Your response to that assertion is to simply claim it isn't true?
Didn't say that. My only point here is that Bernie didn't win the votes of people of color because they voted against him. That's a fact. End of story. Whatever he did or said obviously either wasn't enough in their minds, or wasn't the right things at the right time. He needed to get them to vote for him, and he didn't. Fact.
I admit that I have no idea where Clinton's wide support from black people comes from, and maybe that's the piece of the picture that I'm missing.
It isn't just a piece of the picture, its the entire picture. They are more than a quarter of the Democratic primary electorate. If you aren't competitive with them, you lose. And they voted against her in 2008, so they were there to grab for the right candidate. So if you have some great argument where its obvious that black voters should prefer someone they didn't, then the Scientific Method tells us that clearly your argument has flaws. That's just a fact. A scientific mind would go looking for them (and not start with a cop-out like, "they are all stupid and/or voted against their own interests").
if the DNC basically did nothing wrong like you seem to sort of kind of be implying
Nope, never said that. Just said they didn't steal the election. Which is exactly what Sander's own people are saying too. Because they didn't.
The reason this whole argument really annoys me is that the Dem party establishment was way more in the tank for Hilary in 2008 than they were this time.
There was actually pressure in 2008 trying to get Obama to drop out *while he was winning*. He still won. Why? Because he was a better candidate. More democrats voted for him. Why couldn't Bernie have done that? And where was all this talk of "corruption" back in 2008?
Here's another little history lesson. Black people could actually vote in the South for a short while after the war. They elected black people to Congress and the Senate and everything. What was the response from the losing whites then? Corruption! Mind you this was the South in the late 1800's. It was probably not physically possible to be more corrupt than their politics already were. But suddenly corruption was huge problem when it wasn't just white guys benefiting from it. This what led to Jim Crow. There was even a whole branch of American history that developed to justify this. Hopefully they don't teach it anymore, but it was what I was taught. Perhaps today white people don't bother to learn that bit of history, but black folks haven't forgotten it.
So when "Corruption!" is suddenly only a problem when the mediocre White Guy wins, even though it was worse before, what do you think is really going on here? More to the point, what do you think all those black voters hear you saying, considering they voted overwhelmingly for the candidate you are now insisting is corrupt, largely just because they all voted for her?
Piss off. Sanders has been fighting for "people of color" as you put it for his entire career.
...this is actually a pretty good representation of the response one can expect any time this issue (all-important for winning a Democratic primary, mind you) is brought up. All the Black people I follow on twitter had timelines full of sentiments like this. Usually even less nice though, and almost always from eggs or people with white AVI's. I'll tell you what I tell Trump followers asserting similar things: Asserting something doesn't make it true, even if you do it angrily. (Out of curiosity, does it even stack up to the experience of his actual constituents? nope.).
Don't act like he wasn't trying
I don't have to act. We had his whole campaign to watch. It was pretty obvious. And now that its over, the stories from the inside are coming out. Not shocking given how black voters were treated by his campaign, but there are all kinds of tales of supporters of color being ignored, his own press secretary (a black woman hired probably in part to contradict the rumors) being assaulted and turned away at meetings, and just generally treated like they didn't belong. Like the campaign didn't care about them, and didn't want their support. Well, guess what? You don't want it, you didn't get it. #EarnThisDamnVoteOrLose.
My personal favorite came from TWiB (a black-run podcast, that was also acting as the media org behind Netroots Nation). They landed an interview with Sanders during NN16. Nothing weird about that, since he was there, and they were the media org running NN16. They showed up to the interview, and no Sanders. Thought he stood them up. Now that the campaign is over, they were talking with some ex-staffers that were there, and it turned out it wasn't that Sanders stood them up. His own staffers wouldn't let him go. They knew what Bernie was going to say, and knew it would not be taken well at all by TWiB or its audience.
This is precisely what a losing campaign for the Democratic nomination looks like. If you lose POC by double digits, you lose. Take a kewpie doll, and better luck next time.
So what does his own high-level former staff (who know the campaign better than you or I) say happened?
But let me be clear - NO ONE STOLE THIS ELECTION! Team Sanders we did AMAZING WORK. But we lost. It's a hard reality for some
It was a hard reality for me. Because I fought hard. Now, we won some great battles, but the reality is the system didn't cheat us.
Now the contents of the leaked emails show individuals were definitely biased, but 7 folks on an email didn't "steal" the election.
