model-15-DAV

Elections at the local level should be governed by the locality. I do not see the need for standards at a higher level, other than for democracy to be maintained in some fashion. External data reporting certainly need not be standardized at t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ [sic] a higher level.

I think that we should encourage elections to _not_ be standardized. The problems among various polities in the USA have many different issues and should not be forced to conform to a specific way that elections should be done. This is a social problem and we should not cram it into a technical solution. Legibility of elections should be maintained at the local level, trying to make things legible at a national level is in my opinion unwanted. As much as I would like the data to be clean, people are not so clean. Even if they used slightly more structured formats than PDFs, the differences between polities must be maintained as long as they are different polities.

The way that OpenElections handles this, with 'sources' and 'data' directories I think is a good way to bridge the gap.

I met some of the Feldera team last year at a conference and their knowledge of incremental computation engines is top-tier. Good luck to you all!

As discussed at the end, the storage costs for such a system may be exorbitant. How much space did the example than ran at 115k updates per second take?

This seems as useless as land-acknowledgements; "Hey look we took your stuff and are not paying you for it, and we are still profiting from it!!"

This is certainly a reaction to economic strangulation of a huge percentage of people in the economy. Of course, if people want to be near each other they should, but this phenomenon is a direct result of the crumbling conditions for the working class. The resurrection of third-spaces is a much better alternative than the erosion of first-spaces.

Our civil society organizations have eroded to the point that the private market has completely ended the concept of the third space. Places where community can be formed are gone; commoditized and politicized and so are not places where community can develop. Instead of the use of third-spaces we are forced to depend on our friends economically like this.

This seems like a good thing, "people are coming together, yay!" but being forced to live like this is not going to have good outcomes. These people have real issues described in the article, they need better child-care, they need closer personal roots, they need economic security. But we forcing people to make these contracts of great economic dependency, we should be more prepared to allow people to live more independently. I see this move as kin to the economic migration from the Global South today to countries like Sweden, Germany, etc. which has been causing great strife internally to those countries.

True, I meant the shell, as `cd` is a shell builtin. However, `git-checkout` does implement this behavior. `git checkout -` will checkout the previously checked out branch.

As an addendum to Rule 7, `cd -` takes you to the last opened directory. Or is `cd` considered part of the terminal emulator's job, as a built-in?

JSON as a data-format should not have comments. JSON as a file-format should allow comments. The problem is this conflation between the two.

Yeah, I am not against using tools of production. My problem is with ownership. You do not own the product you create with Photoshop[1], and you do not even own Photoshop anymore! It's all leases and terms of 'service' and no ownership of software.

Users of ChatGPT are serfs not owners. Their use of ChatGPT provides value to ChatGPT the corporation. Today we live in techno-feudalism[2], and not a time of tech ownership. So the serf gets wheat and cattle, the king stays in his castle.

I am against that these tools are actually tools of consumption. I am for software production ownership.

[1]: https://hothardware.com/news/adobe-responds-to-creator-outra... [2]: Yannis Varoufakis, former Greek Finance Minister, coined the term.

Yes I agree. I think that my main issue is that with today's software, we are assuming the identity of our 'digital twin', instead of having it firmly separated from us. This is my main problem with representational aspect of our current software infrastructure. It actually removes ownership and control over the software.

Out computer infrastructure today is anti-human, you see it in the examples given here in this blog post. Instead, we must start using computers and software in particular to create environmental computing infrastructure. Environmental computing infrastructure is not one of representation, not containing an interface, but a digital twin that handles the complex bureaucratic parts of our lives for us. It should not supplant us in meatspace, it should not exist in meatspace. This is what I want computers to do.

Much as the article describes, we are using contemporary computing technology to create infrastructure that allows us to live in the illusion of creating. The infrastructure is inherently cynical and consumption oriented, so it produces cynical consumers. A proper computing infrastructure, namely an environmental computing infrastructure, should produce producers.

How has private equity become such a strong force today? They are eating the world it seems. Blamed for strangling stable chain-restaurants[1], shuttering toy stores[2], and now ruining bowling!

Of course, these were not the best performing stores, and perhaps large chains are out of fashion in the contemporary era. Is private equity simply the scavenger, feeding off the walking-corpses of these businesses, encouraging new growth? I would be more OK with that if it didn't end with shadowy rich finance bros owning everything. The kind of disruption that these PE firms accomplish feels a lot more like corruption to me.

1: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/private-equity-rol... 2: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/toys-r-...

Talk about affluenza, telling someone 'go read theory'. Put your arguments in your own words.

Today, our industries abuse our planet's resources for the short term benefit of all of us. Abolishing landfills is a confirmation that we are past such a myopic technological level. We no longer need them.

