skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The speed he declined is much higher than expected for his age. Neither Pelosi, nor Sanders have shown decline this fast.
I agree. But it is also a political choice. Lets not forget, you may have the opportunity and move where the money is, but, if its in china, it will be a different world. So it is not really a fair game, where there is a world to conquer and everyone can start something.

And also not to forget, that the social systems, that we have built to make up/downs in the cruel nature more bearable, they have not been globalized. It is, when one looks at each country, still very local. If everything is more distributed and in different political zones, i think, they will fall apart, as the money went somewhere else, where production happens.

We will see.
#2 would never receive Republican party support.
> All voting in multi-cultural states is ultimately demographic

I think this is a gross oversimplification (and demonstrably false if you look at some other countries), but OK, for the sake of argument let's say that one party represents one core demographic. Then one of these is true: 1) their core demographic is a majority or 2) they can attract enough share from other demographics without alienating their core demographic. or 3) they are, and should be a minority party.

I think a big part of the problem is that the US is a big and diverse place politically, so having parties with a huge national identity like the donkey and elephant is always problematic at the edges. R's simply have to attract more minority voters, more women voters, more young voters etc.

> I expect them to fade away over time in a similar manner. The US can no longer support an effectively White-only national party.

Well they will adapt or fade away. That of course goes for any political party, anywhere. A party can't please everyone. But it also can't perfectly please only a tiny core base. They need to broaden their support. But are they capable of that? It's like they think that "Attract voters from demographic X" means "Tell people in demographic X how good Republican policy is".
What it should mean is actually change policy to attract that demographic.

Now: this state discussion misses a big point with the US political climate and it's that the divide isn't really between states, nor mostly between demographics like age or ethnicity, but between city and rural. I honestly don't quite understand why that divide is so pronounced.
I'm considering it now that my nostalgia is flaring up.

One thing that was a pain point in the past was offline use. If your mail provider is IMAP only then you need to hack stuff together to use offline. As a paranoid freak I prefer to have offline copies of everything.
I think that the motivations of those GOP people, the people that back them (the wealthy donors) and also the electorate are really, really terrible.
Trump's only business experience is in running them into the ground. He is horrible at business and even worse at understanding the sort of macro-economics you would hope that a president might know a little something about. His pathetically short attention span is probably the only thing that kept him from doing more long-term damage.
Also this is also a big issue for customers who need to self-host things like this due to regulatory reasons, e.g. banks.
Guy Kawasaki says sales fixes everything.
> People voting for Trump are regular blue collar workers loosing from globalization. Hence they want walls. I don't think there is any good in demonizing them.

Noted:

> Of course, these two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Both may have some validity. Moreover, as Michael Tesler has argued, economic anxiety and discontent among white voters in 2016 appear to be closely connected to racial resentment. His analysis of survey data indicate that many white voters, especially those without college degrees, believe that racial minorities and immigrants have been favored by government policies while their own communities have been neglected, especially during the Obama years (Tesler 2016b). The Trump campaign explicitly connected these issues by arguing that illegal immigrants were taking jobs away from American citizens and reducing wages for American workers.

> To sort out these competing explanations, we test the hypothesis that Trump’s surge among white working class voters, compared with previous GOP presidential candidates, was due to his explicit appeal to white racial resentment and ethno-nationalism. Thus, Trump’s campaign may have helped to politicize these attitudes, identifying them with a political party, especially among less educated white voters who tend to be less attentive to political campaigns and therefore less aware of differences between candidates on racial and other issues (Tesler 2016c). To test this hypothesis, we can compare the correlations between scores on the racial resentment scale and relative ratings of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates on the feeling thermometer scale over time among white voters with and without college degrees.

* https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002716218811309
Well, Trump didn't waste time and has already found a new job:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM
Yes that’s a good call out. I was being lazy but there are quite a few different reasons to need to scan the entire disk.
Biden is great... maybe not as progressive as other Dem's would like but I am moderate (D) -- and here is the thing, most voters want to pay their bills and not think about politics.

I got really turned off by some of the things Bernie was going for (like voting from prison) which are pointless if you have someone like Trump in office shredding the whole country. I like Bernie as a person but we would have lost Florida by a landslide with him on the ticket.

For this moment, Biden is great, I couldn't be happier.
>The only “innovation point” left for auto makers is features so they scramble year after year to show the latest trick sacrificing quality to balance the costs.

Of course the latest gimmicks are a big part of why you'd buy a S-class, but it's not like the basics like seats and suspension haven't seen significant improvements generation after generation.

