daniskarma @ daniskarma @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

3

Comments

1,359

Joined

1 yr. ago

It's not an issue. As long as .social is able to maintain the load.

The good thing about decentralization is that at any moment anyone could open a new instance and it would work perfectly fine. It does not matter if one instance have more or less users.

If it lowers the entry barrier it is welcome. It should not matter at all.

It could be different.

I've been thinking a long time. And I think it may be one scenario where a public ledger would actually make sense, aka a blockchain.

Instead of economic transaction, votes are casted. It could be anonymous using one way pseudonyms for the public key. So the caster may be able to verify at any point that their vote was correctly casted, but no one could know who the caster is. The signature keys could be issued by the government same as it's already done in most european countries with digital signatures.

The ledger would be public and anyone could be able to verify the votes in a similar manner as most cryptocurrencies.

I really think there is not a technological barrier here. It's not only more democratic but probably safer that the current way of casting votes. As it could be proven at any point that all votes are casted and valid without interference, no moron could say that "election was stolen" because it could be proven that it was not.

And with the idea of "permanent open polls" would mean that even if somehow your vote was stolen, you could just change it again. So any malevolent actor should need an insanely amount of work to keep constantly tampering election results (while nowadays the malevolent actor only need to tamper one election and their work is done for years).

People don't vote because why bother.

You vote a representative that says "I will do this" and then they don't do it. Representatives lie. And you can't do anything about it within the current political system.

Or even if they don't lie, nobody agree 100% with a representative. You may agree in some topics but disagree in others. And having to vote for something you don't want to happen is very frustrating and many people don't vote because of that.

We need a system where popular vote can make decisions directly.

The elections we have nowadays are already manipulated that way, so there is not a change on that regard.

People should not need to vote on every issue, you should be able to still delegate on a representative. But if on some things you don't agree with your representative you should be able to vote it by your own way.

I remember a proposal someone made a long time ago. About a voting system where every delegate have a "power of vote" and by default is 100% percent. But whenever a voting is made in a representative chamber the vote is also open online. And people's vote would rest value from the representatives votes. So if it's a matter where a lot of people cares and vote directly the people's vote would decide. If people don't care and don't vote the representatives vote would have more power and they would decide.

I thought it was very interesting.

Why not. A good system should be one that it's easy and cheap to put a vote out. If the voting you put on its ridiculous, people simply wont vote it and that's it

It's not like that doesn't existe now. I don't know in the US, but in most european countries and in the european union itself people can try to raise a vote on anything, they just have to be backed up by X number of people.

Just make that easier, 100% online, and instead of sparking a debate of representatives, if the thing had enough support an online referendum is held and if people vote hes it automatically become law.

I don't really see an issue.

We don't have this already only for one reason. The people that would need to allow this (the representatives) would be the ones that would be jobless and powerless if direct democracy where to be implemented, so they won't.

I've been thinking about this concept for quite a long time now.

4 years election cicles had sense in the XVIII century when the fastest way of communicating was letter delivered by horse.

But with internet it makes no sense that old fashioned system.

Forget about elections every 4 years, forget about having an official month of political campaigns that decide the fate of the country for 4 years, and the 4 years of the president doing whatever they want without consequences.

We have the technology to make a direct democracy. Every citizen should be able to vote on any issue or who is their representative at any point of time.

You won't have time after spending all day complaining about bad documentation.

There is this bug in TIC-80.

When running the wasm version on firefox it has very bad framerate.

So as many before me I pulled my sleeved and opened the firefox profiler to see what's going on. Well, the framerate has never been better. As soon as you turn off the profiler the framerate drops.

I thought I was going insane, until I saw that other people luckily found the same behavior. For now, the unofficial fix is opening the firefox profiler when playing on firefox.

I trust my will to do it. But I will fail for two reasons:

1. I don't fully understand humans. I will try a world that would be perfect if everyone would be like me. Problem? That's not the world we live in.
2. Even with all the money and a good plan I'm a bullet away from the ground. And I'm pretty sure anyone trying to fix things becomes a priority target right away.

I'd argue against giving false hopes.

Learning to love yourself is good. But people should be aware that there's a good chance they'll never find love in their whole lives. That's a reality some people need to prepare to.

It's not the end of the world. No one wants to live without love but it happens even to the best of people. The best someone can do is just learning how to live by themselves and enjoy that kind of life.

If love eventually comes, good luck, but it's not a guarantee. And if someone has been single for a long time (I mean the better part of their adult life) chances are they will just be single for life, or at least without proper love. And people need to be prepare for that, because it's not easy.

People do things on their free time. Stop calling everything people do "an addiction".

All news agencies in my country have a tik tok account and regularly use it to publish exactly the same news as they do on their newspapers or on TV. I don't see how watching that news on tik tok is any different that turning on the TV and watching it there.

I think that's a euphemism for "a pat in the head". As I said, I think is a movie aimed to a very specific subset of people, of which I don't belong. The set of people that also enjoy that doomsday climate clock that I keep bringing out because I think it gives away the same kind of emotions to people who liked that movie.

And for people that does not feel rewarded just for a movie, or a clock or whatever, saying to you "good for worrying", the movie becomes nothing, it's empty of anything else. It's a very simple 75 million dollar message that says "feel better than others, feel special for worrying". Also the whole message becomes a little ridiculous, when it's delivered on the biggest media platform, with millions in budget, a bunch of famous actors acting on it, and then praised by millions of people.

To me it feels like those conservative figures that say that they are being cancelled while they are live on national TV. It's just silly. And this movie gives the same vibes to me. Talking about the big ignored problem to an audience of millions of people that purposely went there to see the movie about the big ignored problem.

I'm just giving my opinion on why that movie is bad.

I know that probably in the States now even liking or not liking a movie is a political statement, and that some people "like it" just because they have to. But it's a bad movie. I've watch a lot of crap, and most times I power through it to at least see the ending. Imagine how bad had to be that I thought that it wasn't even worth to try to see the whole thing.

I tried to watch that movie. But I quit it 15 minutes in.

What was even the point? It wasn't funny, it wasn't enjoyable, it wasn't dramatic.

It's like "look, here is a blatantly obvious metaphor on climate change" that's our whole movie.

It seemed aimed for a very particular subset of people that wanted to feel a pat on the head or something. I feel like it's the same people who enjoy that big ass climate change doom clock.

Just too much virtue signalling for my taste. Without actually making anything useful.

If I ever implant myself with a chip for brain augmentation is going to be an adblock that acts directly on my neocortex. The ultimate block.

I'm not afraid to confess that I've given completely fabricated directions out of pure embarrassment.

"Yes, yes, just continue straight in that direction for a while and then turn left twice and you are there!"

Those poor souls...

Technical possibilities to circumvent a law are not part of my argument here.

As an adult, that's my choice to make, not the government.

Imagine cheering that your government decided witch social media are you allowed to use.