anecdatas

> The noisy people are made out to be conspiracy theorists, even when someone like Chomsky brings all the receipts.

Yes. This is what I was saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

I think the person you are responding to was suggesting Mamdani voters were likely the sort of people who are being targeted by the current administration. I think you might be misunderstanding their (admittedly obtuse) post.

The ghosting in that video is unbelievably strong. To the degree that I'd consider that unplayable. It's certainly not the experience the dev intended (given how much effort they put into the moire shader).

Is refresh rate necessarily tied to ghosting? Like higher refresh rate also means higher ghosting?

Most likely in the hundreds if you count the deaths in detention, the deaths due to deportation to unsafe or unsanitary locations, and the suicides attributable to their actions.

This is based on a historical accounting of ~1 death a month in their direct care over the past 5 years, plus assuming at least as many due to other root causes. I expect that number to increase as they continue to expand operations and worsen protections for detainees.

> No, Immigration isn't going to be sent door to door to do something bad to citizens.

You've got a whole lot of history to read. Because this is exactly what has happened in the past. You don't think this has happened to the Romans? The Russians? The Italians? The Germans? The Spanish?

This is a classic maneuver of a state sliding into autocracy -- if you cannot find enemies outside the state, you find them within the state. Go read Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism then come back.

The left was a Cassandra the whole time -- it's been nothing but warnings from the left. The Democrats (note: the Dems are not a left party) refused to listen, assuring everyone it was fine, that we just needed to return to norms and decorum. If we just elected the most proper guy, if we just went a little more rightwards in our policies, all this would be fine.

Meanwhile, the left out there pointing at Obama's extrajudicial killings, Bush's whole post 9/11 fiasco, Clinton's "Superpredators" nonsense, etc. etc. and making tons of noise about how this was all going to end.

Turns out, the left was right, the Dems were wrong. But the Dems are still fighting to try and shut down the left. Look at how hard the Dem establishment hates Mamdani.

It's relevant in the sense of "is this an indicator of increasing autocracy" but not relevant in the sense of "does the presence of the warrant indicate this is ok".

I think the parent poster is saying that the present of a warrant does not make the action not autocratic. And you are disagreeing with a different idea (that the presence of a warrant doesn't matter at all), by saying it does matter, but in the opposite way -- if a warrant is present that indicates the state is losing checks and balances.

I've been voting for almost 40 years. Democrats have been running on that platform basically the whole time. Quite frankly, it is how things work. Dems are absolutely leaving votes on the table by running bad platforms. Mamdani is running a very different platform and is absolutely crushing it out there.

And I think the fact that the party is losing more and more often is a clear indication the lack of votes for it are having an impact, and are resulting in new candidates coming forward to capture them.

Obama ran on a platform which he didn't ultimately move forward on once elected, but at least he had a vision that moved people.

You vote for a platform. MAGA was the platform. One might not like that they voted for a platform, but they voted for that one.

I will never get mad at someone for voting 3rd party. Plenty of folks go, "Neither of the two primary platforms are valid for me, this third one is". If the Dems (or Republicans) want to capture those votes, they should figure out what the elements of those third party platforms are. No party should feel obligated to receive a vote just because they are not "the other guy".

I don't think you can be a non-MAGA person who voted for this. If you voted for this, you are a MAGA person somewhat definitionally.

Look at more recent data. https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/state-agencies/audits/pdf/sga-2...

It looks like fraud rate was typically 5-10%, which might be high, might be "fine". In 2020-21 and 21-22 fraud rate jumped way up to 20%, which is obviously way too high.

But in 2023-24 fraud rate is back down below 10%. We don't have 24-25 data yet, but it looks to me like we had a couple of unusual years during the pandemic, but audit controls seem to have reigned a lot of that back in.

I'd say, evaluate this year's data and then decide if this was a blip or not, then revise your mental model with data.

Totally. I'm someone who could choose to enter the capital class via purchasing rental properties or investing heavily in stocks, but I deliberately do not.

Capital class wildly different than wealthier working class. But in all honesty, bring the taxes all the way down to me at least. Anyone making a million a year could be taxed a lot more and still live comfortably. The capital class above me could afford a LOT more taxation and still live lives of unbridled luxury.

This is making a lot of assumptions --

1) That we're at the threshold for taxes that the wealthy will accept. I would bet many wealthy folks feel attached to their homes as their identity, and it would take some amount to price them out. Like, clearly a billionaire would leave if the cost to stay was a 100% of their wealth, but would probably stay if it was $10 more in taxes. So there's a very nebulous line somewhere in between. I suspect we are not close to that line.

2) That wealthy people living in an area are storing their wealth or declaring that area as their home. Plenty of ways to shield wealth from local taxes, and plenty of ways to claim a place as your home without being taxed by it.

3) That having wealthy people in your community is a net positive for the community. Wealthy people tend to use a lot more resources and distort local politics for their personal gain rather than the gain of the community. Maybe we'd be better off if they weren't around, and several families moved in to take their place. Wealthy people don't ride public transit, normal folks do. Wealthy people can push city council positions to reduce transit, normal folks don't have that influence. Maybe we need more normal folks around.

4) That businesses owned by the wealthy are a net positive compared to, e.g., workers co-ops. Maybe we could be a bit more collective in our approaches and a bit less lionizing towards the wealthy person who got lucky. Maybe we need more community oriented businesses run by members of the community they live in and fewer wealthy business owners racing to the bottom.

As a wealthier person (income of ~1m/year, give or take), I could not more strongly support Mamdani (no 'h' in Zohran's last name afaik). I want a candidate like him in my city to vote for.

Normally I'd be quippy about the plural of anecdote not being "data", but this isn't even plural. This is a single anecdote. The claim you have made is "I have encountered fraud, personally, so the system is a disaster."

Well run systems experience fraud. It's something you generally want to minimize, but like, it's not necessarily an indicator that the system is broken. Like... AWS has tons of fraud. AWS is still very much not a disaster. (Well, it kind of is a disaster, but mostly because it's a machine that chews up humans via oncall, which is unrelated to their fraud.)