This is an unpopular position these days, but never-the-less:
Being Nice is usually good policy. Legislating Being Nice ("code of conduct rules") is usually not.
No I don't use a mouse at all if I can do it that way. Yes I'm faster than you.
There you go. And for me the winning formula has been Debian linux and the icewm window manager, which imitates the Windows 95 interface, from back before Microsoft lost their marbles.
It sure would be nice if some more open source projects would get a clue about this, though--- you'd think that shoveling everything under a hamburger and a gear would be an obvious Bad Idea...
I've always complained that slashdot's moderation system was very weak because it used free, unverified accounts-- if political operatives were not running hundreds of sock-puppet accounts it was because they didn't care about slashdot, not because slashdot could do anything about it.
It's remarkable how every other site out there, reddit definitely included, has succeeded in rolling out moderation systems that are even weaker, and even more easily gamed. Then everyone acts stunned and amazed to realize that they are being gamed-- but why wouldn't they be? Either the site is a toy and no one bothers, or the site is influential, and it gets gamed.
(Remember back when this sort of thing was regarded as paranoid raving?
THE_TOY_WEB.)
At this point, the moment someone says this I tune out.
It may very well be that the speaker understands blockchains better than I do, but it's guaranteed that there are many more things they don't understand.
But if you slice your own bread it won't fit properly in a regulation toaster, and cranking out a thousand identical plastic-wrapped quasi-edible sandwiches would be much more difficult.
I can't believe I need to explain the virtue of standardized components to a bunch of techies.
(The next thing you know, someone is going to miss the brilliant design advantages of Velveeta cheese...)
And furthermore, a blockchain is not private, it is the opposite of private, it has a technical dependency on not being private, in fact. But votes HAVE to be private.
I was trying to explain this to someone over on reddit just recently. Even if you presume the blockchain end of things is perfectly secure, and no one can check the status of your vote (or vote for you!) without your secret key, you still need to worry about cases like (1) your boss demands access to your key or you're fired, (2) you decide to sell your vote, and auction off your key, (3) your machine is cracked and your key is grabbed by some third party--- I mean, try envisioning a botnet that harvests voting keys and uses them to vote before their legitimate owner has a chance to...
I'm not a huge fan of Jimmie Wales, but one thing he said made a lot of sense to me-- he commented that at wikipedia they're continually at war with programmers who want to automate things that are better done by a human being... e.g. it's easy enough to send a standard welcome message to every newbie, but because it's a standard message it doesn't mean very much, and it's better to have a culture where actual human beings decide to send out welcome messages...
Automatically generating pages for subjects that a human being couldn't be bothered with sounds like an idea that is perhaps not quite as dumb as letting people vote by cellphoe, but it's getting there.
> I'm in favor of going back to mechanic machines with hand-counted ballots but I suspect you would protest at having to wait a few days to learn the results of such an election
Allow me to introduce you to the high-tech notion of the scantron form.
Anyway, yeah I agree completely. A popular site is one that people like to use, if you mess with the UI you are almost by definition annoying the shit out of them. The beginnings of wisdom is to tell your UI designers to prove their ideas are worth something before inflicting them on huge quantities of your users.
And no, "we'll run an A/B test!" is not really a solution... continually inflicting minor random breakage on some percentage of your users is only a small improvement at best-- you may find that your split tests are giving you a reputation for flaky, annoying behavior.
The quote from Entertainment Weekly doesn't touch on Steve Ditko's amazingly creative style of art, even his quickie horror-comic one-shots were far more inventive and interesting than they needed to be--
Try doing a web image search on "steve ditko doctor strange" and you'll see it immediately. I'm more than a little annoyed that Marvel decided to downplay the original Ditko's to do revamped versions with Cumberbatch's likeness...
And yeah, his solo work on Mr. A was a remarkable job of doing an Ayn Rand comic-book-- I wanted to photocopy those and slice them up into individual panels so I could write out individual rebuttals and commentary on every line.
If you want to get that mail off of their server and on to your own box, there's nothing wrong with POP3. (Not that I expect google will every really let go of your email...)
IMAP is a solution to problems I don't care about-- accessing mail from one workstation is fine by me.
