the process, and what concrete attack does it prevent? You already get your name checked and crossed off the list, in a world with an ID check you would... get your name checked and crossed off the list?

> It’s administrative and readily-solved.

Then why hasn't it been?

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#280

Post by jrussino »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #252
bko wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think vibes are underrated. The smart people can easily mislead you because they're smart. So you can cover things up with "official statistics", maliciously or by accident. For instance, inflation is a big one. I remember during the first spike in inflation (2021 I believe), I started nothing prices have gone up between 25-50%. We've been told at the time inflation was something like 7% but that would mean paying…

Why did vibes take over from "gut feeling" I wonder

Every new generation reinvents slang. "Politically correct" became "woke". "Hip" became "cool" became "fire" or whatever the kids are saying these days.
Post reply on HN