There are other qualms. Other valid arguments, but a stolen election is not one. I worked there. No one stole the election from us
He says the military insists on keeping humans in the decision-making process to "inflict violence on the enemy. [...] That ethical boundary is the one we've draw a pretty fine line on. It's one we must consider in developing these new weapons," he added.
I'm sure that's what he tells himself. As a non-techie, he might even be able to believe it. However, just about all hardware in existence has been experiencing creeping "AI" for decades. Does the pilot make every decision for the position of every aileron during flight? Of course not. There are lots of little decisions to be made in the piloting of aircraft and ordinance that are getting more and more computerized every year. At some point there will be anti-drone weaponry, and defensive weaponry on the drones, and when that day comes having to wait for an Ethernet packet to go from Kandahar to Virginia, a human to process it, and then back, is going to be seen as a mission-threatening liability. At that point they'll have the computer make the firing decisions too, but they'll justify it by saying the human's role was to start the mission in the first place.
Here's a question for you: When some other nation (eg: Russia or China) starts making these drones and deploying them over countries in ways we don't agree with, perhaps even over countries friendly to the USA, how is the USA going to feel about them then?
In the old Trek TOS there was an episode where they found a planet where large amounts of people just reported to extermination centers because the warring states' computers told them to based on their warfare simulations. As I get older, I'm finding that less and less implausible.
At some point a foreign power stirring up unrest (in diplomatic parlance "destabilizing") your country becomes an Act of War.
Prior to WWII Germany took over two countries this way (Austria and Czechoslovakia). Godwin or no, its pretty clear Putin has been using the same playbook for quite a while in places like Ukraine/Crimea and Georgia/South Ossetia. He's starting to do similar things to our NATO allies, and now the USA itself.
He's not going to stop doing this until someone makes him. So who's going to do that, and what is it going to take to get them to act?
What they did to Bernie wasn't fraud, at least not in the legal sense, just a slap in the face to those in the dem voter base who thought their party's candidate would be determined by a fair and democratic process.
It was. Everyone had a vote. Heck, they even let a lot of people who weren't Democrats vote too. More people voted for Clinton. Period.
And cry all you want about "the base", but if it weren't for all of those non-Democrats voting (by definition, not the base), Sanders wouldn't have even been in the running. "The base" of the Democratic party is people of color, and they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.
Sanders lost because he couldn't win the base of the Democratic party. He barely even tried to. Blaming it DNC officials nobody cares about or listens to isn't helping anything.
If its a learning algorithm, that learns how to make a trailer by looking at other trailers, then there's about a 60% chance it played Peter Gabriel's Solsbury Hill at some point in the trailer.
The end of your quote is the important part. They still have an effective two-party system in those places, its just that the identity of the two parties in question varies depending on where you live in the country. In other words, they have regional parties.
We have had that happen in the US. In fact, that's essentially what the founders thought would happen (if you substitute "parties" for "candidates"). However, that hasn't happened since the 1960's (when southerners were dead-set against Civil Rights for black citizens, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the party of Lincoln).
The "theoretical" aspect you deride was terribly important to potential Democratic party competitors when they were deciding whether or not to run.
...theoretically. There's no proof whatsoever of this statement.
If they were to take such a thing under consideration, they'd be pretty silly. The Superdelegates are almost all elected officials, and like elected officials everywhere, have historically voted along the same lines as their constituents.. For example, rather a lot of announced "Hillary" super delegates in 2008 in the South switched their support after she got waxed in their state's primaries. She had a huge lead in them going into the primaries in 2008, and they mattered not at all then either.
Historically, they have NEVER changed the outcome of a primary race, and have never seemed in any serious danger of doing so. So any problem with them is indeed totally theoretical.
Death Valley isn't really anything special. The Grand Canyon, othh just cannot be adequately depicted in pictures. It was probably the inspiration for Douglas
Adams's Total Perspective Vortex, which would drive people mad by showing them their actual importance in the universe.
FWIW, I can remember a time when the US was indeed relatively lax, and it was Europe that it was a total PITA to travel in due to all the border security theater. Interesting that the shoe is now on the other foot.
..... had absolutely no effect on anything, and is completely irrelevant to any discussion that isn't theoretical. Hillary got the most votes and the most pledged (voter-selected) delegates.
This is ONLY because the system has been rigged by the two parties to be a two party system.
No... just... no.
We had two parties naturally form from the very first national election, when the "founders" thought parties were evil. Multiple times viable new parties have been formed, and every time within an election or two all but the strongest two had died out. Nothing more nefarious than human nature is at work here.
