True. I think it's better to let adults handle it if it happens though, rather than put more too many rules in place. I'm reminded of what Jack Tramiel said when asked how he could do deals with Germans after having been in a concentration camp.
"You know," he once told me, "it's hard to believe it really happened. But it can happen again. In America. Americans like to make rules, and that scares me. If you have too many rules you get locked in a system. It's the system that says this one dies and that one doesn't, not the people. That's why I don't hate the German people. Individuals, yes. Rules, yes. But not all Germans." He shrugged. "They just obeyed the rules. But that's why we need more Commodores. We need more mavericks, just so the rules don't take over."
If I ran a company I would also forbid relationships between a boss and a subordinate. Terrible for morale as you say.
Outside of that employees flirting as is human nature and occasionally hooking up could be a good thing for morale, makes the place more lively and happy as long as all is done in good taste for the parties involved.
where idiot = someone who doesn't think like me. And once you cast out the first batch as idiots, among those who remain you will pretty soon find those who still don't think like you, so you'll cast out those idiots too, and then you'll repeat, and repeat... until only one remains. It's a lonely, tortured world.
I disagree that way is more practical, in every union larger members have more power just by virtue of their size and wealth. Just look at EU and Germany vs other countries.
Now you as a citizen may feel less empowered than the guy in Wyoming, and it's true he has more voting power than you with respect to voting for President. But I argue that metric is irrelevant, you can meaningfully only compare yourself with others in your state. You and the Wyoming guy live in different democracies for all practical and legal purposes. Your *state* and his state have decided to get into a partnership of states for economic, military and other reasons, and agreed to implement some mutually agreed on laws at the level of your states. But more than just in the presidential voting power, you two are not equal in every political and legal sense like you are with others in your state, and were not meant to be.
Not saying it's the best arrangement, or that it isn't, I don't think it's knowable in principle, but it's an arrangement that's been successful so far. It might evolve in the future though but it would need to be bottom up, grassroots, majority of people in all the states being dissatisfied with the current system for it to change.
It doesn't matter what we call this, I think most people would not be interesting in looking at it for any length of time. I know I'm not. However we define art, an art piece reflects the inside world of the person who made it. It gives us the observers a glimpse into another psyche different from our own and that's fascinating, it's almost a form of telepathy. Here, there's no psyche, no inside world to look at, and so it's uninteresting. It's just some graphics.
You're assuming there would be nothing stopping the country from electing a President determined to plunder the small state but I'm assuming there would be -- other small states would likely band with it in order to avoid a similar fate and reduce the chance of such President being elected.
For that reason I do agree, there's little value in imagining highly unlikely scenarios, so that example I quoted I admit is not really helpful. A more practical way of thinking is small states do like the Electoral College and do feel more empowered with it and that's likely not going to change. Having a system in place that makes small states more comfortable being within the union likely does make the union stronger though.
And if the big states want to switch to proportional distribution of electors rather than winner take all to make the system more democratic, there's nothing to stop them.
Plus the pattern is those of Trump's claims which are not technically true but sort of ring true -- which is the majority of his claims -- almost always end up working in his favor as if by magic.
Electoral College exists to prevent the Union of individual states from breaking apart. That was its original purpose and it still holds.
"Assume, for example, one state holds the country’s entire reserves of a crucial resource, but has a small population. In a direct democracy, its resources could be distributed to other states and compensation ignored. That would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war. In any event, in a nation of united states, where all states are needed for geopolitical reasons, their interests have to be recognized. [...] You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing."
But the local govt needs to invest in the public transportation system too. If the uninsured drivers can't get to work, not only is it bad for them it is bad for the businesses they work for.
I imagine this one turned up because someone was given the task to look at all unnecessary regulations that can be undone, and the other ones just aren't as interesting/funny to report. If so it's the process that lead to this directive which is potentially useful.
