Is there any particular reason to believe these voters are even primarily Democrats? Or are they just happy with the demographics of the last election and don't care whose vote gets tossed as long as the needle doesn't move?
One of the few Thai phrases I remember from my trip there (and forgive my phonetic spelling) is layo-layo, which, when said to a tuk tuk driver means "I have no fear of death" (actually "faster", but same result).
I'm really skeptical about that. Either that they would do it or that such "justified" downvoting would be a clear cut or fair decision. Most people don't vote the right way. How many people downvote content they agree with or find funny but doesn't add to the discussion? How many people upvote content they disagree with that does add to the discussion?
And am I really going to take up a mod's time because someone got mad at me and downvoted—the most accessible and innocuous way to express displeasure with someone? How many more complaints about downvote bullying are mods going to have to field?
I don't know. You could be right, but I'd want to see it successful in a small scale, if possible, before deploying it everywhere. Maybe the folks suggesting it should be up to the server admin are right. That would be another differentiator and people could go to communities on servers that have their preferred visibility policy. That would serve as an A/B test and let people vote with their feet.
I've been thinking about this for several hours since I first became aware of the debate.
I don't care that much in theory if anyone sees my votes. They aren't anything I'm particularly private about. I care about conversation way more than up/down votes.
However, some people get a little upset about being downvoted. I think it will result in retaliatory downvotes. You already see that when two folks are arguing. I don't normally waste my time downvoting a post I'm writing a rebuttal to, but when they are downvoting me I tend to do it back. I think if everyone had easy access, they would hunt down their down voters posts and retaliate regardless of the quality of the comments.
Lastly, I wonder if this will give rise to a client that lets you use one account to post/comment and a different one to vote. And if it does, will that be better all around? Then no one will be able to associate votes with a user. But it seems unnecessarily wasteful to create a whole account that does nothing but vote. It seems like it would deny mods (and everyone) a useful tool for identifying bad actors.
Technically, anyone could get access to the voters identity if they try hard enough but 99% of the users won't put in that much effort. And technically someone could already use different accounts for different activities, but without reason to create a client to support that it's too much of a pain to be worth the effort.
I appreciate the information and the links. I didn't mean to imply this isn't exciting or useful technology, just that when an article is pure hype I come away thinking someone is trying to sell me something, not give me actual information.
That is the epitome of fucking around and find out. Probably not anyone else on a base other than MPs is armed and prepared to return fire in an emergency. But those guards are.
That sounds really impressive. But describing it as "the best thing ever" really has my skepticism at full mast.
ETA: I can't find any mention of a single drawback or tradeoff to this new technology. That makes this a marketing piece rather than journalism. Nothing is ever better in every conceivable way than the current state of the art.
This was a drive-by at the gate guards of a military base? That is completely insane. I can't conceive of dumber, less effective way to accomplish anything. Not even public suicide because they left.
My interpretation is there are many reasons why his contract wasn't renewed. I think he's trying to make it political by claiming he's being cancelled. He is shitty. He doesn't deserve to be a teacher. I just think this is his way to go on the attack instead of having to defend his record.
I could be wrong, but no fucking way we're getting the whole story just listening to him.
I disagree. I think the reality inside that girl's head is a lot more threatening than the one you see from outside the situation, and that needs to be taken into account. But it's a subject I'm too close to so I'm going to stop it here. Good conversation. You make some good points. But there's no argument that will ever make me agree with you so let's leave it here.
If you're using an app to help stop, you already have an answer and no word salad is going to tell us anything more than it tells you. I don't care what kind of legal porn you watch or how often. What you shared doesn't even say how much, just terms.
So you think you have a problem and... what? You want someone to talk you out of it? Not my place, but good luck negotiating this aspect of your life and hopefully you are satisfied by whatever conclusion you come to—every pun intended.
AI is at least coherent. You can understand it and argue or agree with it. Trump talks like someone who just blew a .3 at a DUI checkpoint trying to explain that he really hasn't had that many, just without the slurring.
And somewhere in the middle of his explanation of how his aunt Patty accidentally ate a gekko tail once and cast a sobriety spell on him, and his great great grandfather was the famous Irish whisky distiller Terrance Trent Darby O'Gill and his descendants all naturally have that much alcohol in their blood genetically—the cop realizes his own night would be so much easier if he just just drove the asshole home instead of arresting him and having to listen to another 3 hours of that.
Is there any particular reason to believe these voters are even primarily Democrats? Or are they just happy with the demographics of the last election and don't care whose vote gets tossed as long as the needle doesn't move?