I like it in theory but there have been no real world examples of it actually working. There are only supplementary implementations which exist next to representative democracy. One of the most cited reasons that it could not work is the mental and decision load expected of an average elected representative. They make many decisions each day, big and small. When agreeing on a Bill, they might read tens of thousands of words, negotiate with hundreds of other representatives, and make dozens of various deals to achieve their preferred outcome. In a direct democracy system, either those bills would be split into 10,000 constituent parts, and each would be voted on by the public; or there would be 10,000 ombibus bills proposed by citizens, each with subtle variations, and the public would be expected to vote on them. Or both of those scenarios, at the same time.

The outcome seems painfully clear to me: in both of those scenarios, 98% of the public would check out. That’s far too many words to read, far too many meetings to hold, far too much information to process and on which to provide reasonable judgement. The legislature would be controlled by a hyper connected and independently wealthy 2% who would lobby for their preferred bill using their fortunes and connections.

Fuck cheaters. I support this. I have no issues with the potential vulnerability concerns to reduce cheating. I can’t even remember the last time kernel level anti-cheats resulted in data exploitation.

If you’re fine with an executable just writing stuff to your system, then .sh is Linux’ universal installer format.

I would be, but it’s not enforced. Few developers use it. Any method needs to have almost total universal adoption. Then libraries get built around that standard instead of the other way around.

My point was rather that it’s not as bad on Linux as people make it out to be if the application was packaged correctly. Going forward, I think stuff like Valve’s Linux Runtime can provide compatibility.

That’s fair. It’s getting better. Linus Torvalds agrees with you. Valve might have to save us from this fragmentation.

Given the EU’s appalling track record on privacy and censorship I don’t consider this an upgrade. Any competitor in this space needs to be run outside the control of any major governing body.

I won’t be buying BF6 unless they confirm weapons are locked to classes.

I’m not so sure. Humans are incredibly diverse by nature. We have evolved to inhabit every ecological niche in existence, and then we invented many more. We can’t get a population to agree that the sky is blue or that water is wet or the Earth is round or that vaccines are safe. There is always at least 10% who disagree on any subject. When you map each 10% group as a Venn diagram, it covers everyone in the population on some issue, big or small. In terms of governance, this means that any direction chosen will be opposed by a relatively large minority. There are only two options here and it is absolutely binary: majority rule, or minority rule. History has taught us that minority rule is horrific. It tends to create massive inequality, death, suffering, and eventually revolution. Democracy is the solution presented for majority rule, and I am intimately aware of the phrase “tyranny by the majority.” In fact I would categorise democracy as exactly that. Despite that, it is better than the alternatives.

So I think we are evolutionarily bound to a best case scenario in which the majority chooses a generally agreed upon direction, while a loud minority gets really angry. Democracy ensures that that loud minority doesn’t get violent because they’re given a seat at the table and a voice, even if they don’t get their way this time. I see no other successful governance models from the real world. Everything “better” is theoretical.

If you use LLMs in conjunction with other tools, then it is just another tool in your toolbox and these downsides can be mitigated, I suppose. If you rely entirely on the LLM, though, it only compounds.

I think I broadly agree. Both can provide a list of sources and citations if used correctly. Both can be used to find poor quality data. It is up to the user to use their judgement to consume reputable and valid information.

The distinction is outcome vs intent. No one is arguing Grog didn’t have the best of intent when he conducted his cross-country dissertation in shit berries. He shit his little heart out. But no matter how many unstable berries he sampled, his accomplishment pales in comparison with reaching Mars. And one day, sending a rover to Mars will pale in comparison to faster than light travel.

That’s not true. .exe isn’t an installation method, it’s just a binary, the better equivalent would be .msi. Also you also have to consider (some) dependencies on Windows, e.g. you can’t assume the required vcredist is available on the target.

I think one could argue this but it’s immaterial. My point remains the same. The lack of a universal installation method makes deployment expensive on Linux, and confusing for users.

