I'm bored with most of the new flashy products, but that just leads to me tinkering more with things I already have or fun new open source projects. It's somewhat a hobby of mine to maximize the potential of old hardware with better software.
Not the person you’re responding to but yes, pretty much all of modern tech is awful.
The specs are pretty good but then you don’t really own it, you get limitations on what you can use it for, you get rent seeking and walled gardens everywhere. Even if you’re paying you get ads and get tracked. Updates make products worse more often than not.
A little credit please?! I don't use AI anything. I code my stuff the old fashioned way with nested if/else statements that make you cry trying to follow along. And damn the coworker that interrupts your debugging asking if you got their email or not.
and nothing. it's a comment on how everything is closed tech by the platforms, not a knock on being bored with that fact. i fully agree and do not participate on those platforms.
One of them is there because Congress made up rules to deny a sitting president his legitimate right to make a nomination. So I would say that judge is illegitimate to a lot of people.
There's a difference between putting a nomination to a vote and denying versus "we don't accept nominations in last year of an outgoing POTUS" yet turned right around and did it for Trump's third nomination. In that sense, 2 out of 3 would be deemed illegitimate on the same rule being applied in opposite ways. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then we really can't have an honest conversation
The patience of waiting for "their guy" to be given 3 posts to SCOTUS in one term was the ultimate pay off. It just so happened that "their guy" has got to be one of the most malleable to anyone's position as he has no position of his own other than being "the guy".
I really wonder how history will view DJT -- surely one of the most flawed yet consequential figures in American history -- who nonetheless had the good fortune of two untimely deaths (Scalia & Ginsburg) and some arm-twisting (Kennedy) which he parlayed into fantastic 'success' in the SCOTUS. This includes primarily the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and the incredible Presidential Immunity doctrine, which is essentially legislation via judicial decision.
The falsity of how the SCOTUS was captured by the executive branch was ultimately rooted in lies. Trump's three nominees all lied about their position on Roe v. Wade during their confirmations.
As a case in point, consider Justice Brett Kavanaugh who wrote that Roe was "wrongly decided" in a concurring opinion on Dobbs (2022). Yet in his 2018 confirmation hearing he testified that Roe v. Wade was "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times" and went on to discuss the importance of judicial precedent. Of course the Kavanaugh hearing was an utter circus in every sense, but it was obvious that he had lied during a number of exchanges with senators.
Let's not forget that just a few months ago in a decision, it was Kavanaugh who gave us the 'Kavanaugh stop' which is a law enforcement practice in the United States in which federal agents can stop and detain a person based on their perceived ethnicity, spoken language, and occupation. This doctrine reset what constituted 'reasonable suspicion' for any police stop.
> I really wonder how history will view DJT -- surely one of the most flawed yet consequential figures in American history
History is written by the victors, so that depends who gets to write the legislation controlling which version of early 20th century history is allowed in universities in 2100.
regardless of future winners, DJT will have a significant impact in the historical timeline whether you do or don't like him. There's the potential for ending the democratic experiment, or there's potential of being just the most significant test for its survival. either way, there will be more discussed than presidents 8 - 15 combined.
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just issue the fine to the owner of the car? The owner allowed the person to use their car and accepts that responsibility. If it was stolen, then just say so. Even in the case of fleets, someone is responsible for know who is operating the vehicle and when. The gov't shouldn't care about it any further than holding the owner responsible. If the owner doesn't want to rat out the actual driver, then the owner takes the hit on points/fines/whatever
As someone that's spent time behind the decks, I wonder what kind of hacking could be done by letting someone like Qbert take the wheel while loading.
Part of the infamous sound of a dial-up connection being established was negotiating the speed of the connection. Now I'm thinking if you'd need a negotiation of 33 1/3, 45, or 78 as an advanced feature.
you could have used a one word answer, yes. the extra words could have been "if we can get it".
in other words, you're not opposed to working in the military industrial complex. your reply walks the line of weasel words. trying not to offend those against while nodding to those that approve. you'll do fine as a spokeperson
<devilsAdvocate>How many people spend time making their selections on the computer, then compare every single selection on the print out? Deniers could say the computer randomly prints votes to skew in certain candidate/party direction knowing not everyone would catch it.</devilsAdvocate>
all it would take is one person saying their printed ballot does not match their specific selection, and the whole thing would become chaos.
Same but different issues. Now you have to know that the dots were filled in correctly to be readable. Having someone make an obvious attempt at selection but not readable by the reader is also problematic. No reason to not count their vote. You may laugh about not being able to do it correctly, but it happens.
Only if the scantron shows that each position on the ballot was counted and the voter is not allowed to leave until the person monitoring the scan confirms with the voter their ballot was scanned would this give confidence. Any issues with the scan, and the voter is allowed to correct the issue. There should never be an issue of reading the ballot by the scanner as an acceptable outcome.
of course, all of this is assuming in person voting only
Checking each ballot for completeness sounds like a good improvement to the system. Right now people are just expected to mark carefully and double-check their work before feeding their ballot into the machine and request a new ballot if they mess up.
