Kobolds with a keyboard.
What I said was that voting defensively makes your vote work towards preventing this sort of thing, whereas voting third party does not. Protest votes, ballot spoilage, 3rd party votes and similar actions make a statement, but so does voting for progressives down ballot.
To put it succinctly, people voting 3rd party didn’t cause the current situation, but they did nothing to prevent or obstruct the current situation, either.
I don’t really have the expertise to evaluate the report for things that would make for compelling objections. If someone here happens to, it would be helpful if you could give us a quick summary of the most objectionable parts of this proposal that we could use in writing a comment.
Obviously it’s visually objectionable and all that, but that doesn’t seem to be what they’re asking for comments on.
if that sort of voting prevented this situation at all we wouldn’t be here?
Is your stance that Harris would have been doing the same shit Trump is doing, had she been elected instead? That it wouldn’t have been any better? If that’s what you’re positing… I strongly disagree, and I really don’t know how you can even start to back that claim up.
Regardless, vote how you want. I’ve had this conversation with enough people with your exact stance to know that there’s nothing I can say to change your mind and there’s nothing you’re going to say to change mine, so continue doing you and I’ll continue doing me.
I’m not blaming them for dems losing, and they can vote however they want, I’m not stopping them. This isn’t about how you can and can’t vote, it’s about how to make your vote work to prevent situations like we’re in right now, while also pushing for longer-term outcomes, and we can all have - and share - our opinions on how to do that.
Personally, I think it’s counter-productive to refuse to actively vote to prevent our current situation in the name of ideals or whatever else. It’s going to take years if not decades to fix the damage being done right now, in all likelihood. But you’re welcome to have your own opinion on that matter.
You can fight to install progressives at the local level while voting defensively at the national level. Local progressive movement are not only a LOT easier to pull off, but will help create widespread acceptance of progressive ideals as they get good outcomes. Then you expand to the state level and house, then the senate, then you’re well positioned to push for a progressive in the presidency.
The fact that they’re pushing for AI to be a utility when the fucking internet isn’t is just absurd.
Right, that’s what the canals are useful for, what did you think they meant?
I’ve always mentally equated Dr. Pepper to Sgt. Pepper from Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.
But, now that I think about it, Sgt. Pepper could be a woman, too. Maybe I’m also a bad person.
It’s saying Copilot was the first on the scene and had access to literally all of the training data anyone could possibly want, and is still being shown up by most other AI models. Their failure to capture the vibe coding space is a legendary fumble. At least that was my read.
That sounds about fucking right. :3
I guess when they type like a fourth grader, anyone putting in minimal effort must be AI.
Technically not, but the fact that you felt the need to make a rude comment is what I take issue with. Personally I don’t think we need that energy on the fediverse.
Geez, here I would have thought someone on db0 would be more accommodating of someone not wanting to participate in corporate social media.
The distinction is that NIMBYs only object to the infrastructure when it’s in their back yard. I think the majority of people object to these data centers anywhere, but only have voting power to directly oppose them in their back yards, so that’s where their effort is spent. I haven’t seen anyone say “I definitely want another massive datacenter to go up, just not here.”
Like most things in life, in moderation it can be fun. Adding some stakes to an activity can make it more exciting.
It becomes a problem when people don’t have the self-control to self-regulate, and when it’s designed to prey upon those people specifically, or to prey on desperate people who feel like it’s the only chance they have to get ahead, or who don’t have a good understanding of the risks or chances of winning.
Humans as a whole are bad at understanding probability, and our brains are wired such that the happy chemicals we get from winning are more impactful than the unhappy chemicals we get from losing. As such, someone can be losing money overall, but still feel like they’re winning, or at least, still get the rush from winning even though they’re way down overall. That’s dangerous, and gambling companies are designed to specifically target those people and exploit those destructive behaviors. It’s like the experiment with the rat that was given a button to give itself happy drugs, and it just sat there pressing the button constantly. Basically, the regulations are necessary because of capitalism, and because without them, those people would very quickly ruin their lives given the chance while the companies running the operation give zero fucks about it.
Then there’s the fraud. Look at prediction markets. They’re rife with fraud and bet fixing and it’s not only politicians and policymakers doing it. John Oliver had a piece on this recently where he goes into some detail, but there’ve also been articles about journalists getting harassed and threatened because they report on something that would cause a Polymarket loss.
In conclusion, some humans are shitty and we need regulations to keep shitty people from doing shitty things.
Another article confirmed it was payment processors again. This is why we can’t have nice things.
I really have no idea, and this would probably be jurisdiction dependent anyway.
They do allow things like food, which it seems would come with more liability anyway, if they can be held liable for kickstarted things.
It sounds like it’s just insertable toys, so it might be a liability thing if they’re afraid people are selling unsafe toys? Who knows. That’s a really weird distinction and definitely one that payment processors don’t make.
Not to mention, some companies right now are abusing interview candidates to get free work with “trial project” type assignments, or “How would you fix this problem, if you were hired?” type of free consultations. If some candidates abused the companies in return, I’d call that fair play.