If you post your Paypal I'll send you a buck'o'five to never post here again.
162 karma · joined May 30, 2019
I asked and it appears to be a Chicago tradition like dibs. Since then I see it online usually accompanying controversial opinions, but I noticed a trend. Its usually also in connection with politically controversial opinions and insider information regarding politically motivated actions taken by government, military, black ops, or other groups where operation security is a concern.
Does it have some kind of special meaning or is it just random and I'm seeing connections where none exist?
Turnkey black box solutions may be reviewed more regularly by a dedicated team but you have to admit that they're subject to flimsy and easy manipulation by state actors and the greed and coruptability of their owners.
Right now it is literally all graft and no progress at all to the point that we can barely pass the same bloated terrible budget we pass every year.
something like: https://www.itworld.com/article/2922074/significant-virtual-...
Seems like creating a foundational open source project and introducing a few key bugs would be the best way to hide in the open.
But it’s been widely accepted since West Wing first aired that corruption in America’s electoral system (and politics generally) can be traced back to campaign finance reform as patient-0.
Representatives are constantly campaigning and raising money for the next election and the rest follows from freeing them to actually do their job.
Does that sound like a good idea to you?
That's why I wear jeans and a tshirt when I'm meeting with internal teams and I put on a suit and tie (or at least a cashmere sweater and slacks) when I meet with clients or mostly senior management teams.
I need openness and collaboration between peers who frequently and stubbornly misunderstand each other and by signaling that I'm not explicitly playing for either team I foster that openness and collaboration.
Often managers smirk or chuckle at my casual attire and engineers are wary and look askance at my Tie Bar wool ties and designer shoes when I am attending a workshop.
I dress for the audience, not for me. Stubbornly adhering to any other standard is dumb.
How about making the questions broad enough for every candidate to have some input and evaluate them on what they choose to focus on? Something like, “How would you design an ATM?”
There should never be a right answer to an interview question, just a candidate that solves problems in a way that fills a gap in your company.
Since that time he's probably had his own epiphanies from working in industry but one of mine was that we did shockingly little QA and everything was built as fast as humanly possible. Everything was building the airplane in the air and it was largely due to constraints of the political or legal kind. Timeline management and allocating resources to testing was always an afterthought.
Testing usually comes from a feedback loop of launching broken features, incident response, manager gets in hot water, engineer gets in hot water, engineer proposes testing plan, manager uses incident as primary source reference to secure additional budget, testing implemented.
In politics no service, company, initiative, or team lasts long enough to complete the cycle.
It does not bother me in any way that the government in China gets to decide whether and where people can travel or work or live.
I'm glad they don't do it where I live, but I am sure the average Chinese citizen is glad they don't have to suffer many indignities and strange quirks of western life.
I cannot, for instance, let my child play with a water gun at the public park for fear he will be shot and killed by a police officer. I do not need to pretend that's unquestionably good. It is certainly not the way I would prefer to live. It is just a fact of life.
It’s not a new idea it is one that I think most western countries would say, “we tried it and it failed.”
For me it brings to mind racism, slavery, a good excuse for genocide.
In the west the idea of hukou isn’t “foreign” it is too familiar and ugly. Like an alcoholic father you have left behind.
This is not my first brush with radical voting ideas and I'm not afraid to put them into practice when legal signs off :-p
These days I settle for election judging. Isn't that a scary thought?
You should google project Houdini, narwhal, and orca
That's happening right now. Not in the past. That's why we need enough people who aren't in danger to volunteer their data.
I think we both know perfect privacy is cost prohibitive at the local and state levels and largely a talking point that ends with the listener assuming it is impossible to achieve online voting with perfect privacy in our lifetime.
If we can't afford to change the way people vote then why not change the way we measure it so its not so cost prohibitive?
Between exit polls, aggregate voter data held by the national parties, private and public data sources it is already possible to accurately predict the outcome of most elections.
Its already being used by national parties as the foundation for when and where they choose to challenge election results and allocate resources.
There is no such thing as a, "Secret Ballot" with modern analytics. There are just those who can afford to find out how you vote and those who can't.
Those who can't in today's world includes regulators and the government themselves.
When someone says, "America isn't ready for online voting." I hear, "The interests who already buy and aggregate enough information to have the results ahead of time want to stay 1 step ahead of regulators."
It seems to me that the only difference between an exit poll and a voluntary disclosure checkbox which, if utilized by a statistically significant portion of the electorate, could be leveraged by official government commissions to audit election results where online voting is offered is that one these options is in the price range of the national parties and not publicly disclosed and the other strikes fear into the heart of everyone I've spoken to involved in election process.
Voluntary disclosure doesn't have to be a slippery slope and I firmly believe can and will lead to more fair and equitable access to the voting process and greater participation if it enabled online voting to be audited.
No one believes that large numbers of people will be blackmailed into disclosing their vote and if this or discrimination happens at scale then make it explicitly illegal. For those who aren't subject to these factors and are willing to participate in a census it would completely change how elections are run for the better.
I frequently have to reroute myself due to these “shortcuts”