credo @ credo @lemmy.world

Posts

12

Comments

722

Joined

1 yr. ago

I too like toaster ovens.

The US house of representatives has 435 members. If you think half of those representatives would anonymously vote to take away your rights, you already have zero faith in humanity. Why do you think knowing how they voted would then change anything at the national population level?

The real problem is, we don’t focus on critical thinking enough in our school system.

And if you still have a problem with it, there are two houses in our congress. Keep your “accountability” in the senate, where it’s easier to monitor.

There are different systems. We have something called a 2-party system. Please consider yourself informed. Thanks for the downvote.

Your belief that anonymous voting in Congress is “goofy” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how our political system operates. Public knowledge of each individual vote does little to influence electoral outcomes. I.e., voters rarely track day-to-day legislative decisions, and even when they do, their understanding of the complex procedural dynamics is limited. Campaigns are primarily won or lost based on messaging (truthful or otherwise), rather than detailed voting records.

The real leverage in our system comes from financial influence and political pressure exerted by donors, interest groups, and party leadership. This influence depends on knowing exactly how legislators vote, enabling these entities to reward or punish them accordingly. When every vote is public, politicians feel compelled to serve those who fund their campaigns rather than following their own conscience or serving the broader public interest.

The proposal I highlighted for rebuilding trust is to restore anonymous voting in Congress. This follows the same expectations a anonymous voting in general elections. By keeping individual votes private, representatives are enabled to make decisions based on their judgment and principles rather than on fear of retribution or loss of funding. Many political scientists and reform advocates agree (see discussions in the American Political Science Review or reports from nonpartisan think tanks like the Brennan Center for Justice).

It is telling that your comment has garnered so much support. This demonstrates how easily public perception can be shaped and how difficult it is to foster informed discussions about positive legislative reforms.

No. That’s a lie you’ve been fed to support it. This change has done significantly more harm than good. It’s exactly what’s led to our situation of extremes. With anonymous voting, no one can get paid for their vote. This is so much better than you preventing them from voting their conscience by requiring proof.

This is why voting in Congress should be anonymous. And this is exactly why purse holders wanted voting to be public- so they could carve out any nonconformists.

Any way. These fuckers better learn from the Greeks and form a Phalanx.

But why is Florida in quotes?

Your last sentence should become some kind of philosophy.

I’m pretty sure “because” isn’t a reason.

Yes, that’s why I said let’s ignore Boeing. I’m asking for the “correct” solution to this problem.

The more I think about it, I think the adversarial nature of auditing must come from the Government side. Which is precisely why Boeing became an issue.

There is an option where independent teams of auditors review the product, and the team with the most findings gets a bonus. Perhaps this could be considered. But again, who’s job is it to ensure this overall program is safe for the public? That’s not the manufacturer, especially a corporation. We already know the courts have ruled corpos only responsibility is to current stock holders and short term gains.

Let’s ignore Boeing for a second, because this is an interesting problem. Our society rewards production and accepting that, I’m not sure getting planes “out the door” is inherently bad.

It seems to me the issue lies in how to reward the auditors. I think we’d all agree this responsibility should ultimately be a Gov’t function.. but internal quality assurance is a thing too. So, how does a company reward this team of auditors? E.x., Finding more errors naively seems like the correct metric. However, their bonus would then go down with program effectiveness- that is, fewer errors/faults based on adversarial competition between the production team and the auditing team would lead to fewer findings (presumably).

Management bonuses is a whole other issue. Then, who should oversee this entire program of rewards to ensure it’s systematically safe for the public? Assuming we accept the premise that rewards are desired.

I’m sorry, where do you get your facts? Or are you simply assuming because they are military they did not vote, or did not vote for Harris?

I’m not sure if the “this interpretation” reference is about the “preemptive defederation as a last resort” or the “lying” bit, but the first doesn’t need an interpretation because it was stated in the post:

Defederation should only be considered as a last resort. However, based on their comments and behavior, no positive outcomes can be expected. We made the decision to preemptively defederate from Hexbear for these reasons.

The “lying” bit.. I’m not sure where that comes from. It’s not the best “informed rhetoric,” that’s for sure.

Yes, thinking is boring when it’s difficult I suppose.

Holy shit dude. I read context fine. Let me spell it out for you with crayons:

• [In the future] “It may not reach them” (This implies a possibility of failure)
• [in the future] “it can not be stopped” (This implies an absolute probability of success)

These don’t fucking match.

• “but it will be committed to a point where” can be replaced with “in the future”

Unless you actually meant “can not” instead of the proper “cannot”. I assumed it was a typo, but could have been a very idiotic and convoluted way to say it can [possibly] not be done.. in which case I guess you got me.

Edit: I reviewed your comment history. You’re an obvious troll or idiot. The problem is, you wouldn’t be perceptive enough to know the truth.

Your starting premise and final conclusion do not agree. There is a reason I left the middle of the sentence out: because it is irrelevant to that fact.

Maybe.. read what you wrote again? And stop using offense as your first defense.

Edit2: I’ll save you a read of my post. There is s much better article here with the needed detail why Maui was chosen: https://www.fws.gov/project/alala-project

While ‘io research continues on Hawai‘i Island, simultaneously the ‘Alalā Project is planning a pilot release on Maui to evaluate whether ‘alalā can survive and breed in wet forest habitat on east Maui—where ‘alalā or a similar crow species lived historically and there is no ‘alalā predation threat from ‘io (‘io are only present on Hawai‘i Island).

——-Original post——-

This article is [mostly] fine for a press release, but terribly lacking in details or links for more information.

Thirty of the birds were reintroduced between 2016 and 2020 in the Big Island’s Puu Makaala Natural Forest Reserve. After several successful years, alala numbers began to decline and reintroduction efforts were paused, officials said. The remaining alala were returned to human care.

(Very last paragraph)

How will Maui be different? My assumption is because Maui is a less developed island, scientists anticipate a larger quantity of compatible habitat to support a stable population.

Edit:

I found this search result from Reddit (sorry, I’m not cheating!):

Maui has more sandy beaches, is more verdant, and has both remote hiking opportunities and enormous resorts. BI is larger (duh!), is much less developed, definitely has more of a "chill" feel to it, has active volcanoes, high arid plains, and large cattle ranches as well the lush, tropical forests that you'll also find on Maui.

So.. I have no idea now.

It may not reach them

it can not be stopped.

These statements confuse me. Where will it go?

I mean yeah. That’s the going rate to sell one’s soul.

They are going to be fighting in Ukraine soon. Farewell I guess.