A great example would be the rear wheel steering they just introduced, not at all a gimmick.
As many have pointed out, Mitch McConnell also had a very good night on Election Day.
> and values

This, to me, is the deeply disturbing part. Knowing 70 million people would happily drive me to a concentration camp is not something that's easy to dismiss.

The US will have a difficult time. It'll get much worse before it gets better.
Epic nabz... do you realize in which insecurity we are... :Ð
You can literally look it up or file a FOIA request.
The Vietnamese fought for freedom from colonialism. The got that from the French, almost, until the US intervened. The only aggressive factions were the French and the US.

Korea was different, and also backed by the UN. But even there things aren't as clear cut as you imply. North Korea had yet to turn into the Kim-led hard core Stalinist regime.
> I always hope that some moderate politician will come along in deemphasize the power of the bases. A strongly pro environment Republican, or a true honest pro life Democrat. Unfortunately what we’ve seen, and continue to see in this election is at the wings in each party are all powerful.

Me too. When I was a kid, I lived in a conservative farm state whose federal representation was 100% Democratic (just like most of its neighbors). Things just seem a lot more dysfunctional now, because the polarized conformity doesn't allow for enough heterodox party members who can help forge compromise on issues that actually have broad support.

IMHO, what the country really needs is a truce in the culture wars, and forget this winner-take-all battle for countrywide conformity.
You know the US has a presidential and not a parliamentary republic right?
So will this mean we go from having a fairly standard international payment system with two main players (Visa/Mastercard) where anyone from any country can pay for things in pretty much any other country, the same, way, to a situation where every country has it's own (perhaps cheaper) system. How does that work for tourism?
Yeah but pol swings between being full if edgy leftists and edgy rightists
You can also use control-[ by the way, without mapping. But a one-key solution has my preference.
See also: https://neomutt.org/
>It's was not a secret that NATO's enormous expansion was dubious for the US or that european countries do not contribute nearly enough.

I think it would be useful for you to flesh out those two points. 'It's not a secret..' sounds like a Trumpist soundbite, a mechanism to try to pass off a personal opinion as fact or at least as established consensus. There are some much more eloquent people than me in this thread who have argued the exact opposite of what you have stated, that Nato is a net benefit to the US. Would you mind fleshing out your counter-argument further please
>>I am worried that Republicans may simply be unwilling to make any deals

Recent history has shown the democrats are also unwilling to make any deals... See the last Stimlus where Republicans wanted to deal for doubling what was already the Largest government expenditure in US history, and the democrats would accept nothing less than 4x that plus several poison pills that had nothing at all do with the economic stimulus that was inside the so called "hero's act"

The problem with the division we have now, is Republicans / Libertarians and to some extend even Union/Blue Dog Democrats have a VERY VERY VERY different view of what the proper role of the federal government to the new "democratic socialist" democrats that have seeming taken over the democrat party (the Bernie, Warren, AOC democrats)

When one side wants 0 new spending but will "compromise" and agree to 1.5 Trillion, and the other side will accept nothing less than 4 Trillion in new spending but a fundamental shift in all aspect of American governance, I am not sure what kind of deal can be had there
You’re reading this wrong. Biden won because he was someone voters in suburban Atlanta could stomach. Any of the further left candidates would’ve seen Trump win. (The idea of a more left candidate juicing the base further is bananas. Democratic turnout in this election was pretty much maxed out.)

If you don’t know anyone who likes Biden you live in a bubble. My parents like Biden and they dislike the Squad. The riots scared them. They’re older, and immigrants, and they think Carter was really swell. Biden is exactly who they wanted. And there are a lot of people like them. They’re the kind of people that turned northern VA blue.
Nothing is officially certified.
You think there are progressives with any power in California? Or that the “jungle primary” you describe “works”? It does work—to help the political parties maintain control, not to help get people an actual representative government.
Note that due to the electoral college, it's not as close as you make it seem. On the national level the current votes is 51% for Biden vs 43% for Trump, that's quite a large difference.
Ha, don't be fooled, that was an attempt to have two results:

- To make H1b people less appealing to companies, keeping them out
- To hurt the companies that hire them (often more left leaning)
being immoral and wrong does not mean it should or should not be criminalized
> The wording is very clear, you can NOT require login to change subscription settings.

You’re right that wording is clear, though you might have misunderstood or skipped over the scope of this CFR, which is “Non-solicited” messages (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/316.1), and excludes transactional email (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/316.3). Since the parent was explicitly talking about any email communication coming from accounts you’ve signed up for, it is important to note that the CFR you’re citing does not always apply.

