guhcampos

Yeap, like I said: you need a relatively healthy democracy for the community counting to work. This wasn't the case of Brazil 30 years ago: Brazil was a military dictatorship until 1985. In 1996 when these electronic voting machines debuted, a large portion of the country was pretty much owned by a small number of families linked to the old regime. That's especially true for relatively uninhabited areas such as the states around the Amazon rainforest, where population density is in the single digits per square mile.

Brazil has another particularity in comparison to the US and some other countries: we don't have a 2 party system, we have a lot of parties. It's probably around 30 today, but used to be more. It's impractical for each party to have people on every voting hall. It's much easier to oversee hardware and software production of the machines.

Is it still possible to intimidate or bribe this handful of key people? Probably yes, but as far as we know that never happened, and the parties are very obstinant in how they oversee the whole process.

One thing I definitely think we lose is the sense of community, especially in times like these when individualism is on the rise: we employ a couple people on each voting section, maybe a cople dozen on each voting hall. In the end of election day they simply run the closing protocol and go home. Having a bunch of folks counting votes for a few days definitely could make people more engaged with the election, and with democracy overall. The "electronicness" of the whole thing alienates people from the process.

The machines used in Brazil, while based originally on a Diebold design, are widely different from the ones used in US. There are genuine complaints: for instance some of us belive the software and hardware should be open source, but it has passed the test of time in the last 30 years.

This is a BIG discussion in Brazil, where the election is basically 100% electronic, no paper involved. There's a large portion of the population that distrusts the electronic voting machines, partly due to rightwing propaganda, but partly due to a genuine distrust of a system they can't understand.

In person paper voting, however, only works on a relatively healthy democractic community. What used to happen around here was that whoever was the local hegemonic power, mostly oligarcs, sometimes gangs, would just plant a grunt in the voting halls and coerce people to reveal their votes. That or they would simply have a bag of pre-cast votes and drop them all in the ballot box. Lots of absentees and dead people used to happily cast votes at the time.

So ultimately the full electronic system has been working quite well over here for the past 30-something years. It has only really started to be aggressively questioned since 2016 with the rise of social-media as an election driving powerhouse.

Partially true.

If StackOverflow dies because nobody uses it anymore, the entirety of its knowledge is now only available through LLMs that trained on it.

If a blog dies out because the author gave up writing, the entirety of its knowledge is now only available through LLMs that trained on it.

If people stop writing books because they cant outcompete generated content, that knowledge is also lost to LLMs.

If people stop making art because they can't outcompete generated art, that is also lost to LLMs.

So yeah, they haven't directly taken anything away, but the consequences of what they are doing may still have that outcomes - and it does look like that's the version of reality we're about to get.

Humanity is A/B testing itself into mediocrity.

What the author suggests is remarkably close to the proposition of OpenViking. I've been testing a few memory solutions and OpenViking is one of my favorites so far.

My point is: they blame it on scale. If that's the story they want us to believe, then they have to explain WHY such a simple fix isn't possible.

There may be non technical reasons for it, even: legal, or PR, but if they want me to believe the "scalability excuse" they need to convince me they're trying.

Honestly?

If the problem is scalability, just rate limit git commands on free accounts already. Nobody realistically need to push multiple times per minute, and that alone is bound to trickle down to anything that triggers on commits and pushes.

There are other options. I worked for a startup called NVXL and we were programming DNNs into FPGAs using OpenCL, on custom boards we built to plug into NVME. It worked great, but it wasn't fast enough at the time to compete with Nvidia, or even Intel AVX512. Ultimately the company failed, but maybe some hybrid like that could work for LLMs? I haven't been up to date on how DNNs and LLMs look like under the hood these days, but there's got to be someone doing something similar.

It's been 5 hours and instead of "any" questions, you have only been happy to answer the 1 question that hasn't put you in a tight spot.

Honestly, that does not look too good for you or the offering - and this is coming from someone that just chose Cursor over Claude Code a week ago.

"For video game developers, the CD-ROM was an odd beast. The capacity far exceeded the quantity of assets they were able to produce. A few titles, like 7th Guest (1993) or Phantasmagoria (1995) introduced Full Motion Video (in a world where only part of the screen could be animated). "

To me the Saturn made the absolute best choice. The whole game's OST would be burned as audio tracks. I used to - and still can - just drop a game CD into an audio player and enjoy emblematic OST's like Daytona USA, Sonic R and many others in full 44100Hz 16bit audio.

I recall a few PC games did that too: Total Annihilation comes to mind: I also still own the physical media and still can listen to the OST that way.

I have another weak correlation to TEMU to add.

I have never, ever, bought anything on TEMU, because anytime I open the website it gives me a gambling roulette for some supposed discount thing. I hate gambling, so everytime I see the roulette I just close the webpage and go do something else.

Well, the whole cheap-generated content craze feels basically like gambling to me to this point, too. Folks are just randomly generating content: books, videos, articles, even applications, and gambling that something will pay for itself.

So now we have Enshitification, Eemufication and Gamblification of the Human Society. Damn I might write something on Substack about that.

I draw a line on advertising for myself: if it's just letting me know a service or product exists, it's fine. It's a business necessity. If I ever start a business, I need a way to communicate to potential customers that my business exists, that's fair use.

When the ads start being misleading, manipulative, emotional, irrational - then we're out of the fair use field and into the "this should be a crime" field.

I'm with the developer here. At some point the effort is just not worth it anymore.

Facebook, as a platform, has long since lost the relevance as a social network, it is basically just an ad platform these days. So why keep wasting resources on trying to block ads from an ad platform? A user who does not want to see ads on Facebook probably should just stop using Facebook altogether.

I get the appeal for staying on Instagram, Youtube, Reddit and other platforms despite the ads: these provide some sort of - maybe controversial - value for the user, even if it's just cat videos or whatever. Facebook has lost its value proposition so long ago it's hard for me to understand why would anyone tolerate using it to this day.

uBlock's resources are much better allocated into other initiatives: like Chrome .