Railing against "stupid" voters is as futile as railing against "greedy people" who won't let Communisim work. If you want people to behave differently, you need a completely different system that rewards them for behaving differently. Otherwise, you may just as well go to the beach and complain about the tide.
They might poll better next election which helps get them onto national televised debates, increasing their exposure.
The only possible endgame of that of course is that one of the other two parties dies out, so that we are back to two parties, but one of them has a new name and possibly a new coalition of voters. That's what happened in the mid 1800's when the Republicans killed the Whig party, and its what happened in the early 1800's when the Whig party killed the Federalist party.
As long as we have first-past-the-post elections, we by definition have a two-party system. That's just mathematically (and historically) how it works.
You can think of USA parties as like coalitions in multiparty Democracies. What is a "party" in those countries, is a "wing" in the USA. Wings can and do switch parties. For example, the Dixiecracts, who used to be the spine of the Democratic party, switched to the Republican party at the end of the 20th Century, and with this election now seem to be running it.
The two major parties compete for voters from the various wings. It works very much like a multi-party parlimentary Democracy, except that its before and during the campaigns that the ruling and opposition coalitions are formed, instead of after.
whoosh. hint if they require massive subsidies to be viable then they are NOT competitive. anything can be claimed as competitive if you ignore the costs of generation.
There are an impressive amount of issues with this statement, considering its only 3 short sentences. In rough order of importance...
The subsidies expired. They don't exist any more. The "if" part of your second sentence evaluates to false, so there was really no point in writing that it down in the first place.
Carbon-burning technologies are getting huge subsidies unique to their industry (that have not expired). There are official ones, like oil exploration tax breaks, and unofficial ones, like being allowed to simply dump their waste carbon into our air for free. If they had to pay their own production costs, and taxes on their own profits, and to clean up after themselves like the renewables do, the carbon burners wouldn't even be close to competitive with the renewables.
That's not how "whoosh" is used here. Its for jokes or sarcasm that the poster bit on, not for simply being wrong. S even if your criticism was right (hint: it wasn't), "whoosh" would not apply here.
Those of you who don't live near one let this Tulsan tell you, the unsightly looks of an oil refinery having nothing on the nasty smell. There's a whole quarter of our city that most folks don't want to live in if they can avoid it because the typical prevailing winds blow air from the Tulsa oil refineries that way.
I've never smelled a wind farm, but I'm guessing it isn't nearly as bad.
But hey, our gas is $1.78 a gallon here today because of those refineries. Vroom vroom!
That's not really the point though. In C++ (and I believe C) the case labels have to be integer literals of some kind. This is because the compiler is meant to be able to implement a switch statement with a jump-table. Those have to be built at compile time, so they can't have variables in the case's.
The prototypical example comes from the 1991 Usenet post The Rise of Worse is Better. The basic idea being that its better to push out something simple and get it into user hands than to always be trying to do the Right Thing. Sort of the larval stage of the concept iterative design (but without any formal planned iterations).
I and just about every designer of Common Lisp and CLOS has had extreme exposure to the MIT/Stanford style of design. The essence of this style can be captured by the phrase ``the right thing.'' To such a designer it is important to get all of the following characteristics right:
Simplicity-the design must be simple, both in implementation and interface. It is more important for the interface to be simple than the implementation.
Correctness-the design must be correct in all observable aspects. Incorrectness is simply not allowed.
Consistency-the design must not be inconsistent. A design is allowed to be slightly less simple and less complete to avoid inconsistency. Consistency is as important as correctness.
Completeness-the design must cover as many important situations as is practical. All reasonably expected cases must be covered. Simplicity is not allowed to overly reduce completeness.
I believe most people would agree that these are good characteristics. I will call the use of this philosophy of design the ``MIT approach.'' Common Lisp (with CLOS) and Scheme represent the MIT approach to design and implementation.
The worse-is-better philosophy is only slightly different:
Simplicity-the design must be simple, both in implementation and interface. It is more important for the implementation to be simple than the interface. Simplicity is the most important consideration in a design.
Correctness-the design must be correct in all observable aspects. It is slightly better to be simple than correct.
Consistency-the design must not be overly inconsistent. Consistency can be sacrificed for simplicity in some cases, but it is better to drop those parts of the design that deal with less common circumstances than to introduce either implementational complexity or inconsistency
Completeness-the design must cover as many important situations as is practical. All reasonably expected cases should be covered. Completeness can be sacrificed in favor of any other quality. In fact, completeness must sacrificed whenever implementation simplicity is jeopardized. Consistency can be sacrificed to achieve completeness if simplicity is retained; especially worthless is consistency of interface.
