https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Towers?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hampton_%28artist%29?wpr...
830 karma · joined March 27, 2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Towers?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hampton_%28artist%29?wpr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%2...
Is this something you feel is supported by the article or is this your own synthesis? And if it's the latter what sources led you to that conclusion?
Precisely. And that enforcement of the orthodoxy often takes far more severe forms than online criticism.
You hit on it, but this is the crux to me - what makes them think this wasn't possible before? Or, if they did think it possible before, how does voluntary sharing to a community compare with, say, church-driven enforcement of intellectual and political orthodoxy? I agree, there were no good old days on this topic.
I find it fascinating that we can create something that can "learn" in some sense in a way we don't fully understand. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of this passage?
> The internet voting project is, for reasons unclear, categorized under the Open Source Voting project, despite “open-source” not being mentioned in the grant paperwork, Jerdonek, an open-source voting proponent, says. Open-source voting technology uses public computer code to process paper ballots. It is unrelated to online voting. On Tuesday, San Francisco Supervisors began crafting legislation to conduct a long-awaited open-source voting pilot.
This really concerns me.