Remember Reality Winner? '“I’m losing my mind,” she wrote in a Facebook post on 9 February. “He’s lying. He’s blatantly lying.”' (Talking about Trump.) I think this is the same thing. Trump gets under people's skin, and the left media constantly fans the flames, in my opinion partly for profit and partly because they feel the same. (The right does too, for profit and out of glee.) After a while Trump and Republicans is all Trump-obsessed people think about. Also she had OCD, I wonder if the shooter did too.
I don't want to sound condescending. It is a mental health issue and inside it must feel like torture. This shooting is no different from others, it's a struggle against the pain inside. What can we do? Offline, avoid any politics with easily agitated people whether left or right, just like you wouldn't upset people with a heart condition. They won't turn mass shooters but nothing good will come out of that aggravation. Online -- there should be some campaign about how harmful this obsession is. American political system is designed to be largely ignored by the populace. If we read local newspapers and care about local issues I think we'll be much better off.
Seriously though the only way around it is to wait for people to realize than any news they read has only a certain probability of partially or fully matching what actually happened. (Strictly speaking that's true with any information entering your mind from the outside.) And that you need to gather multiple sources and give it time to see if the news item remains before you can call it "likely true". Sort of deep learning if you will -- the statistical processes involved are key.
As a proxy for that I usually check the headlines on google news (mostly featuring WaPo, NYT, CNN etc.), then I check Fox news, what's shown on both I see it as probably true, and if it stays for a while it's probably important.
The relentless pursuit to prove there was a connection with Russia is creating far more damage than the Russians (allegedly) managed to do. Hard to imagine Russians getting a better return for their efforts.
Of course, what I mean is what happened (vote "leave") is something other than the outcome the government hoped for and that was getting a clear confirmation it had people's support. And anything other than that clear confirmation had to result in a bit of chaos, which is what we have both in the UK and the US now.
Such are the times. In my view what was decades of prosperity turned into something closer to detachment and even abuse and the previous consensus about how the society should be run eventually disintegrated, and societies are now painfully searching for the new consensus. If I knew more history I'd dare say it's probably a standard cycle.
Had they asked for supermajority and had it turned out that half the people wanted out, as they did, it would have been just as bad. The point of the referendum was to prove that the clear majority of people wanted to stay so the government could get the mandate to continue.
And why were they asking for that approval in the first place, why not just carry on since there was no obligation whatsoever to have any referendum? Because they sensed things were not good and people were unhappy. Angry, even. But they hoped a clear majority in favor of staying on course would help those angry ones see the light.
If the airlines provided special treatment for laptops with protective cases separately from the regular bags and ID checking before giving it back to the passengers, I'd be OK with it. My concern is only that it would get lost or stolen. I would even accept having to pay a small fee for this laptop cargo care (though not $100).
Agreed. Paris is a top down thing. Letting companies develop green energy sources and consumers adopt them is a bottom up. Top down rarely works unless there is a consensus in society, which for climate change there isn't. That said I'd like that the government stimulates research in green energy sources.
... with smartphones (as well as time wasting). Until there is a radical breakthrough in technology maybe not much will change. Little things like Apple Pay and this is what we get now. Microsoft is ahead of others even with VR/AR and few people want that.
All the models that had Clinton at 95%+ including NYT etc. had EC in them. Only Nate Silver after some prodding acknowledged that polls are probably not telling the whole story so he manually tweaked his model to arrive at 66% Clinton (and got a lot of shit for that from Huffington Post who had her at 98%).
... with recent reports (that make sense) that data captured by those wearables and presented by whatever s/w often is not all that useful for getting/being healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
True. I think it's better to let adults handle it if it happens though, rather than put more too many rules in place. I'm reminded of what Jack Tramiel said when asked how he could do deals with Germans after having been in a concentration camp.
