Wouldn’t it make more sense to have removable batteries it could recharge and swap out on the fly?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to have removable batteries it could recharge and swap out on the fly?
The robot can spend 23 hours a day monitoring the parking lot from all angles
Do they get a mandated one-hour break or something?
Front left: phone, small bills, crow-calling whistle
Front right: keys, multitool, tin of peanuts
Back right: wallet
Back left: spare change, spare mask, small magnet
And maybe don’t beat your kids even if you’re not at risk of losing your job over it.
I remember in the late 90s the Green Party in my district was on a roll, culminating in the election of a member to the California State Assembly (one of the highest posts ever held by the Greens in the US). Then came Nader’s presidential bid and its perceived role in the election of Bush, which permanently crippled the legitimacy of the local party. They’re still doing great work with voter guides, legislative analysis, etc.; but they’ll never escape the shadow of Nader and Stein.
I think the only viable path for a third party now is to start a new one from scratch, and disavow presidential bids from the outset.
The problem here is that if this is unreliable…
And the problem if it is reliable is that everyone becomes dependent on Google to literally define reality.
Those would be easy things to add, if you were trying to pass it off as real.
A closer US parallel might be getting appointed to the Supreme Court.
Regardless of how the image was generated, why is Google treating a random blogspam site as the authoritative version of a work of art over (say) Wikipedia?
According to the article:
As 404 Media has reported in January, Google is regularly surfacing AI-generated websites that game search engine optimization before the human-made websites they are trained on. “Our focus when ranking content is on the quality of the content, rather than how it was produced,” Google told 404 Media in a statement at the time.
Does that mean I can search for any famous image, take the largest existing version, upscale it by 1% and post it on my own site, and instantly be featured at the top of google searches?
That’s the object of steps 1 & 3 above: everyone casts a (potential) vote on all propositions, and votes not required to counter opposing votes keep rolling over. So you can’t force anyone to waste a vote by dispersing them among duplicate propositions—the end result is identical either way (assuming everyone votes consistently).
Presumably you’d allocate the votes and announce the propositions at the same time—so for instance in one election everyone would get a ballot with twenty propositions and instructions to vote yes or no on up to ten of them.
Or come to think of it, here’s a procedure that might simplify things for voters and avoid the issue of fakeout dummy propositions, too:
In part it might be trying to head off trouble during and after the election with Republican state officials interfering with the election process—they might be more hesitant if they see other Republican leaders supporting Harris.
I think that conflates the deliberative process with the actual casting of votes. The people who are passionate about the issue would still try to convince those on the sidelines that the issue was worth spending a vote on, and people who weren’t planning to actually vote could still care about the issue and participate in the debate.
If voting were costly, you wouldn’t cast a vote just because you cared about the issue unless your side were also in danger of losing. If someone proposed a dummy bill to get you to waste a vote, but no one voted for the other side, you could refrain from voting either.
Fair point—but simple majority rule doesn’t guarantee the rights of minorities and others disproportionately affected, either. You generally need constitutional limits to prevent abusive legislation.
There is a theory which states that if ever
anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is forthe false vacuum state collapses, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
What about a system where each person can only cast a limited number of votes, so you have to choose which issues are most relevant to you?
The way to push them left is to actually push them left—protesting, calling your representatives, donating to campaigns you support, voting for candidates in local primaries where your vote is exponentially more influential, et cetera.
But voting in a presidential election doesn’t push anyone anywhere. For one thing, pushing is a continuous, incremental feedback process, while the outcome of a presidential election is a discrete binary one—there’s no map between the two. But more significantly, this buys into a narrative that the media has constructed over the past few generations, in which voting is a semiotic process with the people signaling their desires with their votes and politicians signaling their response with legislation. This leaves the media in full control of the political process by interpreting for each side what the other “means”: because the votes and bills in themselves are devoid of meaning beyond their real effects, the media is free to insert whatever meaning suits them.
Voting is a direct act of endorsement
endorse | verb [with object]
to declare one’s public approval or support of.
Your vote is expressly not public—you’re prohibited from keeping or sharing any proof of your vote. In part this is to prevent people from using their votes as signals of anything outside the immediate issue.
There aren’t only two candidates.
In the event that your vote actually decides the election, it does so by giving the winner one more vote than the runner-up; at that point those are the only two candidates at issue. And that’s the only event in which your vote matters.
AI language patterns are polluting the data, but are they influencing language usage by humans as well? We should delve into that.