It might slow things down a little bit, but making sure that the machine can detect a vote for each race/question (even if it's just "Abstain") would make sure people didn't forget to fill out something and help prevent the fill-in-the-bubble equivalent of hanging chads.
I like the idea that "abstain" should be an option for each position on the ballot to remove the ambiguity of it just being skipped mistakenly. Require every position on the ballot to need a response from the voter regardless. That would definitely simplify the tally process even if it does require the voter to go back to fill in additional spots. Better to be right on even if it takes 30 more seconds.
We agree. Don't use computers. Scantron is only there to get a fast count for the news agencies. Manual counting of physical paper ballots would still be done anyway.
To manually count by hand every ballot would mean not finding out a complete tally well until after Jan 20. When election day and inauguration day was selected, the number of ballots to count were a mere fraction of today's count.
Manually counting votes is so error prone that I'd have less confidence in it than a scantron type of ballot. At this point, I'm more in favor of giving each voter a ball/bead/chip to drop into a bucket for each position on the ballot. After checking in, you go to each position to receive your one token. If you don't visit a position, you do not get a token to pass to someone else. Tallying the votes could be as quick as weighing the bucket as the weight of the bucket/token will be known. Each election can change size/weight/color of tokens to be unique. If the weights total an irrational weight, it would be deemed suspect and a hand sort of the tokens can be done to find the odd token.
Hand counts are kind of obnoxious but they can't be beat for transparency. There's no reason it has to be done at once either. Ideally people would be able to vote over several days and counting can start right away.
Balls/tokens aren't a bad idea either though, but it sounds like people pocketing a ball/token would force a manual count even if they kept them since the total weight of all buckets combined would be off. I'd also worry about people bringing in heavier or lighter balls/tokens but the bigger risk would be poll workers handing out heavier or lighter balls/tokens to specific people (or types of people) because it'd be easier to make sure the weights would add up in the end.
Maybe we could force everyone to vote at every position (which should have an abstain option) then have the machine check the weight of every ball/token as it was inserted, and verify that one but only one was inserted, before it fell into the selected bucket?
To me, hand counts are beyond obnoxious. How many times does each ballot need to be counted? Just once? Someone with an agenda could cause havoc. Twice? Three times? Majority wins? How many times would non-unanimous count be allowed before the person making the odd result be dismissed/replaced? I can't remember the hanging chad debacle process, but I do seem to remember one person looking at it before handing it to the next person for confirmation.
I like the idea of placing the token into a verifier to validate authenticity before dropping into the bucket. Similar to a coin sorter where invalid tokens get rejected to a separate bin with a light and siren to ID the person trying to cheat. These could get expensive as you'd need one per candidate per position on the ballot.
Transparency comes much more from repeatable results than manual process. You run the same stack of 1,000 ballots through 2 optical scanners, they will give the same result unless one is busted (in which case do it with 3 or 4). This takes very little time and is reliable. Do it by hand and you are guaranteed to get a different result almost every time, and it will take forever.
Presumably, there would be a corridor for traveling through elevations whether that was for reaching orbit or de-orbiting. The people placing things in orbit are not doing this with out coordination.
There are in fact many objects that deorbit in an exceedingly uncoordinated manner. It's a statistical inevitability that kessler syndrome is in our very near future if we allow higher orbits to be polluted.
Debris moves in 3D. Debris moving up will continue moving up. There is no force acting on it to bring it back down. Your comment makes it sound like an explosion would only be in 2D along the same orbit as the original object.
It may seem counterintuitive, but if something in orbit gets a push that isn’t strong enough to make it totally escape orbit, it will stay in a new elliptical orbit. That new orbit will pass through the point where the push happened, so it will come back through that location again, just with a different speed and direction.
> There is no force acting on it to bring it back down.
Gravity?
But also orbital dynamics (at least as I understand it) means debris that debris that is flung up is going to have a more oval orbit, so the high point (apogee) increases and the low point (perigee) decreases. And a lower perigee means more atmospheric drag, which will help deorbit the debris.
>means debris that debris that is flung up is going to have a more oval orbit, so the high point (apogee) increases and the low point (perigee) decreases. And a lower perigee means more atmospheric drag, which will help deorbit the debris.
Not quite.
If you are at apogee and accelerate, your perigee will be raised. If you are at perigee and accelerate, your apogee will be raised. You can't increase your apogee and perigee at the same time.
If the impulse is in the direction of orbit, then the altitude of your orbit 180 degrees from your current position will raise. If the impulse is against your orbital direction, your height 180 deg away will be lowered. Once you complete an entire orbit (360 degrees) you will pass through your current position again.
If you wish to move to a higher, circular orbit two impulses are required, 180 deg apart.
reply