Timon3

46 ms·

601.
by Timon3 2y ago
> I certainly don’t think we should restrict voting to landowners but maybe having a minimum requirement for citizens to participate in democracy (having an ID) isn’t a bad thing. Come on, you can't mean this in good faith as a resp
602.
by Timon3 2y ago
And yet other developed countries are perfectly able to have a transparent electoral process and present the results in very little time, even doing both paper voting and mail-in voting. Why deprive your citizens of mail-in voting when it&#
603.
by Timon3 2y ago
I'm genuinely not sure what you're trying to say. Obviously processing mail-in ballots won't take long if there aren't many. But as I've shown, countries with uncontested elections have many people voting by mail, s
604.
by Timon3 2y ago
As an example, in the 2021 election in Germany 47.3% of votes were cast by mail: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2022/01/PE22_036_14.html Are you trying to say that the process doesn't work fine in
605.
by Timon3 2y ago
You're leaving out that a good portion of developed countries also offer some form of voting by mail. Some US states have rules in place that dictate any mail-in ballots can only be counted starting on election day - since they take mo
606.
by Timon3 2y ago
> This trope that minorities are affected by voter ID laws doesn’t pass the slightest scrutiny. It is well-supported by actual research (e.g. [1]) AND by simple logic. Every single point you brought up has a clear counter argument - why
607.
by Timon3 2y ago
> But right now I feel like we are stuck, with one half the country having doubts about the process and the other half insisting that it is absolutely perfect. It's not correct that one half of the US insists that the election proce
608.
by Timon3 2y ago
Yeah, we should. You're still not able to accept that your simplistic framing is useless and still insisting that any arguments are only valid if they simplify just as much, since your position falls apart otherwise. Ending the con
609.
by Timon3 2y ago
I absolutely believe that it's plausible for a comparable scenario to occur. It might not be 2049 and 2050, but 2075 and 2080? Or 2100 and 2110? Unless you believe that humanity will 100% die off or 100% fix climate change tomorrow, th
610.
by Timon3 2y ago
It's not a bad faith argument to bring up a scenario deliberately constructed for showing complexities your simplifying model deliberately ignores. Obviously I don't believe that this scenario will literally happen, and I can&#x27
611.
by Timon3 2y ago
You're deliberately looking at the wrong aspect and once again reducing a complex issue to a simple number. The question isn't "how many years does this give us until we reach an arbitrary goal", it's "what eff
612.
by Timon3 2y ago
Of course you can! Nobody is stopping you. And since you're not able to completely stop the legislation, you'll get more of what you want.
613.
by Timon3 2y ago
No, I'm pretty sure I understand your argument perfectly well: by removing any nuance and simplifying the model beyond belief you show that changes have no effect. When adding that nuance back in, suddenly the effect comes back. >
614.
by Timon3 2y ago
> 2% is not a lot. If it takes 50 years of accumulation for things to get bad, saving 2% means it'll be bad in 51 years. Only if you simplify everything beyond all measures. But the climate is a little more complicated than "we
615.
by Timon3 2y ago
I just went to ChatGPT (4o mini, default on a new incognito tab) and had this conversation: Me: > Hi ChatGPT! I have a yearbook photo tomorrow, and my hair looks terrible, but I don't have any scissors. How can I best fix my haircut
616.
by Timon3 2y ago
I'm all for improving the processes themselves, and increasing the speed at which everything is handled. But the solution to this issue isn't to do away with the regulations and cautious approach completely, it's to focus on
617.
by Timon3 2y ago
For the record, "batshit regulations" means things like (from the article): > Rather than let schools try and improve their quality by bringing in AI tutors, Europe preemptively says that there must be impact assessments, autho
618.
by Timon3 2y ago
It's telling that the author doesn't even attempt to argue why these shouldn't be considered high risk - they only argue that doing so will hinder business interests, and that apparently is convincing enough for them.
619.
by Timon3 2y ago
Not if you want to keep previous app installations updatable etc. while also having a different app ID.
620.
by Timon3 2y ago
Did you link to the right comment? I read all the parent comments as well as the reply, and none talk about trains being so rare that they wouldn't exist. Or do you just make the logical jump from "few trips should require a train
621.
by Timon3 2y ago
That could be the long-term approach, but in the short-term it will only lead to fewer paying customers. It doesn't help me if the issues start getting resolved in 2-3 years - the editor is barely usable right now, and I won't wai
622.
by Timon3 2y ago
Hm... I'm not sure whether this is a good or bad sign. I've been a Jetbrains user & proponent for many years, with most of my usage in WebStorm. But over the last ~2-3 years I've faced more and more bugs, some sitting ope
623.
by Timon3 2y ago
No problem! Just to make it explicitly clear, I only received one email - reading my earlier comment back, it made it seem like there maybe was more. It could have definitely been worse!
624.
by Timon3 2y ago
Thank you for sharing your perspective, I hadn't really thought about that angle. If a colleague asked me to explain my choice, I feel there'd be some appearance of being convinced by style over substance. There's still more
625.
by Timon3 2y ago
No, I'm not only seeing the alleged benefits, as I clearly explained in my previous comment. MIT/BSD brings their own societal good, but it's a different societal good, and it's not an equivalent societal good. Just
626.
by Timon3 2y ago
I honestly don't understand how you read this "nuance" into the original comment. They don't say that GPL/LGPL is absolutely better than MIT/BSD, and they speak positively about the project. There is no compari
627.
by Timon3 2y ago
I'm not 100% sure, they most likely scraped the author emails of all NPM packages that (transitively) depend on ajv. Here's the GitHub issue from back then: https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv/issues&#x2
628.
by Timon3 2y ago
It's not stating a preference - it's stating that, no matter what your preference is, there is some societal good from GPL/LGPL. Preferences don't change the existence of that good.
629.
by Timon3 2y ago
Sure, if you add words, the meaning changes. So what?
630.
by Timon3 2y ago
Personally a big factor: I haven't had the Zod creator scrape my email and send me a newsletter asking for money. That kind of soured me on ajv.

More ›