It's an interesting example how something that most people wouldn't want if they knew about it still gets implemented.
One reason I want worker cooperatives to become the dominant type of business is that it would reduce the number of powerful actors which are unaccountable to the public. Democratic entities still make bad decisions, but fewer, and there's a mechanism for error correction.
The important part is that she's still officially a member of Congress. People voted for her to represent their interests. If she's no longer able to fulfill that duty she should have stepped down and let someone else do it. As it stands she and her staff are still collecting salaries paid by the American people. It's also if interest because of the general tend of geritocracy - our elected officials are really old, and it calls into question the decisions they're making and their ability to lead.
The original was funny to me because people thought the second guy was fine when the reality would be if a woman is calling human resources there's probably something there. It's a joke told from the perspective of someone who's unable to see anything wrong and is only representing their side of the story. So I thought this was a riff on that idea, and viewed in that light this version is funny too.
I started to read the pdf but stopped. Just a little bit in and it struck me as complicated, and that's as someone familiar with ranked choice voting, proportional voting, etc. Not that complexity is inherently bad, but when it comes to group decision making, elegant solutions will encourage many people to participate. Complicated solutions will favor people with lots of time or money.
I also don't think weighing systems so that certain people have more of a say than others is ideal. It's true that experts know more than lay people. But there are challenges in identifying and labeling experts, deciding what being an expert in a given subject should mean in terms of more power/influence, and in doing so creating mechanisms for gaming the system.
Yes, I do. Sure they'll do that, but I think they'll have a tiny bit of second guessing. Would certainly be more impactful if this was a trend rather than one off.
Yeah, Americans reading this on lemmy! Why didn't you stop... something... from happening?? You definitely are the demographic who supports maga and also definitely have the ability to change the results of an election.
I'm a coding hobbyist, it's been very helpful in analyzing bugs, giving quick info about syntax and converting formatting for long sections where manually typing would be time intensive.
Point taken by someone else here saying continued use of AI may mean decreased functionally for stack exchange et al. That said, the advantage of AI is that it's answering your question specifically, instead of spending time sifting through semi related answers.
Outside of code it's good at aping the form of various genres. So if I need to answer an RFP question in a sales proposal, I might feed it the prompt to get a starting point. It always needs editing since it doesn't know the details of our business and because it's writing style is bland, but it's helpful to get a first draft.
What would become tedious, eliminating crimes from the books? I'm not saying we need to go on some campaign, just here's a law that isn't being used, isn't just, and they're getting rid of it. That's good.
We should reduce as much as possible laws that make something illegal but aren't enforced. It creates uncertainty about your position and allows authorities to threaten citizens for unrelated reasons.
Dark empaths sounds like something made up to make life seem more dramatic and mysterious