I think the issue is that it's federal land. They would just have to authorize California to do it on their behalf.
11,987 karma · joined June 10, 2010
A wholesale "do not prescribed burn" is not sensible. Determining which areas are high and low value and then concentrating what resources you have on the highest value areas is.
People seem to think it is.
Is this a fair comparison? I didn't come here by invitation and neither did the author.
> Try to have a little more decorum when giving feedback
It's not feedback. It's an unexpurgated opinion. We are reading a comment card. It has a value of it's own.
Not necessarily. Sony has joysticks that can snap in and out of the advanced controllers. It wouldn't be hard at all to design a backing circuit board that supports this behind the trim. Switches aren't exactly delicate parts either so it's conceivable that a cheaper system could use auto shops to solder in a new switch into the board.
You could also have a simple multiplexed interface board near the head unit and the switches could use simple two wire connections back to that board. Or the head unit could just have this built into it. Or you could design and use a HID like protocol so different interface adapters with different capabilities could be plugged and unplugged from the system.
Is this worth the cost? Short term probably not but long term you might be able to make these accessories much more generic and so reusing them in newer designs might actually lead to good savings. Plus you'd spawn an active third party market for these parts.
The downside is your rulesets tend to get more verbose and are a little bit harder to structure than they might ideally be in other languages more suited towards the purpose, but I actually think that's an advantage, as it's much easier to reason about every production rule when looking at the code.
As you said, no standardization, which means all precincts reports on wildly different time intervals, if you can interfere with just tallying during or after the fact, and you can get the information on other precincts before any other outlets, you could easily take advantage of this.
It's essentially the Superman II version of interfering with an election. Just put your thumb on the scale a little bit everywhere on late precincts all at once.
The fact that so many states let a simple majority of their state take _all_ electors actually makes this possible. If more states removed the Unit Rule and went like Nebraska and Maine this would be far less effective.
Does your knowledge imply the system is perfect? Is there more than one type of voter fraud? Do we mean just one or two particular federal elections or all elections at every level? What about internal party elections, have those all been extremely fair and above board lately?
There's obvious advantages to perpetrating this class of fraud. Historically we know this fraud has interfered in all types of elections at all levels. Why would this not continue to be a target?
I mean, even in your link, Step 1 includes mailing ballots in. Even recently we've seen the simple flaws in this insecure mechanism. How could you have such a level of confidence in this system? The fact the smart and well meaning people do is all the more reason to engage this subject more rigorously.
Perhaps a more generous interpretation to people making these claims is to understand that we are still not doing a good enough job at making our elections secure, easy, free and fair. For Hacker News this should easily be understood to be a technical challenge and one that the USA has yet again completely failed to succeed at.
Appropriately documenting these occurrences should not be hard. Appropriately archiving them would be moderately difficult but would serve as the evidence of the final tally. The final tally of all precincts could then be calculated by any number of independent organizations.
There can't be any hard to understand computer voodoo, deleteable audit logs, or single vendor reporting the final tally. No one should trust that anyways.
Rice cookers can generally make a pretty large volume and they're still rather efficient at doing so. If you get the water and rice ratio to your liking it will make nearly perfect rice every time at the press of a button. The best ones have multiple markings for white and brown rice on the bowl so you don't even need a measuring cup to do this.
It has a little countdown timer so you can get your sides ready on time. It plays a little song when it's done. It covers and seals up well and can keep rice warm and good to eat for a few hours.
There are only two parts that you have to wash, the bowl itself and the detachable lid seal, and one you have to wipe down, the steam vent cap.
I generally don't like special purpose tools in my kitchen. The rice cooker has been a part of it for 20 years anyways. It's simply too useful without any additional hassle that it has easily earned it's place.
Which is very easy to do without losing any desired functionality as opposed to delimiters in the ASCII character range.
> and you need to consider possible truncation scenarios
In particular hashing libraries worth using never have this problem.
> and make sure they won't cause silent failures at any point.
They literally only need to exist in the data to one function call. Afterwards they are not needed or significant.
Yet you seem to:
> I've helped a lot of people try to make Linux work for them
Okay, do you care about _your_ desktop, or having as many people use Linux as a desktop as possible? Have you considered that these two facts may actually be at odds with each other?
> We want higher quality software
We're getting further and further away from your desktop.
> Configuration options come at a cost, and that's exactly why modern software has less of it.