You absolutely can legally require a password to change some subscription and communication settings relating directly to someone’s account, to require otherwise would be a glaring and massive security hole. It’s quite easy to spoof email addresses, and being able to unsubscribe someone else from transactional email subscriptions would be extremely dangerous.
You probably know this, but sprints have been added to Clubhouse, and they've tinkered a bit with teams and projects to be more sensible.
Outside of consumer electronics, the relationship between hardware and software is more tight. Customers don't just buy an electronic device, they also do want the software that's inside.

Furthermore, in this context, systems are often sold and setup by a third party company. End users value more the fact that they can be sure that the software run by the device has not been tampered with, than the possibility of changing the software.

Even for desktop PCs in companies, it is not uncommon that a rather rigid management policy is enforced, so in a way in this case PCs are just general-purpose and locked down embedded systems.
Exactly right about the electoral college distortion. If we went by popular vote we could probably have had someone much more progressive. But we have to thread the needle of the electoral college.
> Could there be a class action lawsuit against the various companies whose recommendation engines hijacked people's attention to recommend and reinforce this garbage?

I think this thought is spot on.
The usual defense is "but free speech!". Which would boil down to: "such is human nature". But I don't believe that's the problem. The problem may indeed be selection and amplification mechanisms like recommendation engines tuned to divert max. attention to the medium, masterfully exploiting the vulnerabilities of the human psyche as evolution formed it. The rest is collateral damage which nobody seems to feel responsible for. Not a sustainable situation.
I use mutt for my self-hosted email server. Glad to see it's still being developed!
Simple fact is one person is incapable of directing millions. Forget about hundreds of millions.
>The same was said of Hillary when she "beat" Bernie. Same was said of Biden who barely squeaked out wins in key states.

Biden is winning those key states with more votes than Trump did in 2016, and the margins are going to continue to increase.

This narrative is driven almost entirely by the fact several of these states are now allowed to count mail in votes until the start of election day or after polls closed on ED. Without that, the narrative would be talking about Biden's decisive victory in all these states.
One of the main differences: you can never "own" data center. As soon as you stop paying, you lose use of your software.
It’s likely that Biden’s centrism is going to result in him cowing to Republican pushes for austerity or limited, corporate bailouts that further exacerbate inequality and stoke populist discontent. I’m not sure that these impulses will work well in the context of the pandemic or it’s economic effects.
No, the dehumanising was mostly one particular side.
But they do have a voice, they are an entire level of gov't. They shouldn't necessarily have any particular say in the election of the president.
> family separation are not a trump policy

Yes, In the last 4 years while Trump was in charge it was. He had enough time and political resources and green light at senate. Could have stopped it at any time. He didn't.
This is the problem with America in general.. the Red's just have a bad case of it.
Your criticism seems sloppy. "Social control" and "oppression" can come from peers or superiors, so they don't pick out the concept the author is interested in, which is specifically horizontal (peer) social control. That may not be a new concept - off the top of my head, I know Orwell wrote a lot about it - but you don't even seem to understand what the topic of the article is.

You are upset about one sentence in the article, one that I also happen to disagree with. And on that basis, this sloppy dismissal of the whole piece? Lame.
They use "based on" to mean "using a stated goal of "expanding the civil rights movement" as a justification for their policies [despite those policies being nearly identical the policies advocated by first wave Progressives]", not to claim that third wave Progressives actually act in manner consistent with "expanding the civil rights movement" as a terminal goal.
Oh!

Well I agree with you there about the office demanding a certain level of, uh, Presidentialness. Whether on social media or not.

I was just being hyperbolic about your typical blue-check twitter user coupled with a (possibly unhealthy) sprinkling of self-deprecation.
> Almost every attempt at such an environment has failed for a reason.

Basic and spreadsheets are notable exceptions. However, they don’t scale to complex programs.
They'd try that if they thought they could get away with it.
Looks like they pretty much care after all: https://fuwafuwa.moe/transparency/git.fuwafuwa.moe/001.2020-...
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the senate is the reason the electoral college isn't democratic. Every state gets two senators and because of that 2 bonus electoral college votes. That's why Wyoming gets 3 times as many electoral college votes per person as California. Without the senate the electoral college is just a popular vote. The 3/5 compromise doesn't even exist anymore because slavery is now illegal.
> But it is also a political choice.

It's also an economic choice: the suits could have shared the economic benefits more (or politicians redistributed more), but in Capitalism excess 'created value' tends to go to the owners (Capital), and so we got a rise in the concentration of wealth over the last forty years.
The reality is voters on both sides vote how the various media outlets tell them to vote

I think it's a viscous feedback loop. Media outlets construct & present narratives based on what they believe will get people to tune-in/click etc., mostly a financial consideration. That content guides the audience's beliefs in the direction of the narrative. Media outlets are then locked in to that narrative, and must present content that coincides with or pushed it even further, and the cycle continues.
One of the things this election, and the last four years, has shown me, is the impact of technology on our political discourse. It hasn't been a "good" insight.

