I think democracy isn’t so great, at least not under its current form.
Voters judge candidates’ charisma a lot more than their ideas.
And many people simply don’t care so much and will vote for stupid reasons, yet have the same impact that people who put a lot of effort and thinking into their decision.
I think we should come with a way to vote for ideas more than persons. And that we should have some form of weighted voting.
Agree strongly with voting for individual ideas/policies rather than parties. I don’t like to think about the human years devoted to out-manoeuvring another party over working towards positive outcomes.
I’d appreciate anyone that could point me in the direction of this being done in the past or ideas about how it could be implemented.
I believe the Swiss Referendum model is similar to what you are describing [0].
However, it has quite a few issues as well.
The three biggest ones I can think of are:
1. Voting on single issues requires very engaged citizens that understand how their voting decisions impact the bigger scheme of things. Essentially it leads to the pitfalls of single-issue politics [1]. Political parties on the other hand, allow people to sort of vote for a direction. Ian Shapiro describes this phenomenon [2], but it is a long read.
2. The transition to and bootstrapping of such a system is very hard. It may work well in Switzerland, but that's because people are used to it and it's established. In a place like the US, where voter turnout is already low for a general election, it is hard to imagine why people would show up for specific issues.
3. If the issue at hand is very important to a small minority, but 99% of people don't really care, voter turnout will probably be low as well.
I believe my contrarian view goes in this direction, so I will add it to your comment.
My impression is that democracy is really not as inevitable as a lot of us western folks would like it to be.
In fact I can not help myself to the compelling thought that democracies dont exist, because of some utopian view of equality and fairness, but rather, because of chance and circumstance. In most cases were a government/authority/kingdom/whatever transitioned to a democracy it was merely, because the state was in crisis and democracy was a rallying cry people could get behind, because it promised a way of ending the misery
(the examples that spring to mind are the famines of 1789 and the 1840s in Europe which triggered multiple revolutions).
I think if there were no existential threat to a critical mass of people in those European countries, they would never have revolted, nor would we have so many democracies today.
For a similar reason I believe the democratic movements/protests in the recent years (like the Arab Spring, or the Hong Kong protests) have not resulted in a victory for democracy, since there is no real critical mass of people whom are existentially threatened by the failure of these movements.
Since I am sure someone has thought these thoughts before, I would be grateful if someone could point me in the direction of articles mentioning a similar sentiment/idea.
The US was founded as a republic because the founder's knew that most democracies end when the public discovers they can vote themselves largesses from the treasury.
Perhaps, then, there needs to be an extra layer of indirection between the voter and the office-holder. For example, voters could elect people who they thought were qualified to interview and test applicants for the roles that would hold day-to-day power.
I suppose that sounds a bit like how an electoral college should/could work, or how a parliamentary system expresses confidence in a Prime Minister, but obviously I don't think those systems are perfect implementations of the principal I am aiming for.
There are various types of "test" that could be used to filter applicants, such as IQ tests, polygraphs, general knowledge, psychological diagnosis, but each of those have a lot of scope for introducing false positives and negatives in the selection process, even before we consider the meta-gaming of candidates acting dishonestly and testers acting to bias the outcome.
Maybe if recall elections were possible for all roles (with zero administrative cost, and 100% turnout rate) that would be enough to solve the "buyer's remorse" problem with electing someone whose ability to gain power is greater than their ability to exercise it wisely.
That's how the electoral college was supposed to work but it never did from the 2nd election. States voted for their delegates, and the delegates would choose the executive branch. Turns out if the delegates didn't vote the way the state wanted, they didn't seem to get selected for that duty next time. Citizens would have only direct input on legislative representation.
It's hard to predict what effect "sender pays" would have had on email if it were introduced from day one. For a start, it would mean that sending email would only have been possible between organisations that are capable of sending/receiving financial (micro?) transactions between themselves. Such layer 8/9 considerations might have made the spam problem moot by making email itself moot.