Early Unix and C are examples of the use of this school of design, and I will call the use of this design strategy the ``New Jersey approach.'' I have intentionally caricatured the worse-is-better philosophy to convince you that it is obviously a bad philosophy and that the New Jersey approach is a bad approach.
However, I believe that worse-is-better, even in its strawman form, has better survival characteristics than the-right-thing, and that the New Jersey approach when used for software is a better approach than the MIT approach.
Let me start out by retelling a story that shows that the MIT/New-Jersey distinction is valid and that proponents of each philosophy actually believe their philosophy is better.
Two famous people, one from MIT and another from Berkeley (but working on Unix) once met to discuss operating system issues. The person from MIT was knowledgeable about ITS (the MIT AI Lab operating system) and had been reading the Unix sources. He was interested in how Unix solved the PC loser-ing problem. The PC loser-ing problem occurs when a user program invokes a system routine to perform a lengthy operation that might have significant state, such as IO buffers. If an interrupt occurs during the operation, the state of the user program must be saved. Because the invocation of the system rou
That does not work in C++. I'd be surpised if it works in C. So the question I have for you is, what language DOES it work in? It looks like csh to me.
The main thing I'm thinking is if it were incorporated in-app, you could do things like visually indicate how often a user has been blocked right on their profile, have block settings so you don't see stuff from highly blocked users (or better yet, users highly blocked by feeds you follow), etc. There are all kinds of things twitter could do with their app, but all they have is one dumb block button, and otherwise its the wild wild west.
A "social media" app in the modern era absolutely must have a way to crowdsource moderation. You can't hire employees fast enough to keep up with banning all the jerks, and the jerks know that. However, there are more of us well-intentioned users than there are jerks, so we as users can do the job easily, if given good tools to do so.
understand there is an effective blockbot for Twitter
I would imagine there are several. The one I've heard of is an app that allows groups of users to share block lists, which I think is an idea particularly well-suited to Twitter (where the same trolls tend to target the same groups of users). It would be nice if Twitter was capable of coming up with (and implementing) these ideas themselves though. Having support in the app is really important, particularly since they take the old "it ain't done until Lotus won't run" attitude towards supporting third-party apps.
What they should do is create "twitterleft.com" and "twitterright.com", and capture both audiences in their own spaces. Instead, they've at the very least disenchanted the people they censor plus a fair number of those who they don't censor but still care about censorship.
That's just not true at all. A large part of the value of Twitter is that its a place where people can interact with others whose real opinions they don't often get to hear. The problem is when people get upset that is happening, and a person with a black AVI wakes up daily to tweets calling them the n-word, a person with a female AVI gets snowed under with rape threats, a person with both gets both, etc.
I follow one palestinian guy who tweets about Arab Spring, and he gets harassment from everyone you can imagine. Both sides of every conflict sent him hate, and westerners do it too just because he's Arab. Atheists send him hate and death threats for daring to hold a religion, and extremist Muslims send him hate and death threats for not being extremist. How is your left/right twitter going to fix that?
This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. This is a listening vs. bullying thing.
What most people are missing is Twitter *already* has a moderation system: bullying. They just need a much healthier one.
But I see how so many people teaching are there because they passionately believe in it, and they'd get higher salaries elsewhere for their skillsets, and the reaching sector doesn't attract regular people who chose jobs that pay competitively. None of it is commensurate with how I think learning and teaching should be valued in our society. I'm glad I'll (just barely) be able to afford to send my three kids to a school that does pay enough salary.
It would be amusing if Netflix et al. opted to take a small hit to their revenue and made their services free to all current customers in PA, thus denying the state the taxes they projected.
I don't think it matters, because they can't really make Netflix pay them a nickel if that company has no physical presence in PA.
Most likely what they will do is make it the consumer's responsibility to report it on their yearly taxes, and pay it then themselves. If PA taxpayers are like those in other states, almost nobody will do this, so the state still won't get their taxes. In fact, this is already the situation in most states, so this is really just a story about PA jumping on the (already heavily-laden) bandwagon.
There's that, and I am curious how they're collecting sales taxes from Netflix given that Netflix likely doesn't have a presence there.
Most likely they are just making it the resident's responsibility to report that on their yearly taxes and pay it appropriately. Lots of states (like mine) are doing that with online shopping now too.