"You know," he once told me, "it's hard to believe it really happened. But it can happen again. In America. Americans like to make rules, and that scares me. If you have too many rules you get locked in a system. It's the system that says this one dies and that one doesn't, not the people. That's why I don't hate the German people. Individuals, yes. Rules, yes. But not all Germans." He shrugged. "They just obeyed the rules. But that's why we need more Commodores. We need more mavericks, just so the rules don't take over."
If I ran a company I would also forbid relationships between a boss and a subordinate. Terrible for morale as you say.
Outside of that employees flirting as is human nature and occasionally hooking up could be a good thing for morale, makes the place more lively and happy as long as all is done in good taste for the parties involved.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-...
where idiot = someone who doesn't think like me. And once you cast out the first batch as idiots, among those who remain you will pretty soon find those who still don't think like you, so you'll cast out those idiots too, and then you'll repeat, and repeat... until only one remains. It's a lonely, tortured world.
I disagree that way is more practical, in every union larger members have more power just by virtue of their size and wealth. Just look at EU and Germany vs other countries.
Now you as a citizen may feel less empowered than the guy in Wyoming, and it's true he has more voting power than you with respect to voting for President. But I argue that metric is irrelevant, you can meaningfully only compare yourself with others in your state. You and the Wyoming guy live in different democracies for all practical and legal purposes. Your *state* and his state have decided to get into a partnership of states for economic, military and other reasons, and agreed to implement some mutually agreed on laws at the level of your states. But more than just in the presidential voting power, you two are not equal in every political and legal sense like you are with others in your state, and were not meant to be.
Not saying it's the best arrangement, or that it isn't, I don't think it's knowable in principle, but it's an arrangement that's been successful so far. It might evolve in the future though but it would need to be bottom up, grassroots, majority of people in all the states being dissatisfied with the current system for it to change.
It doesn't matter what we call this, I think most people would not be interesting in looking at it for any length of time. I know I'm not. However we define art, an art piece reflects the inside world of the person who made it. It gives us the observers a glimpse into another psyche different from our own and that's fascinating, it's almost a form of telepathy. Here, there's no psyche, no inside world to look at, and so it's uninteresting. It's just some graphics.
As a sushi platter of mainstream media news I'd rather it look more smooth and spacey than add to the agitation of the hysteric headlines.
These days I don't visit it nearly as often as before, I have to say Slashdot now covers most of my news needs.
You're assuming there would be nothing stopping the country from electing a President determined to plunder the small state but I'm assuming there would be -- other small states would likely band with it in order to avoid a similar fate and reduce the chance of such President being elected.
For that reason I do agree, there's little value in imagining highly unlikely scenarios, so that example I quoted I admit is not really helpful. A more practical way of thinking is small states do like the Electoral College and do feel more empowered with it and that's likely not going to change. Having a system in place that makes small states more comfortable being within the union likely does make the union stronger though.
And if the big states want to switch to proportional distribution of electors rather than winner take all to make the system more democratic, there's nothing to stop them.
Plus the pattern is those of Trump's claims which are not technically true but sort of ring true -- which is the majority of his claims -- almost always end up working in his favor as if by magic.
Electoral College exists to prevent the Union of individual states from breaking apart. That was its original purpose and it still holds.
"Assume, for example, one state holds the country’s entire reserves of a crucial resource, but has a small population. In a direct democracy, its resources could be distributed to other states and compensation ignored. That would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war. In any event, in a nation of united states, where all states are needed for geopolitical reasons, their interests have to be recognized.
[...]
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing."
https://geopoliticalfutures.co...
But the local govt needs to invest in the public transportation system too. If the uninsured drivers can't get to work, not only is it bad for them it is bad for the businesses they work for.
Reminds me of this quote, “Logic excludes – by definition – nuances, and Truth resides exclusively in the nuances.” - Ernest Renan
I imagine this one turned up because someone was given the task to look at all unnecessary regulations that can be undone, and the other ones just aren't as interesting/funny to report. If so it's the process that lead to this directive which is potentially useful.
