freshm087
Joined 7 years ago
Karma
73
Submissions
58
Member since
Mar 7
Recent submissions
Comment · 7 years ago
The simple truth is that society doesn't need computerized voting technologies to have fair elections.
Comment · 7 years ago
For starters, the whole voting machines concept is a essentially a ploy to exploit wide-spread respect for computer technologies in society to sell hardware, and software. It reduces observability compared to pieces of paper, and doesn't solve any real problems.
I don't think Gates words from 2004 can be seen as policy statement for today's Msft. Apparently, a lot has changed.
Comment · 7 years ago
It certainly has nothing to do with democracy, and intended to solve exactly one problem: Microsoft's need to increase revenue through sweet gov't funded contracts. Let's not be fooled by opensourced code, once the idea is sold to politicians, and media, someone should be contracted to implement this useless staff. And who's this going to be? Not hard to guess.
Comment · 7 years ago
There's a school of thought which considers complex data types to be more a part of problem then a solution. You may disagree with it, but nevertheless one certainly doesn't need complex data types to write GUI (or anything) effectively.
Also, in this universe Win32 API was released in 90s, not 80s.
Comment · 7 years ago
In Eastern Europe it's often the case. Worth mentioning however that plumbing services are much cheaper then in States, and there are usually no legal/insurance nuances which reapairing may bring in the US. So it's simply easier to call a plumber and have trouble solved then include a landlord into equation. Broken washing machine, or expensive furniture in most cases are on landlord, though.
Comment · 7 years ago
To sum it up.
Starting point: A produces more good then B.
Me: A can produce more good than B, but not necessary more per dollar spent, and I think it's not the case.
--Here was a place to to try to prove it's more per dollar spent--
You: You are biased!
Me: You are invited to present arguments.
You: You are biased!
Comment · 7 years ago
Such law exists in Belarus, and mr.Kurz (Austrian chancellor) recently visited it.
Comment · 7 years ago
"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments. But you are welcome to present some sarcasm instead, even if very general.
Comment · 7 years ago
I agree that gov't is relatively good at sending checks (except in some economic circumstances, e.g. when the currency it prints is no more in demand - like in Venezuela, or late USSR). However it doesn't necessary make a particular welfare program efficient in general. Maybe recipients are poorly determined (which happens more often with larger programs), or sending checks is not the best idea at all.
Comment · 7 years ago
I agree it also includes some usefully prepared people, nevertheless no state welfare program exists without bureacrats.
Also, preparedness/trainings are not exclusive feature of gov't system. I know what I'm saying here because I volunteered in private charity (not in US, so American mileage may vary), and I dare to say people who worked there were more competent then relevant state officials, at least target group always preferred them.
Comment · 7 years ago
I really don't know why inefficiency is ok, sorry. If a system is less efficient at scale then engineering approach teaches us to modularize/split it into smaller chunks.
Btw, you used "professional" word as if it's something good in itself. That's far from truth. Professional bureaucrats, and state officials quite often are directly interested in growing inefficiency because it can be exploited to expand budgets, and staff.
Comment · 7 years ago
Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps do more good for 100+ million
Do more good because their have much bigger budgets? - Maybe. More good per every dollar spent? I doubt it.
Comment · 7 years ago
The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well".
It's good that gov't agencies, and programs are so well known to to be run well, don't have problems with inefficiency, and corruption. Oh... wait
Comment · 7 years ago
Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol
If it's about politically incorrect speech - it's absolutely ideological.
If it's about obscene language - it's still not Mozilla's business to police someone's lexicon, and Mozilla doesn't do it generally, which means something ideological happens here.
Btw, it's interesting that you yourself agree that the whole thing is political by this stereotyping statement but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. And at the same time you disagree.
Try to check your biases: every time Trump tweets, Twitter explodes with left activists using motherfcker, fck, and a lot of derogatory expressions addressed to him, and right-leaning voters which has zero value for any civil discourse. So ask yourself: would you say "we both know it's commonplace on the left to use disparaging, and obscene exoressions"? And would you be fine with Twitter punished for this? (It enables them, gives the platform).
Finally, you are calling dissenter.com alt-right which is not true unless they operate alt-right censorship there. It shows some bias too.