In most cases, the data is marked as deleted by the app itself -- but because it has not been overwritten, it is still recoverable through forensic tools.
For the record, this is exactly what happens when you "delete" any file. The file system just goes to its little index of disk locations in use, and marks the ones the file's data is sitting in as available. Quick and easy. The data is all still there until the filesystem happens to give those locations away to a new file some day. There's nothing at all special about WhatsApp here. This is just how filesystems work.
Security professionals (eg: when I was working COMSEC jobs for the DoD) know to "zeroize" old data you really want to be non-recoverable. When last I checked, that's a matter of writing patterns of 1's and 0's repeatedly to the disk enough that the old data patterns are no longer recoverable. But typical OS's don't have that as a native operation, and it would be fairly unreasonable (not to mention dangerous) to expect a simple social media phone app to be jumping around the OS to do things like that itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Your response to that assertion is to simply claim it isn't true?
Didn't say that. My only point here is that Bernie didn't win the votes of people of color because they voted against him. That's a fact. End of story. Whatever he did or said obviously either wasn't enough in their minds, or wasn't the right things at the right time. He needed to get them to vote for him, and he didn't. Fact.
I admit that I have no idea where Clinton's wide support from black people comes from, and maybe that's the piece of the picture that I'm missing.
It isn't just a piece of the picture, its the entire picture. They are more than a quarter of the Democratic primary electorate. If you aren't competitive with them, you lose. And they voted against her in 2008, so they were there to grab for the right candidate. So if you have some great argument where its obvious that black voters should prefer someone they didn't, then the Scientific Method tells us that clearly your argument has flaws. That's just a fact. A scientific mind would go looking for them (and not start with a cop-out like, "they are all stupid and/or voted against their own interests").
if the DNC basically did nothing wrong like you seem to sort of kind of be implying
Nope, never said that. Just said they didn't steal the election. Which is exactly what Sander's own people are saying too. Because they didn't.
The reason this whole argument really annoys me is that the Dem party establishment was way more in the tank for Hilary in 2008 than they were this time.
There was actually pressure in 2008 trying to get Obama to drop out *while he was winning*. He still won. Why? Because he was a better candidate. More democrats voted for him. Why couldn't Bernie have done that? And where was all this talk of "corruption" back in 2008?
Here's another little history lesson. Black people could actually vote in the South for a short while after the war. They elected black people to Congress and the Senate and everything. What was the response from the losing whites then? Corruption! Mind you this was the South in the late 1800's. It was probably not physically possible to be more corrupt than their politics already were. But suddenly corruption was huge problem when it wasn't just white guys benefiting from it. This what led to Jim Crow. There was even a whole branch of American history that developed to justify this. Hopefully they don't teach it anymore, but it was what I was taught. Perhaps today white people don't bother to learn that bit of history, but black folks haven't forgotten it.
So when "Corruption!" is suddenly only a problem when the mediocre White Guy wins, even though it was worse before, what do you think is really going on here? More to the point, what do you think all those black voters hear you saying, considering they voted overwhelmingly for the candidate you are now insisting is corrupt, largely just because they all voted for her?
Piss off. Sanders has been fighting for "people of color" as you put it for his entire career.
...this is actually a pretty good representation of the response one can expect any time this issue (all-important for winning a Democratic primary, mind you) is brought up. All the Black people I follow on twitter had timelines full of sentiments like this. Usually even less nice though, and almost always from eggs or people with white AVI's. I'll tell you what I tell Trump followers asserting similar things: Asserting something doesn't make it true, even if you do it angrily. (Out of curiosity, does it even stack up to the experience of his actual constituents? nope.).
Don't act like he wasn't trying
I don't have to act. We had his whole campaign to watch. It was pretty obvious. And now that its over, the stories from the inside are coming out. Not shocking given how black voters were treated by his campaign, but there are all kinds of tales of supporters of color being ignored, his own press secretary (a black woman hired probably in part to contradict the rumors) being assaulted and turned away at meetings, and just generally treated like they didn't belong. Like the campaign didn't care about them, and didn't want their support. Well, guess what? You don't want it, you didn't get it. #EarnThisDamnVoteOrLose.
My personal favorite came from TWiB (a black-run podcast, that was also acting as the media org behind Netroots Nation). They landed an interview with Sanders during NN16. Nothing weird about that, since he was there, and they were the media org running NN16. They showed up to the interview, and no Sanders. Thought he stood them up. Now that the campaign is over, they were talking with some ex-staffers that were there, and it turned out it wasn't that Sanders stood them up. His own staffers wouldn't let him go. They knew what Bernie was going to say, and knew it would not be taken well at all by TWiB or its audience.