Skipping past the usual dueling SJW and ASJW's, I'm going to propose that what's going on is something a bit different than people usually suggest:
Google pays lip service to the idea that a diverse workforce corresponds to a diverse range of intellectual approaches to the job, but they're also famous for a "tough" application process that I submit is actually a series of affinity tests in disguise. For example, you can be a very good programmer and still not qualify as google material if you can't show you're up on a lot of computer science trivia [1] which isn't actually used that much by working programmers-- hence the trend toward computer science cram classes to get you through the job application process (much like the SAT preparation racket).
[1] Before you object to this point and start telling me about "fundamentals": if you can actually prove that an algorithm is correct, the algorithm will be embodied in standard libraries, and knowing it in much more than outline form will become unnecessary for anyone outside of the tiny fraction of people working on those standard libraries. I really and truly don't need to know how to code up a postgresql index, because there's some really good code that does this already-- I could learn to do this if it were needed, I need to know enough about indexing to choose appropriate ones, but beyond that, no.
You should get to work on those authoritarian pigfuckers at Lancent. Those bastards in the medical/scientific experiment have it in for true freedom of expression. What are they afraid of?
Trump's approval rating has never been good, not even at the moment he was elected-- it seems that a substantial chunk of Trump voters didn't actually think he could win (we were all told he couldn't) and thought he would be a safe protest vote.
On the other hand, there's a good third of the US population that would happily vote a neo-Nazi into office because it would piss off them liberals.
The central claim is that if on-line banking can work, discussion sites that use verified ids should be possible.
Your objections about email appear to be completely besides the point.
But then, it's not entirely clear to me that verified ids should be necessary for everything on the internet, and that does seem to be the general drift of the idea.
Better anarchy than a suburbanized, boring Internet.
Ever wonder why, say Lancent doesn't publish anonymous papers?
You have two choices: (1) be a serious source of information and discussion; (2) be a toy, a forum for clowns to mess around.
If you want a toy internet, it is completely guaranteed that any time you're near anything of political or economic importance, it will be gamed, it will be infested with shills, hijacked by provacateurs, and jammed by trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an unpopular position these days, but never-the-less: Being Nice is usually good policy. Legislating Being Nice ("code of conduct rules") is usually not.
Why not "clean"?
It's also not meaningful to seize on one word of a response and ignore the rest of it.
There you go. And for me the winning formula has been Debian linux and the icewm window manager, which imitates the Windows 95 interface, from back before Microsoft lost their marbles.
It sure would be nice if some more open source projects would get a clue about this, though--- you'd think that shoveling everything under a hamburger and a gear would be an obvious Bad Idea...
Now could someone tell gnome this? And maybe ubuntu?
I've always complained that slashdot's moderation system was very weak because it used free, unverified accounts-- if political operatives were not running hundreds of sock-puppet accounts it was because they didn't care about slashdot, not because slashdot could do anything about it.
It's remarkable how every other site out there, reddit definitely included, has succeeded in rolling out moderation systems that are even weaker, and even more easily gamed. Then everyone acts stunned and amazed to realize that they are being gamed-- but why wouldn't they be? Either the site is a toy and no one bothers, or the site is influential, and it gets gamed.
(Remember back when this sort of thing was regarded as paranoid raving? THE_TOY_WEB.)
Stallman has completed more code than all of the idiots who complain about his "rhetoric" combined.
We can only hope... last I heard, bitcoin mining was burning as much power as Austrailia.
At this point, the moment someone says this I tune out.
It may very well be that the speaker understands blockchains better than I do, but it's guaranteed that there are many more things they don't understand.
But if you slice your own bread it won't fit properly in a regulation toaster, and cranking out a thousand identical plastic-wrapped quasi-edible sandwiches would be much more difficult.
I can't believe I need to explain the virtue of standardized components to a bunch of techies.
(The next thing you know, someone is going to miss the brilliant design advantages of Velveeta cheese...)
I was trying to explain this to someone over on reddit just recently. Even if you presume the blockchain end of things is perfectly secure, and no one can check the status of your vote (or vote for you!) without your secret key, you still need to worry about cases like (1) your boss demands access to your key or you're fired, (2) you decide to sell your vote, and auction off your key, (3) your machine is cracked and your key is grabbed by some third party--- I mean, try envisioning a botnet that harvests voting keys and uses them to vote before their legitimate owner has a chance to...