Not super sure about this. I was able to run an over 10 year old binary only game when I last tried (UT 2k4 in 2016 or so) and it worked after providing a single missing library. Yes, it did require manual intervention, but I think the situation is much better on Windows where compatibility also isn’t granted anymore.

I can run a 1998 copy of StarCraft designed for Windows 98 on Windows 11. It’s true there are degrees of backwards compatibility here, but Windows is king. They invest a lot of dev time into ensuring applications remain operational for decades. Their API deprecation policies are legendary.

1. The lack of a universal application installation method which 98% of developers use. Windows has .exe and it makes it so much easier for developers to release one application which is dead simple for users to install. No instruction manual with different methods per distro. Just double click. This results in less support for Linux in general. Fewer games and applications an drivers with fewer features.

2. Poor backwards compatibility. Yes it results in bloat, but it also makes it much cheaper to develop for and maintain applications, and this results in more developers for Windows. More hardware and driver support. More applications. More games.

It is no mystery to me why developers don’t focus more on Linux support. It’s more expensive. They tell us this. What is so frustrating is that Linux fans are so quick to blame developers instead of focusing inwards and making Linux a more supportive platform for said developers.

Is this the anthropological equivalent of cultural relativism? “Yeah maybe we got to mars but Grog figured out how this berry makes him shit a lot and that’s an equivalent accomplishment!”

For the results from an LLM, you get an amalgamation of all that data spit out in a mix of verified and fake information altogether. It can hallucinate information, report fabrications as facts, and miss the context of what you’re asking entirely.

I don’t agree with your delineation. Both LLMs and Google serve a mix of verified and fake information altogether. Both “hallucinate” information. Much of what Google serves now is actually created by LLMs. Both serve fabrications as facts and miss the context of what one is “asking” entirely. Both serve content which is created by humans and generated by LLMs, and they don’t provide any way to tell the difference.

I don’t share your pessimism. If he wanted to enact a coup, he had four years and the world’s largest military to do so.

It’s far from perfect but it’s better than everything else humanity has attempted.

Cap immigration at 2% a year. It’s very clear to me that immigration in recent decades has been far too high. It has undermined the labor market, the housing market, and it may undermine national cohesion.

Honestly, any party which achieves only a migration cap of 100,000 per year will win the next four elections. 95% of the Kingdom wants lower immigration. I’ve never seen an issue this unifying in politics in my entire life. You can’t get 95% of the country to agree on anything. Except this.

The Green Party wants to significantly liberalise immigration to the UK. This is at a time when 95% of the Kingdom wants lower immigration. For this reason (and many more), the Greens are currently polling at 9%. The reason they don’t get much airtime is because their policies are unpopular and people don’t like them.

I think this is a large component. I think the other is that the calculus on this from a trade perspective is that 15% is better than 50%, and there is a good chance Trump imposes 50% tariffs if no deal is achieved. This would be bad for everyone. In four years, Trump will be gone, and the tariffs will go away again. Of course this sets the precedent that future leaders of the U.S., China, and any other large trading blocks, could unilaterally impose tariffs, and the EU will just roll over. This is why temporary pain is often a better response than acquiescence. I think this is one of the failings of the EU as a governance model. It moves slowly and requires near total agreement. This limits negotiation options because at least one nation would oppose the short term pain scenario.

Okay that’s an argument I can buy. Any tools used for statecraft should be properly security vetted.

They are all tools people use to find and collate and present data. They do it in different ways, but they are all under the control of the user. If you find iPhones too distinct, then consider Google. Both Google and ChatGPT serve content determined by an opaque algorithm. The content may or may not be real. Some of it is completely false. It is up to the user to make an informed determination themselves.

Yeah people are turning this into a team sport but I’m just happy that Tesla created a whole new segment and spurred MASSIVE competition. This is a huge win for consumers and the environment. We have more choices with better technology which costs less.