This is precisely what a losing campaign for the Democratic nomination looks like. If you lose POC by double digits, you lose. Take a kewpie doll, and better luck next time.
So what does his own high-level former staff (who know the campaign better than you or I) say happened?
But let me be clear - NO ONE STOLE THIS ELECTION! Team Sanders we did AMAZING WORK. But we lost. It's a hard reality for some
It was a hard reality for me. Because I fought hard. Now, we won some great battles, but the reality is the system didn't cheat us.
Now the contents of the leaked emails show individuals were definitely biased, but 7 folks on an email didn't "steal" the election.
There are other qualms. Other valid arguments, but a stolen election is not one. I worked there. No one stole the election from us
He says the military insists on keeping humans in the decision-making process to "inflict violence on the enemy. [...] That ethical boundary is the one we've draw a pretty fine line on. It's one we must consider in developing these new weapons," he added.
I'm sure that's what he tells himself. As a non-techie, he might even be able to believe it. However, just about all hardware in existence has been experiencing creeping "AI" for decades. Does the pilot make every decision for the position of every aileron during flight? Of course not. There are lots of little decisions to be made in the piloting of aircraft and ordinance that are getting more and more computerized every year. At some point there will be anti-drone weaponry, and defensive weaponry on the drones, and when that day comes having to wait for an Ethernet packet to go from Kandahar to Virginia, a human to process it, and then back, is going to be seen as a mission-threatening liability. At that point they'll have the computer make the firing decisions too, but they'll justify it by saying the human's role was to start the mission in the first place.
Here's a question for you: When some other nation (eg: Russia or China) starts making these drones and deploying them over countries in ways we don't agree with, perhaps even over countries friendly to the USA, how is the USA going to feel about them then?
In the old Trek TOS there was an episode where they found a planet where large amounts of people just reported to extermination centers because the warring states' computers told them to based on their warfare simulations. As I get older, I'm finding that less and less implausible.
At some point a foreign power stirring up unrest (in diplomatic parlance "destabilizing") your country becomes an Act of War.
Prior to WWII Germany took over two countries this way (Austria and Czechoslovakia). Godwin or no, its pretty clear Putin has been using the same playbook for quite a while in places like Ukraine/Crimea and Georgia/South Ossetia. He's starting to do similar things to our NATO allies, and now the USA itself.
He's not going to stop doing this until someone makes him. So who's going to do that, and what is it going to take to get them to act?
What they did to Bernie wasn't fraud, at least not in the legal sense, just a slap in the face to those in the dem voter base who thought their party's candidate would be determined by a fair and democratic process.
It was. Everyone had a vote. Heck, they even let a lot of people who weren't Democrats vote too. More people voted for Clinton. Period.
And cry all you want about "the base", but if it weren't for all of those non-Democrats voting (by definition, not the base), Sanders wouldn't have even been in the running. "The base" of the Democratic party is people of color, and they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.
Sanders lost because he couldn't win the base of the Democratic party. He barely even tried to. Blaming it DNC officials nobody cares about or listens to isn't helping anything.
If its a learning algorithm, that learns how to make a trailer by looking at other trailers, then there's about a 60% chance it played Peter Gabriel's Solsbury Hill at some point in the trailer.
The end of your quote is the important part. They still have an effective two-party system in those places, its just that the identity of the two parties in question varies depending on where you live in the country. In other words, they have regional parties.
We have had that happen in the US. In fact, that's essentially what the founders thought would happen (if you substitute "parties" for "candidates"). However, that hasn't happened since the 1960's (when southerners were dead-set against Civil Rights for black citizens, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the party of Lincoln).
The "theoretical" aspect you deride was terribly important to potential Democratic party competitors when they were deciding whether or not to run.
...theoretically. There's no proof whatsoever of this statement.
If they were to take such a thing under consideration, they'd be pretty silly. The Superdelegates are almost all elected officials, and like elected officials everywhere, have historically voted along the same lines as their constituents.. For example, rather a lot of announced "Hillary" super delegates in 2008 in the South switched their support after she got waxed in their state's primaries. She had a huge lead in them going into the primaries in 2008, and they mattered not at all then either.
Historically, they have NEVER changed the outcome of a primary race, and have never seemed in any serious danger of doing so. So any problem with them is indeed totally theoretical.