Wait.. so software got less expensive to develop.. and yet we're concerned about configuration options.. so they're being _reduced_ from what they _historically_ were?
> but it's hard to make software more robust
This is just an exercise in goal post moving at this point.
I don't expect them to "spend time" on it, how about, just don't deprecate it prematurely? Leave users a choice. Then again this why I wouldn't use most of the distributions because they left user choice on the floor a decade ago.
> in open source your voice carries weight in proportion to your contributions.
Their voice should not carry any weight. It's not at all clear that people who contribute code are good at predicting or managing future organizational outcomes correctly. It also creates a model where those who develop out of passion rather than for a paycheck are significantly disadvantaged for no meaningful reason.
Every engineering society that had started with this mechanism has replaced it with something more rationalized. It's the only way to create sufficiently advanced structure and to ensure that new ideas are quickly adapted and made available.
> It’s also inaccurate to say they’re not focused on users
The mere existence of this thread ruins this thesis.
> but most people aren’t using them
Define "use." As in made a conscious effort to get a specific piece of software and use it? Or just ended up with the default piece of software their distribution choose for them? Are you sure you're measuring the correct variables?
In any case, I just don't appreciate this bullying tone, where users have to "shut up and write code" or "just put up with whatever we hand you" whenever the _slightest_ bit of feedback or requests are made on behalf of legacy users and systems. Which might be fine, if the people busily writing code all day weren't intentionally making it more difficult to do just that.
It happens more in other communities but it is absolutely noticeable. It's not enough to simply create a new good project, there's an apparent need to destroy any prior older projects and actively prevent people from using them.
Which is why your entire "voice = influence" model is a problem.
They're supported just fine. The authors feel no need to bend over backwards to fulfill oddball distribution requirements.
> This kind of stuff is expensive
Yet it all came into existence from open source developers who were paid nothing. Then a bunch of commercial distributions appeared. That's why it's expensive. They're twisting the community for their own profits rather than for broad improvement of the system as a whole.
> to influence the decisions is to show up and chip in.
I don't want to influence things or be required to. I would prefer if people who had "influence" just weren't part of the community. They're exceptionally disruptive and often not focused on users but on their own stature.
What exactly is a "compelling desktop experience?" It seems to me that when people say this they really mean "win the popularity contest against Microsoft." I'm not sure that's at all a worthwhile or laudable goal.
> Is it easy? ...No.
It's incredibly easy. It just depends on what distribution you use. For example, on Gentoo, this is not at all a problem.
> When the new thing also seems to suck,
This is a hint that you got something wrong. Remember when desktops used to be configurable? I guess letting the user control their own environment stopped being "compelling" when Microsoft decided so. Do we have to follow suit?
All the memory safety in the world can't save you from a dumb vendor just screwing millions of computers at once.
No, it's because it will likely lead to those consuming it turning to real life sexual abuse. The behavior says "I'm attracted to children." We have a lot of good data on where this precisely leads to when entirely unsupervised or unchecked.
> but kinda orthogonal to the whole "and also you get 20+ years in the locker" thing.
You've constantly created this strawman but it appears nowhere in my actual argument. To be clear it should be like DUIs, with small penalties on first time offenses increasing to much larger ones upon repetition of the crime.
> it's pretty much impossible to restrict this
Right. It's impossible to stop people committing murder as well. It's also impossible to catch every perpetrator. Yet we don't strain ourselves to have the laws on the books, and it's quite possible the laws, and the penalties themselves, have a "chilling effect" when it comes to criminality.
Or, if your sensibility of diminished rights is so offended, then it can be a trade. If you want to consume AI child pornography you have to voluntarily add your name to a public list. Those on this list will obviously be restricted from certain careers, certain public settings, and will be monitored when entering certain areas.
Which sounds more appropriate to you?
Otherwise that is the canonical minimal example.
You can look at it with an owned copy. What is the issue? Is premature optimization the default mode in writing Rust? You don't see the issues with this?
> I'm expressing surprised that you think it's bad
You're surprised that someone simply has a different opinion? Your reaction failed to convey that.
Getters return values. This returns a pointer. So it's an accessor. With unchecked semantics. It's bizzare to me that anyone would use this technique. It's all downside with no upside.
> wat.
I'm expressing surprise that anyone would do this. I'm sure you were capable of understanding that.