In a world of mature systems and tangled dependencies, we’ve moved from an era of aspiration to an era of mtiigation. Choosing, whether it s a political candidate or an operating system or ecosystem is no longer a vote of confidence in something wonderful, but feels like a defensive maneuver to find the least worst option among a sea of downsides.
Maybe, I feel that the simpler something is, the easier it is to be something awesome. For example, a TRMNL eink display, just takes a screenshot and puts it on an eink display, and it's awesome. It just does one thing really really well.
The moment you move to something that runs your TV, runs your smart speaker, is the phone in your pocket, is your computer, you end up with some really great features and unfortunately a series of trade offs.
I'm not sure that it means you should dump everything, but that you should try to make things simpler and decentralized.
I would just like to add forcing users to use bing online to search their local files to one of their cards. I think that’s the main one they missed, but it’s a good article.
It just pushes everything to the middle. If you think logically about it, since there are few if any conservative posts, it makes sense that flagging appears to be conservative because the majority of posts that need to be flagged are liberal. If suddenly there were lots of conservative posts, the liberal flaggers would appear.
If you want evidence of this consider comments. Conservative comments are often quickly downvoted.
It's the same strategy they used in 2024 to a great effect: if you are against the crypto industry we will attack you. Not support the other candidate, but just attack you.
The intention is to not waste money on supporting candidates, but to attack those that challenge the crypto industry.
It's a very unique strategy in US politics that has been deployed quite successfully at varying times (Bill Clinton, uber, airbnb). Now with the elites being so brazen about their opulence they're taking it to the extreme.
Sure but like… he’s just some fucking guy on a tech comment thread (as are we all). You don’t think the professional bribe guys know a thing or two about doing bribes? Nah. The people who won wouldn’t take their money. It had to be those losers.
This is not a story about people being bad at bribing, it’s a story about The people rejecting candidates who were open to taking those bribes. Not necessarily because they took crypto money, more because shit policy positions usually come in sets, and we’re not into it.
I mean that receiving election funding generally just correlates with winning and it doesn’t cause winning.
Everyone wants to write checks to the winner, because they think they will win. But writing checks to some random candidate doesn’t result in them suddenly winning.
I understand the frustration but you realize how brazen the US is about bribes right? It's not a bribe unless you say "I'm giving you this money as a bribe." That's the legal standard SCOTUS has declared.
Yeah, for sure. That’s why I vote for candidates that refuse PAC money from crypto and otherwise. This goof is lazily and without evidence asserting that there exists no good option. I dunno if they wanna just be smug or if they’re actively trying to dissuade participation, but I don’t need it either way.
I don't understand how a blanket statement like this can apply. In a voting district where one party is heavily favored, such that that party's primary election winner is basically going to win the general election (e.g. New York City), then primary spending seems like the only place to influence the election.
The aim is not to influence the election it is to own the person who wins the election. The less likely they are to win the cheaper it is, but higher the chances it is all for nothing.
That works mainly because the money comes with a heavily implied threat: don't vote the way we want and the money spigot stops, or even reroutes into the coffers of your opponent.
But if that all happens, including the opponent funding, and those opponents get routed, then the bluff's been called and the lobby's hand has been found wanting.
Why would a candidate compromise their platform like that if they aren't going to lose without those donations and won't even lose if the money is spent against them?
Another mandatory wait time that’s annoying, Target. If you do driveup and you don’t tell them you’re coming, they literally have an software based wait time where you have to stare at the phone and wait for literally no reason.
The software could just add you to a queue and it could wait longer, but instead they make you watch the software do a countdown before you can ask for your order.
reply