Death Valley isn't really anything special. The Grand Canyon, othh just cannot be adequately depicted in pictures. It was probably the inspiration for Douglas Adams's Total Perspective Vortex, which would drive people mad by showing them their actual importance in the universe.
FWIW, I can remember a time when the US was indeed relatively lax, and it was Europe that it was a total PITA to travel in due to all the border security theater. Interesting that the shoe is now on the other foot.
The super delegate system,
This is ONLY because the system has been rigged by the two parties to be a two party system.
No ... just... no.
We had two parties naturally form from the very first national election, when the "founders" thought parties were evil. Multiple times viable new parties have been formed, and every time within an election or two all but the strongest two had died out. Nothing more nefarious than human nature is at work here.
Any voting system with a first-past-the-post vote automatically has 2 parties as its stable state.. The only way to "fix" that is to get rid of all first-past-the-post votes (eg: No president, nationwide proportional representation for everything, people vote for parties rather than people).
Railing against "stupid" voters is as futile as railing against "greedy people" who won't let Communisim work. If you want people to behave differently, you need a completely different system that rewards them for behaving differently. Otherwise, you may just as well go to the beach and complain about the tide.
They might poll better next election which helps get them onto national televised debates, increasing their exposure.
The only possible endgame of that of course is that one of the other two parties dies out, so that we are back to two parties, but one of them has a new name and possibly a new coalition of voters. That's what happened in the mid 1800's when the Republicans killed the Whig party, and its what happened in the early 1800's when the Whig party killed the Federalist party.
As long as we have first-past-the-post elections, we by definition have a two-party system. That's just mathematically (and historically) how it works.
You can think of USA parties as like coalitions in multiparty Democracies. What is a "party" in those countries, is a "wing" in the USA. Wings can and do switch parties. For example, the Dixiecracts, who used to be the spine of the Democratic party, switched to the Republican party at the end of the 20th Century, and with this election now seem to be running it.
The two major parties compete for voters from the various wings. It works very much like a multi-party parlimentary Democracy, except that its before and during the campaigns that the ruling and opposition coalitions are formed, instead of after.
whoosh. hint if they require massive subsidies to be viable then they are NOT competitive. anything can be claimed as competitive if you ignore the costs of generation.
There are an impressive amount of issues with this statement, considering its only 3 short sentences. In rough order of importance...
Those of you who don't live near one let this Tulsan tell you, the unsightly looks of an oil refinery having nothing on the nasty smell. There's a whole quarter of our city that most folks don't want to live in if they can avoid it because the typical prevailing winds blow air from the Tulsa oil refineries that way.
I've never smelled a wind farm, but I'm guessing it isn't nearly as bad.
But hey, our gas is $1.78 a gallon here today because of those refineries. Vroom vroom!
That's not really the point though. In C++ (and I believe C) the case labels have to be integer literals of some kind. This is because the compiler is meant to be able to implement a switch statement with a jump-table. Those have to be built at compile time, so they can't have variables in the case's.
The prototypical example comes from the 1991 Usenet post The Rise of Worse is Better. The basic idea being that its better to push out something simple and get it into user hands than to always be trying to do the Right Thing. Sort of the larval stage of the concept iterative design (but without any formal planned iterations).
I and just about every designer of Common Lisp and CLOS has had extreme exposure to the MIT/Stanford style of design. The essence of this style can be captured by the phrase ``the right thing.'' To such a designer it is important to get all of the following characteristics right:
I believe most people would agree that these are good characteristics. I will call the use of this philosophy of design the ``MIT approach.'' Common Lisp (with CLOS) and Scheme represent the MIT approach to design and implementation.
The worse-is-better philosophy is only slightly different:
Early Unix and C are examples of the use of this school of design, and I will call the use of this design strategy the ``New Jersey approach.'' I have intentionally caricatured the worse-is-better philosophy to convince you that it is obviously a bad philosophy and that the New Jersey approach is a bad approach.
However, I believe that worse-is-better, even in its strawman form, has better survival characteristics than the-right-thing, and that the New Jersey approach when used for software is a better approach than the MIT approach.
Let me start out by retelling a story that shows that the MIT/New-Jersey distinction is valid and that proponents of each philosophy actually believe their philosophy is better.
