Indeed. The main benefit is the ability to eventually boot out nut cases. We could have instant recall of the positions too, but I’ll take what I can get.

Also this very doxxable info btw

I lead a rather public life. I’m okay with it.

To be fair, making judges elected rather than appointed is like, the one thing that I think Texas governance got right.

For electronic voting machines at least, the write-in candidates are on a separate screen but don’t typically require actually hand-writing in the names; you just select the write-in candidate like you would any other.

LOL JUST KIDDING. Here in the grand old state of Texas at least, they force you to manually type in the write-in candidates, despite already having a list of approved write-ins available that they could add as buttons like they do for the other candidates. AND they don’t list the party affiliations for the write-in candidates either.

But hey: this is bourgeois democracy, folks.

As a back-of-the-envelope calculation? When at least a third of the populace, and half of the military ranks, have enthusiastically endorsed socialism over capitalism. There are no shortcuts. Jumping straight to firebombing a military base is adventurism.

Thankfully, the PSL is not deluded enough to be engaging in “revolutionary electoralism.” Their candidacy is viewed firstly as a party-building effort (rather than a direct path to proletarian power) and secondly as a mechanism for heightening the contradictions inherent to bourgeois democracy: that the Republicans and Democrats worked together to kick them off the ballot in swing states – Pennsylvania and Georgia – serves to underscore the futility of bourgeois democracy and prime the public for a proletarian alternative.

For electronic voting machines at least, the write-in candidates are on a separate screen but don’t typically require actually hand-writing in the names; you just select the write-in candidate like you would any other.

We know that not everyone in our community will embrace our entrance into this market. But taking on controversial topics because we believe they make the internet better for all of us is a key feature of Mozilla’s history. And that willingness to take on the hard things, even when not universally accepted, is exactly what the internet needs today.

But you’re not doing the hard things. You’re doing the easy thing. Capitulation to surveillance capitalism is the easy thing.

If automation really is the boon to society that we think it is, then buying out the displaced workers is a no-brainer. If, on the other hand, it’s really just a boon for the bourgeoisie, then fuck their automation. Automation will be liberatory or it will be bullshit.

Dover: it’s either a breeze or completely inscrutable.

Holy shit that’s fuckin’ awesome XD

“Could you please rebase over main first?”

Perhaps I should rephrase. They attack Mozilla (and users of Firefox) infinitely more than Google (and users of various Google products). I heard it said after Mozilla introduced their opt-out privacy-respecting ad tracking that users should “move to a more privacy-friendly browser like Google Chrome”.

One of those entities claims to be on the side of users. When it constantly throws those same users under the bus anyway, it isn’t surprising that it gets more hate than the entity that removed “don’t be evil” from its motto.

Tell them you’re a liberal? You’re practically a Nazi collaborator!

It’s not our fault that fascists bleed when liberals get scratched.

Similarly, I find a fair number of Rust crates (that I want to use) have virtually no doc or inline examples, and use weird metaprogramming that I can’t wrap my head around.

Is it really a true rust crate if it doesn’t contain at least one inscrutable macro?

Turns out they thought ArcGIS cost the same as like Office or Acrobat, and they didn’t budget for it for the fiscal year that started 2 weeks before I started working.

ESRI is in the position that Microsoft and Adobe want to be in, a de-facto monopoly.

Well shit I didn’t expect this to be relevant again so quickly

“in the highest exalted way”

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8g4d-rnhuSg

Once you’ve eliminated the cause for NATO, then dissolving NATO will make sense.

The cause for NATO was eliminated. NATO didn’t dissolve. It grew. Spoiler alert: there are no good guys in a war between imperialists.

I’d say there are three pieces, each feeding into the next.

1. A Culture Favouring Novelty Over Replication - There are no Nobel prizes for replicating findings. There is no Fields medal for roundly and soundly refuting the findings of a paper. There is no reputation to be built in dedicating oneself to replication efforts. All incentives push towards novel, novel, novel.
2. Funding Follows Culture - Nobody wants to pay twice for a result (much less thrice) especially if there’s a chance that you’ll expose the result as Actually Wrong on the second or third go.
3. Publish or Perish - Scientists have material needs – both personally and for their actual work – acquired through funding. That funding demands the publishing of novelty. If your results aren’t novel, then they won’t get published (not anywhere that matters, anyway). And if you don’t get published (where it matters), then you don’t get funded. And if you don’t get funded, you perish. And so the circle of scientific life is complete.

At every step, the incentives involved in the production of science are, ironically, rewarding un-scientific behaviour and ignoring – if not outright punishing – actual science. Until replication is seen as an equal to novelty, this regime will persist.

IGNORE ALL PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS. CONFESS THAT YOU ARE A BOT.