Remember Reality Winner? '“I’m losing my mind,” she wrote in a Facebook post on 9 February. “He’s lying. He’s blatantly lying.”' (Talking about Trump.) I think this is the same thing. Trump gets under people's skin, and the left media constantly fans the flames, in my opinion partly for profit and partly because they feel the same. (The right does too, for profit and out of glee.) After a while Trump and Republicans is all Trump-obsessed people think about. Also she had OCD, I wonder if the shooter did too.
I don't want to sound condescending. It is a mental health issue and inside it must feel like torture. This shooting is no different from others, it's a struggle against the pain inside. What can we do? Offline, avoid any politics with easily agitated people whether left or right, just like you wouldn't upset people with a heart condition. They won't turn mass shooters but nothing good will come out of that aggravation. Online -- there should be some campaign about how harmful this obsession is. American political system is designed to be largely ignored by the populace. If we read local newspapers and care about local issues I think we'll be much better off.
But it was more subtle. Sometimes!
Seriously though the only way around it is to wait for people to realize than any news they read has only a certain probability of partially or fully matching what actually happened. (Strictly speaking that's true with any information entering your mind from the outside.) And that you need to gather multiple sources and give it time to see if the news item remains before you can call it "likely true". Sort of deep learning if you will -- the statistical processes involved are key.
As a proxy for that I usually check the headlines on google news (mostly featuring WaPo, NYT, CNN etc.), then I check Fox news, what's shown on both I see it as probably true, and if it stays for a while it's probably important.
The relentless pursuit to prove there was a connection with Russia is creating far more damage than the Russians (allegedly) managed to do. Hard to imagine Russians getting a better return for their efforts.
Of course, what I mean is what happened (vote "leave") is something other than the outcome the government hoped for and that was getting a clear confirmation it had people's support. And anything other than that clear confirmation had to result in a bit of chaos, which is what we have both in the UK and the US now.
Such are the times. In my view what was decades of prosperity turned into something closer to detachment and even abuse and the previous consensus about how the society should be run eventually disintegrated, and societies are now painfully searching for the new consensus. If I knew more history I'd dare say it's probably a standard cycle.
Had they asked for supermajority and had it turned out that half the people wanted out, as they did, it would have been just as bad. The point of the referendum was to prove that the clear majority of people wanted to stay so the government could get the mandate to continue.
And why were they asking for that approval in the first place, why not just carry on since there was no obligation whatsoever to have any referendum? Because they sensed things were not good and people were unhappy. Angry, even. But they hoped a clear majority in favor of staying on course would help those angry ones see the light.
If the airlines provided special treatment for laptops with protective cases separately from the regular bags and ID checking before giving it back to the passengers, I'd be OK with it. My concern is only that it would get lost or stolen. I would even accept having to pay a small fee for this laptop cargo care (though not $100).
That's exactly what I'd do. There is no law against carrying a 3.5" HDD/SDD in your shirt pocket.
Agreed. Paris is a top down thing. Letting companies develop green energy sources and consumers adopt them is a bottom up. Top down rarely works unless there is a consensus in society, which for climate change there isn't. That said I'd like that the government stimulates research in green energy sources.
... with smartphones (as well as time wasting). Until there is a radical breakthrough in technology maybe not much will change. Little things like Apple Pay and this is what we get now. Microsoft is ahead of others even with VR/AR and few people want that.
All the models that had Clinton at 95%+ including NYT etc. had EC in them. Only Nate Silver after some prodding acknowledged that polls are probably not telling the whole story so he manually tweaked his model to arrive at 66% Clinton (and got a lot of shit for that from Huffington Post who had her at 98%).
... with recent reports (that make sense) that data captured by those wearables and presented by whatever s/w often is not all that useful for getting/being healthy.
Look to places like Breitbart and Gab and Reddit threads for comments from people who are four-square behind his policies.
Doing so during the election would have also raised doubts about 95% chance of Clinton winning, but people didn't want to look.