Two famous people, one from MIT and another from Berkeley (but working on Unix) once met to discuss operating system issues. The person from MIT was knowledgeable about ITS (the MIT AI Lab operating system) and had been reading the Unix sources. He was interested in how Unix solved the PC loser-ing problem. The PC loser-ing problem occurs when a user program invokes a system routine to perform a lengthy operation that might have significant state, such as IO buffers. If an interrupt occurs during the operation, the state of the user program must be saved. Because the invocation of the system rou
That does not work in C++. I'd be surpised if it works in C. So the question I have for you is, what language DOES it work in? It looks like csh to me.
The main thing I'm thinking is if it were incorporated in-app, you could do things like visually indicate how often a user has been blocked right on their profile, have block settings so you don't see stuff from highly blocked users (or better yet, users highly blocked by feeds you follow), etc. There are all kinds of things twitter could do with their app, but all they have is one dumb block button, and otherwise its the wild wild west.
A "social media" app in the modern era absolutely must have a way to crowdsource moderation. You can't hire employees fast enough to keep up with banning all the jerks, and the jerks know that. However, there are more of us well-intentioned users than there are jerks, so we as users can do the job easily, if given good tools to do so.
understand there is an effective blockbot for Twitter
I would imagine there are several. The one I've heard of is an app that allows groups of users to share block lists, which I think is an idea particularly well-suited to Twitter (where the same trolls tend to target the same groups of users). It would be nice if Twitter was capable of coming up with (and implementing) these ideas themselves though. Having support in the app is really important, particularly since they take the old "it ain't done until Lotus won't run" attitude towards supporting third-party apps.
What they should do is create "twitterleft.com" and "twitterright.com", and capture both audiences in their own spaces. Instead, they've at the very least disenchanted the people they censor plus a fair number of those who they don't censor but still care about censorship.
That's just not true at all. A large part of the value of Twitter is that its a place where people can interact with others whose real opinions they don't often get to hear. The problem is when people get upset that is happening, and a person with a black AVI wakes up daily to tweets calling them the n-word, a person with a female AVI gets snowed under with rape threats, a person with both gets both, etc.
I follow one palestinian guy who tweets about Arab Spring, and he gets harassment from everyone you can imagine. Both sides of every conflict sent him hate, and westerners do it too just because he's Arab. Atheists send him hate and death threats for daring to hold a religion, and extremist Muslims send him hate and death threats for not being extremist. How is your left/right twitter going to fix that?
This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing. This is a listening vs. bullying thing.
What most people are missing is Twitter *already* has a moderation system: bullying. They just need a much healthier one.
But I see how so many people teaching are there because they passionately believe in it, and they'd get higher salaries elsewhere for their skillsets, and the reaching sector doesn't attract regular people who chose jobs that pay competitively. None of it is commensurate with how I think learning and teaching should be valued in our society. I'm glad I'll (just barely) be able to afford to send my three kids to a school that does pay enough salary.
If you're talking about a private school, most of those actually pay less than public schools.
It would be amusing if Netflix et al. opted to take a small hit to their revenue and made their services free to all current customers in PA, thus denying the state the taxes they projected.
I don't think it matters, because they can't really make Netflix pay them a nickel if that company has no physical presence in PA.
Most likely what they will do is make it the consumer's responsibility to report it on their yearly taxes, and pay it then themselves. If PA taxpayers are like those in other states, almost nobody will do this, so the state still won't get their taxes. In fact, this is already the situation in most states, so this is really just a story about PA jumping on the (already heavily-laden) bandwagon.
There's that, and I am curious how they're collecting sales taxes from Netflix given that Netflix likely doesn't have a presence there.
Most likely they are just making it the resident's responsibility to report that on their yearly taxes and pay it appropriately. Lots of states (like mine) are doing that with online shopping now too.
In most cases, the data is marked as deleted by the app itself -- but because it has not been overwritten, it is still recoverable through forensic tools.
For the record, this is exactly what happens when you "delete" any file. The file system just goes to its little index of disk locations in use, and marks the ones the file's data is sitting in as available. Quick and easy. The data is all still there until the filesystem happens to give those locations away to a new file some day. There's nothing at all special about WhatsApp here. This is just how filesystems work.
Security professionals (eg: when I was working COMSEC jobs for the DoD) know to "zeroize" old data you really want to be non-recoverable. When last I checked, that's a matter of writing patterns of 1's and 0's repeatedly to the disk enough that the old data patterns are no longer recoverable. But typical OS's don't have that as a native operation, and it would be fairly unreasonable (not to mention dangerous) to expect a simple social media phone app to be jumping around the OS to do things like that itself.
G.E. Lightbulbs: 100's of Billions.