If you accept the premise of introducing some degree of financial friction into the email system, though, then I will mention a modest proposal of requiring new email-sending domains to put up good-behaviour bonds in a cryptocurrency that can be spent/burnt if the domain sends too much spam. (All existing domains would be grandfathered in, providing an incentive for them to agree to this system). The only controversial part would be deciding which entities had the power to judge whether a domain sent too much spam, but the obvious answer would be a consortium of the biggest email providers, since they already have the power to effectively render an email server unusable.
Not denying its an open question, the counterfactual doesn't terminate in email would not have happened. Spam was a late arrival, I was online with email in academic networks from 1979 and it was a non problem. SMTP and 822 as spec, mostly unchanged, have worked at scale. Making people pay is the only additional friction, and I would dispute it would have killed either internet or email.
Geographic ip address distribution has merits. BGP is mostly bunkum and most routing is static. The internet is 30,000 valid routes at worst, nothing like 700,000
Large open source projects should be regarded by nations as infrastructure required for innovation. Just like roads are subsidied and maintained by governments, so should software be subsidied.
Could you give an example of what you mean? And what about for specialists? For example a doctor performing surgery, or a judge ordering someone locked up?
All my life people told me to "look after Number One" but that's not how I do things at all. I'm more interested in looking after others, because that's what brings me happiness.
Does that really matter when cooking? Whether the recipe calls for 360 or 350 Fahrenheit shouldn’t make a bug difference.
Even when making a roast, one Fahrenheit more or less, does it matter?
I suspect that the precision you gain is lost due to ovens and bbqs not being super exact and good at keeping temperatures.
What I often hear with Fahrenheit, is body temperature and I agree, 37.5 vs 38 Celsius is meh, while the granularity of Fahrenheit might help.
Metric zealot here, but on one benefit of Fahrenheit is it captures the range of outdoor/human experienced temperatures well: 0 == very cold, 100 == very hot.
Maybe not so contrarian here, but in general (USA centric - not American but I live here)
On tech:
- Social media companies should be legally responsible for stopping mob justice and harassment on their platforms, since it would create financial incentive to make better tools and policies.
- Social media companies shouldn't be responsible for censoring political speech (edit: by major politicians), that should be up to the government itself.
On government:
- Every citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of circumstance (i.e. even people in prison for heinous crimes), since I don't think the government should have much power over how it's elected.
- The national debt isn't as big a deal as the media or politicians make it out to be, since the USA is primarily in debt to itself in its own currency.
- Major government officials should be paid a lot more, and in return have major life long restrictions on what they are allowed to do financially both during and after their tenure.
On life:
- Veganism is the only moral choice for diet (non-vegetarian [so total hypocrite] here). I think we're going to learn an uncomfortable amount about animal cognition in the coming century, not to mention the climate impact.
Your two statements about social media appear to contradict each other.
Harassment and bad tools (i.e. viral false info) are what political parties do/abuse on social media.
I think social media shouldn't allow spreading of content beyond a couple degrees of separation, like a friend of a friend. The viral-ness would stop a lot of shenanigans but that would hurt their bottom line.
That's a good idea too. Tricky though - for example an article on HN might get read by thousands but is it "viral"?
For the second, I meant I would want to carve out an exception for major politicians, because I think it's dangerous for say Twitter to decide what the President can or cannot say (that's not what I wrote, but what I meant to write!). Instead I'd rather Congress decided and Twitter enforced those laws, if any.
I believe that public service should be limited to 12 years. All public service. All of it, combined, and ever. Want to be a police office, and a senator, and president? You can, but all of those have to be limited to 12 (not necessarily consecutive) years.
An influx of new people will do the following:
- Reduce graft and nepotism and corruption as a whole.
- Constantly bring fresh eyes to old processes.
- Increase and improve knowledge sharing.
- Provide people with a safety net while bringing them working skills that can be applied outside of government.
