Yeah, I've recently talked with my therapist about this choice between very slow, very hard work and sitting on my butt dreaming. And about the idea that it's better to avoid action than to act, if I'm not sure I'll act right. And how it apparently came to me in my teens, when I've been doing martial arts for some time, girls would smile at me often, and in general I thought I might be too stupid and happy and there should be something smarter. That 'smarter' was, of course, just another teenage idea of being wise and not like everyone else. Fucked up my life for a decade.

By the way, people who'd be removed and theoretical and talk about some imagined third movement created via some magic other than voting - would be called 'idiots' in ancient Athens. Because they are on the side of an idea, not real politics. Then it became a rude word.

Any such decision to try and find a smart shortcut, or that it's better to wait and see how it goes instead of sweating, - are all wrong and are exactly what propaganda works for. Being honest is smarter than being dishonest. And voting for the party most fitting your ideals is smarter than for the lesser evil.

OK, I gave a thought to this and realized that it's the kind of argument where I assumed this is mostly male.

There's a solution of vote not being anonymous, so that everyone can check if their own vote has been stolen, and everyone can see if there are anomalies in distribution of voters.

They'll just be afraid.

I could say that singing ability differs between various things that can be called singing in various cultures, and anything depending on spectator's evaluation (pleasure) is subjective, but these are obvious, so whatever, hold a cookie

Ye-es, but nobody in the West said so. Maybe if in that one moment things went differently, Russia would be at least a very flawed democracy today.

Russian Supreme Court in 1993 when ruling that Yeltsin and the parliament should both resign and have new presidential and parliament elections. Yeltsin's opposition agreed, Yeltsin said he's the president and it's democratic and legal that he decides everything and sent tanks.

Since the US was friendly with Yeltsin, this was considered business as usual.

Those mass disinformation campaigns are being done by (sometimes "almost") nation state level actors. Governments are going to counter only some of them.

As for my own opinion - in 2020 during Artsakh war there were a few Turkish immigrant events in European countries where they'd march, yell Turkish neo-Nazi stuff, yell that they are looking for Armenians and so on. I don't remember governments of those countries (who are already in charge of regulating fascists on their streets) doing anything about that.

I think this is going to be the same here - a regulation is a price tag in disguise. Smaller actors will be barred from doing those disinformation campaigns, bigger ones or friendly with the right governments will not be.

Killing and splitting corporations is better, but the previous part about price tag is the exact reason they are not doing this. Those governments want to have bot campaigns of their own, to manufacture consent, to see what people are saying, to control the public discourse. They just don't want others to do it too.

This is a toad fucking a viper, as they say in Russian.

I guess his PoV is that Xitter is his property, thus when he does whatever there, it's not censorship, but when state demands from him to do whatever there, it is.

But his position would be easier to defend were he not Elon Musk.

Most of all about neo-colonial politics. Many actions presented as the opposite of that are in fact neo-colonial. Such as the kind of governments and forces and "recognized borders" all European and related countries (including USA and Russia) support very firmly (as in - helping suppress every movement contrarian to them with any amount of cruelty being allowed).

Where does that capitalization style come from? Asking as somebody who's never been in the USA.

Sadly we live in an age where non-tech people, a bit like LLMs do, can say all those words and not understand them.

I genuinely think using PDP-11 level (in feel, can be more performant) machines as our PCs (with hardware accelerators for cryptography, some sound and some graphics) would be beneficial for the humanity. Limit them to things they can use differently from a squirrel using a wheel.

Digital voting is just the same human error with more steps. Nearly all of the issues with paper voting are present in digital voting and then some.

I wonder if one can use ghost keys for an anonymous voting system, which still ensures that a voter only votes once, and still makes all votes verifiable.

That would have much fewer issues.

Running unique code that cannot be run elsewhere, and is 100% open source such that the source can be viewed by anyone without exposing itself to risk that a smart enough bad actor can cause havoc?

No need to use some fantastically obscure hardware. Source code being open is not bad.

A voting system is the easiest thing to emulate. Except for load.

Would it be a weird question to ask how many Black people were in that commission?

I mean, sometimes racism can take priority over party affiliations.

Well, thx, but I already have a couple of noname Chinese cables with braided cover (to avoid breaking) which seem to be as good as anything else I've touched, and were kinda cheap.

No strategy was involved in buying them, though, so I'll remember you advice.

Impaired social abilities mean smaller attack surface for propaganda and groupthink.

Seems obvious, that's the main thing autism is, that's why it's called a u t i s m .

"This shit" was said in the context of a society exactly opposite to anglosphere, where being "poor" is an indulgence for violating every moral rule, every promise, every obligation and every law.

More than that, it was said about the exact people who are, relatively speaking, not poor, rather almost privileged, but are hateful and envious of everyone actually doing useful work, and consider corruption good because in their opinion a bureaucracy worker stealing something entrusted to them is "a respected in the society person collecting rent from their position" or something like that.

The profession of a schoolteacher in Russia pays shit, which is why 3 kinds of people want that - those who are too dumb for other work, those who are idealistic, and those who want to feel that they are important and powerful (power over children) even more than to be paid well.

There are more people of the 2nd kind than you think, but those were of the 3rd undoubtedly. 1st kind is almost extinct - it's not hard to find a job that pays better, if you don't want power over children.

I think it's clear how the 3rd kind intersects with sympathies to sociopathic behavior, and sympathies for corruption and organized crime.

EDIT: Oh, I just realized you thought they were bootlickers and hateful of poor people in this memory of mine. No, they considered that BS to be good for poor people. Basically hateful of capitalism most when it's many small businesses honestly competing, but thinking oligopoly and state capitalism would be better. They considered me to be on the side of some "rich" people who hurt the poor. While big company owners and such were not, because they are apparently doing lots of charity etc and are respected people. So the "rich" they'd hate would be the "middle class", not the "boss class".

Being successful and not talented doesn't make you talented even if success pays the bills better.

Doesn't mean Taylor Swift is not talented in her own way, I don't get what triggered all you guys. It seems sometimes that the expected variety of thought among English speakers is less than among Russian speakers. Where even in the toxic Russian Web people would ask first, you guys go stampeding.

Just like, say, Azerbaijan having oil to bribe politicians and wage war doesn't mean they have history and culture and Armenia doesn't. They would very much like to buy history and culture, but they can't.

Judges are not supposed to work for the majority. They are supposed to work for justice.

Justice in most cases means opposing political power (formal in this case).

Thus they should be selected in some way radically different from how political power is formed.

Sortition is one way, if you don't want some entrenched faction reproducing itself. Would be better than US too. But still sortition from the pool of qualified people, that is, judges, and not just every random bloke who applies, of course.

I mean, Australians won't care a lot after Europeans have scraped their continent