Federal Election records indicate that the leadership of technology companies overwhelmingly supported a set of values that their employees appear to just as overwhelmingly reject. That dissonance is really quite remarkable.

I see one of the fundamental challenges facing the new administration is how to address this. I am not a fan of government regulation, more of a "let the markets decide" kind of guy. I recognize however there is a systemic risk where the technology "owner" can exploit it to harm society in a way that was previously impossible.

While the country has focused on disinformation and hate speech, consider a company that controls, in real time, the self-driving software in a car. Such a technology, if weaponized, to could kill hundreds of thousands of people. Or it could be weaponize to kill select people who were in the intersection of riding in a self-driven car and in disfavor by the company that really controls that car.

Early on in my career I chose not to work for military contractors who were the "big" employers in Los Angeles at the time I graduated from college. They were clearly engaged in finding clever, or at least more effective, ways to kill people and that wasn't where I wanted to spend my time. But what about someone working on self driving? It saves lives by avoiding some of the things end up resulting in crashes. But it also provides an opportunity for great evil.

Do we trust the person in charge to not be evil? Companies change and while they might declare their intentions when they are growing, what happens when they are on top? Sometimes those quaint notions get cast aside when being a little bit evil makes what you're trying to do that much easier or maybe that much more profitable.

What is the appropriate response, in a democracy, to a small number of people controlling a potential weapon that can destroy that democracy? Sadly this is no longer an idle question.

I don't have any answers here, just more questions.
I you revisit, be sure to check out notmuch as the search backend. It is super fast and has a nice and powerful search syntax.

[1] https://notmuchmail.org/notmuch-mutt/
Biden's loss with hispanics was due to his campaign's explicit choice to not target hispanics. It has more to do with bad strategy than what another candidate said or did.
It’s a great environment to be a self-described “top cop.” This summer, more than half of Latinos polled said they were more worried about the “breakdown of law and order” than “systemic racism.” Nobody except the progressive wing of the Democratic Party sees being a prosecutor as a liability.
Silly misread—-deleted.
That is true. You also have access to a wider range of options with regards to caching, for example.
Indeed, it sounds like the author is looking for the UNIX of the 21st century:

* Widely reusable meaning: everything behaves like a file. The types of files we can have are defined by specs: an Image can be described as a PNG file, which every process can understand. A table can be a CSV or a SQLite file. A Conversation can be a maildir folder. We might not have the best descriptions of "things" but we do have something

* Data without borders: if you can read from stdin and write on stdout, you can interact with the data. In fact, joining two tables is a base task and can be done with join (https://linux.die.net/man/1/join)

* Inherent, ubiquitous programmability: I'm not sure I understand the author's point, but it sounds like the entities in a software are too specific to the program. Again, if every "application", or rather set of utilities, used the filesystem with clearly defined specifications for what data is, then they can work together

What is not following the UNIX guidelines is definitely the Web and mobile platforms, as the author focuses on. There were some attempts at doing things the UNIX way, like uzbl (https://www.uzbl.org/) where every thing is a script away, or ii (https://tools.suckless.org/ii/) which gives a filesystem interface to IRC conversations. Want to parse a message ? It's just a string in the filesystem, any script can do it.

There's a reason it didn't work as well as we want, and it's that in practice it's all clunky and hard to maintain when the alternative is a single, unified application. Especially when the alternative is from a commercial vendor with a lot of cash. The incentives of doing FOSS that interacts with each other are not aligned with making money.
Could you elaborate on the ideas you think are no good?
> Edit: Now I agree drug companies would not make a big deal about advertising that result, but that’s a different story.

Well, its only a different story for drug companies.

For you and I, as individuals, what value is science, if it will provide you with drug options to imperfectly manage your diabetes, but not tell you how to avoid it completely.

Would you say that science is progressing towards truth and greater knowledge, or towards truth and greater knowledge of how to extract more money from those it is purporting to serve?
> The problem with programming is not the syntax and other particularities, but inherent complexity of explaining the task to a computer.

Not really. A great deal of the the complexity is accidental, not inherent. Take the example from the post of adding up some numbers in a table. The inherent complexity is very low, the complexity comes from all the stuff not inherent to the problem itself.
Tom Nichols, Never Trumper and former GOPer:

> A Large Portion of the Electorate Chose the Sociopath

* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/large-port...