- Give more people a chance to understand how and why the government works. It will make them more sympathetic for others when dealing with bureaucracy of government and make them feel like they are a stakeholder in the process.
The concept of professional politicians is a new one. It is a sign that we have all given up on our ability to understand and participate in the democratic process. We should all be engaged and feel like we can be part of the process, at any level in the process.
A very interesting approach to the "understanding and appreciating government" problem. The usual approach is to simply make a year of public service mandatory.
An interesting counter argument I have heard on term limits. If you limit the amount of public policy experience elected officials have, they will rely on ancillary services(i.e consultants, lobbiest, etc) more to implement policy. This gives the ancillary services more power and they are not beholden to the public but rather to shareholders.
I knew someone who was really good at their job but started being actively mediocre at work. Realized it led to less stress and he was still rewarded the same.
A website should aim to support every browser in existence.
Telling a visitor that their browser or configuration is not good enough, when it was obviously good enough to view the page with that message, is ablist, anti-accessibility, lazy, incompetent, and just plain rude.
In many cases, HTTPS is overrated and creates more problems than it solves.
I think that HTTPS is not itself the problem, but rather the problem is that they are trying to force everyone to use HTTPS.
A website probably cannot aim to support every browser in existence, although supporting Lynx is a good start. You can also use plain text formats and other protocols (e.g. NNTP, Telnet/SSH, Gopher, etc) too.
The websites that don't support so many browsers, often have other problems too such as being slow and wasting memory, etc.
Unsure if this counts, but I really dislike ppl who use the phrases “jack of all trades, master of none” or “put your head down for awhile” when they talk about work or life.
41 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 80.4 ms ] threadVoters judge candidates’ charisma a lot more than their ideas.
And many people simply don’t care so much and will vote for stupid reasons, yet have the same impact that people who put a lot of effort and thinking into their decision.
I think we should come with a way to vote for ideas more than persons. And that we should have some form of weighted voting.
I’d appreciate anyone that could point me in the direction of this being done in the past or ideas about how it could be implemented.
However, it has quite a few issues as well. The three biggest ones I can think of are:
1. Voting on single issues requires very engaged citizens that understand how their voting decisions impact the bigger scheme of things. Essentially it leads to the pitfalls of single-issue politics [1]. Political parties on the other hand, allow people to sort of vote for a direction. Ian Shapiro describes this phenomenon [2], but it is a long read.
2. The transition to and bootstrapping of such a system is very hard. It may work well in Switzerland, but that's because people are used to it and it's established. In a place like the US, where voter turnout is already low for a general election, it is hard to imagine why people would show up for specific issues.
3. If the issue at hand is very important to a small minority, but 99% of people don't really care, voter turnout will probably be low as well.
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/pros-and-cons-of-the-swiss-referendum-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-issue_politics
[2] https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files...
I believe my contrarian view goes in this direction, so I will add it to your comment.
My impression is that democracy is really not as inevitable as a lot of us western folks would like it to be.
In fact I can not help myself to the compelling thought that democracies dont exist, because of some utopian view of equality and fairness, but rather, because of chance and circumstance. In most cases were a government/authority/kingdom/whatever transitioned to a democracy it was merely, because the state was in crisis and democracy was a rallying cry people could get behind, because it promised a way of ending the misery (the examples that spring to mind are the famines of 1789 and the 1840s in Europe which triggered multiple revolutions).
I think if there were no existential threat to a critical mass of people in those European countries, they would never have revolted, nor would we have so many democracies today.
For a similar reason I believe the democratic movements/protests in the recent years (like the Arab Spring, or the Hong Kong protests) have not resulted in a victory for democracy, since there is no real critical mass of people whom are existentially threatened by the failure of these movements.
Since I am sure someone has thought these thoughts before, I would be grateful if someone could point me in the direction of articles mentioning a similar sentiment/idea.