> Drive outside a major city sometime.

Growing up in the suburbs, I understand this quite well. But this land is not ours just because it is there and unused. We need to return a majority of the earth back to the ecology. Monkeys are falling out of trees in Mexico, 50% of bugs and birds are dead due to the ecocide, I could go on.

Just referencing 'unused land' as if it is ours to use by default is a gross misunderstanding and human-centric approach to ecology. There is more than us here.

I certainly do not want to go back in time to a pre-industrial society. I do want to go _forward_ into a truly post industrial society though, and not simply hide the dirty industries into the poorer parts of the world.

But, the technology must be met with an ideological shift away from technological dependence. We need to create more environmental technology, and less representational technology - interfaces and screens.

The software revolution is yet to happen, that is what I aim for.

I reject your argument entirely. Your nihilistic thinking is what continues the crisis. Reject the void, choose productivity, and work to make the world better.

COVID also gave us clear knowledge that it is easy to define socially necessary labor. Most jobs out here in the USA are downright bullshit jobs, and our 'labor' only contributes further to the current ecocide.

I have some hope for a technological solution to the climate change problem. However, I constantly struggle with the question, what if we are wrong? What if we will not be able to fix it fast enough? We are sitting on our hands and praying for a deus ex machina to save us from ecological collapse, when we should be actively striving for a sustainable society.

So, in addition to being hopeful for technological innovation, we must advocate for widespread systemic change, so that we would not even need technology to fix the problem for us. This includes destroying the inherently unsustainable supply chain and in its place constructing a supply cycle. We need to abolish landfills, and require all (at least industrially) produced goods to have a clear recycling strategy. Sustainability is a problem that needs to be solved socially as well as technologically.

Other major cities must start making significant headway in this direction. As a New Yorker, I am very interested in getting rid of all cars in NYC.

NYC (Specifically, Governor Hochul) has "indefinitely paused" the rollout of a new congestion pricing system for cars in Manhattan, which was a step in the right direction perhaps, but certainly not a solution by any means.

Following Paris' lead and removing parking spaces, streets, and improving more sustainable transit is the only way forward if we want to start mitigating climate instability.

NYC I feel is one of the few (if only!) cities in America that has the ability to get rid of all private cars within 10 years. We could also become a cyclists' paradise! We need to give the politicians a mandate to accomplish this or they will flail about as always until we all get swallowed up by a tsunami or something.

The issue is that the social safety net has been set afire and left to burn. We need a new narrative of a social structure. I have been calling it the 'social base case' instead of safety net.

Given the article's contents, I wanted to add a data-point.

Also anyone who makes news/etc. that does not push an agenda is simply pushing the hegemonic agenda - Modi's, in this case.

I am friends with a couple of documentary filmmakers based in India, and they tell me of some intense censorship of media there, along with other ecological and human rights issues.

The authoritarian turn throughout the world has to be met with its rival. Bog-standard Liberalism will not solve this I fear.

> What a poisonous, progress stunting way of looking at the world

How could my position be progress stunting... "We need to do something" is progress _advocacy_. To argue that nothing needs to change is progress _denial_.

>Nobody manufactured the desire in the developing world...

From here you reach "So nothing needs to be done, everything functioning as expected".

The problem is:

> It's so hot in Mexico that howler monkeys are falling dead from the trees.

Something must be done! And as a card-carrying member of the Global North, I will do my part to advocate for change.

> [you] implicitly position those of the "global South" as nearly brainless, helpless victims of their superiors.

I would never do such a thing. I merely accept that the Global North has hegemony on defining our culture. Those in the Global South are not brainless and helpless, but I can't help them, I am up here! I can only advocate for change within my culture which for some reason has an undue impact on other cultures.

> The ideology isn't even imposed

You may think you operate in a hyper-rationalistic post-ideological manner, but you are just as much of an ideologue as the rest of us.

Of course you can 'choose your ideology'... Hey, for example I change my ideology to socialist! Yay, now I live in socialism! Oh wait, I still have to consume in a system that requires child labor and wage-slavery. The ideology of liberal capitalism is _forced_ on us, or we can go to the woods and die alone.

I am using these terms because I expect people to know what I mean. If you do not understand me, I can explain further.

Yes, it is up to the global north, if they are going to continue to be the manufacturers of our ideology today, to bear the burden.

The Global North needs to start taking action and facing justice for causing the ecocide in the south. Many of the current ecological crises are in the poorest countries, and by the time it hits the North it will be too late.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ecocide-must-be-internation...

This sounds great! I often think about the weaknesses about simple majority voting, so having work put into consensus protocols is quite useful.

Is there any demo or illustration available of this system?