I'm not a huge fan of Jimmie Wales, but one thing he said made a lot of sense to me-- he commented that at wikipedia they're continually at war with programmers who want to automate things that are better done by a human being... e.g. it's easy enough to send a standard welcome message to every newbie, but because it's a standard message it doesn't mean very much, and it's better to have a culture where actual human beings decide to send out welcome messages...
Automatically generating pages for subjects that a human being couldn't be bothered with sounds like an idea that is perhaps not quite as dumb as letting people vote by cellphoe, but it's getting there.
> I'm in favor of going back to mechanic machines with hand-counted ballots but I suspect you would protest at having to wait a few days to learn the results of such an election Allow me to introduce you to the high-tech notion of the scantron form.
You bastard.
Anyway, yeah I agree completely. A popular site is one that people like to use, if you mess with the UI you are almost by definition annoying the shit out of them. The beginnings of wisdom is to tell your UI designers to prove their ideas are worth something before inflicting them on huge quantities of your users.
And no, "we'll run an A/B test!" is not really a solution... continually inflicting minor random breakage on some percentage of your users is only a small improvement at best-- you may find that your split tests are giving you a reputation for flaky, annoying behavior.
The quote from Entertainment Weekly doesn't touch on Steve Ditko's amazingly creative style of art, even his quickie horror-comic one-shots were far more inventive and interesting than they needed to be--
Try doing a web image search on "steve ditko doctor strange" and you'll see it immediately. I'm more than a little annoyed that Marvel decided to downplay the original Ditko's to do revamped versions with Cumberbatch's likeness...
And yeah, his solo work on Mr. A was a remarkable job of doing an Ayn Rand comic-book-- I wanted to photocopy those and slice them up into individual panels so I could write out individual rebuttals and commentary on every line.
If you want to get that mail off of their server and on to your own box, there's nothing wrong with POP3. (Not that I expect google will every really let go of your email...)
IMAP is a solution to problems I don't care about-- accessing mail from one workstation is fine by me.
But our rapidly dropping IQs will never get that, so what the hell.
Skipping past the usual dueling SJW and ASJW's, I'm going to propose that what's going on is something a bit different than people usually suggest:
Google pays lip service to the idea that a diverse workforce corresponds to a diverse range of intellectual approaches to the job, but they're also famous for a "tough" application process that I submit is actually a series of affinity tests in disguise. For example, you can be a very good programmer and still not qualify as google material if you can't show you're up on a lot of computer science trivia [1] which isn't actually used that much by working programmers-- hence the trend toward computer science cram classes to get you through the job application process (much like the SAT preparation racket).
[1] Before you object to this point and start telling me about "fundamentals": if you can actually prove that an algorithm is correct, the algorithm will be embodied in standard libraries, and knowing it in much more than outline form will become unnecessary for anyone outside of the tiny fraction of people working on those standard libraries. I really and truly don't need to know how to code up a postgresql index, because there's some really good code that does this already-- I could learn to do this if it were needed, I need to know enough about indexing to choose appropriate ones, but beyond that, no.
That's almost enough memory to run Firefox.
s/experiment/establishment/ Suddenly I remember why I've been hanging around reddit.
You should get to work on those authoritarian pigfuckers at Lancent. Those bastards in the medical/scientific experiment have it in for true freedom of expression. What are they afraid of?
Trump's approval rating has never been good, not even at the moment he was elected-- it seems that a substantial chunk of Trump voters didn't actually think he could win (we were all told he couldn't) and thought he would be a safe protest vote.
On the other hand, there's a good third of the US population that would happily vote a neo-Nazi into office because it would piss off them liberals.
A typical leftist, always pointing the finger at the right and complaining about their finger pointing.
The central claim is that if on-line banking can work, discussion sites that use verified ids should be possible.
Your objections about email appear to be completely besides the point.
But then, it's not entirely clear to me that verified ids should be necessary for everything on the internet, and that does seem to be the general drift of the idea.
Ever wonder why, say Lancent doesn't publish anonymous papers?
You have two choices: (1) be a serious source of information and discussion; (2) be a toy, a forum for clowns to mess around.
If you want a toy internet, it is completely guaranteed that any time you're near anything of political or economic importance, it will be gamed, it will be infested with shills, hijacked by provacateurs, and jammed by trolls.