I suppose that sounds a bit like how an electoral college should/could work, or how a parliamentary system expresses confidence in a Prime Minister, but obviously I don't think those systems are perfect implementations of the principal I am aiming for.
There are various types of "test" that could be used to filter applicants, such as IQ tests, polygraphs, general knowledge, psychological diagnosis, but each of those have a lot of scope for introducing false positives and negatives in the selection process, even before we consider the meta-gaming of candidates acting dishonestly and testers acting to bias the outcome.
Maybe if recall elections were possible for all roles (with zero administrative cost, and 100% turnout rate) that would be enough to solve the "buyer's remorse" problem with electing someone whose ability to gain power is greater than their ability to exercise it wisely.
If you accept the premise of introducing some degree of financial friction into the email system, though, then I will mention a modest proposal of requiring new email-sending domains to put up good-behaviour bonds in a cryptocurrency that can be spent/burnt if the domain sends too much spam. (All existing domains would be grandfathered in, providing an incentive for them to agree to this system). The only controversial part would be deciding which entities had the power to judge whether a domain sent too much spam, but the obvious answer would be a consortium of the biggest email providers, since they already have the power to effectively render an email server unusable.
* in JavaScript you don’t need classes, ever.
* you are executing slower using a framework and probably writing code an order of magnitude slower as well
* expert developers don’t do popular things
Even in a narrow context like JavaScript, I'm not sure what this means.
By static DOM methods, you mean the GetElementsBy methods?
I still prefer Celsius for weather temperatures, because the "negative = ice" and "positive = no ice" aspect is very convenient.
I suspect that the precision you gain is lost due to ovens and bbqs not being super exact and good at keeping temperatures.
What I often hear with Fahrenheit, is body temperature and I agree, 37.5 vs 38 Celsius is meh, while the granularity of Fahrenheit might help.
If the former, why do you prefer it that way?
Just curious :)
On tech:
- Social media companies should be legally responsible for stopping mob justice and harassment on their platforms, since it would create financial incentive to make better tools and policies.
- Social media companies shouldn't be responsible for censoring political speech (edit: by major politicians), that should be up to the government itself.
On government:
- Every citizen should be allowed to vote regardless of circumstance (i.e. even people in prison for heinous crimes), since I don't think the government should have much power over how it's elected.
- The national debt isn't as big a deal as the media or politicians make it out to be, since the USA is primarily in debt to itself in its own currency.
- Major government officials should be paid a lot more, and in return have major life long restrictions on what they are allowed to do financially both during and after their tenure.
On life:
- Veganism is the only moral choice for diet (non-vegetarian [so total hypocrite] here). I think we're going to learn an uncomfortable amount about animal cognition in the coming century, not to mention the climate impact.
Harassment and bad tools (i.e. viral false info) are what political parties do/abuse on social media.
I think social media shouldn't allow spreading of content beyond a couple degrees of separation, like a friend of a friend. The viral-ness would stop a lot of shenanigans but that would hurt their bottom line.
For the second, I meant I would want to carve out an exception for major politicians, because I think it's dangerous for say Twitter to decide what the President can or cannot say (that's not what I wrote, but what I meant to write!). Instead I'd rather Congress decided and Twitter enforced those laws, if any.
An influx of new people will do the following:
- Reduce graft and nepotism and corruption as a whole.
- Constantly bring fresh eyes to old processes.
- Increase and improve knowledge sharing.
- Provide people with a safety net while bringing them working skills that can be applied outside of government.
- Give more people a chance to understand how and why the government works. It will make them more sympathetic for others when dealing with bureaucracy of government and make them feel like they are a stakeholder in the process.
The concept of professional politicians is a new one. It is a sign that we have all given up on our ability to understand and participate in the democratic process. We should all be engaged and feel like we can be part of the process, at any level in the process.
Telling a visitor that their browser or configuration is not good enough, when it was obviously good enough to view the page with that message, is ablist, anti-accessibility, lazy, incompetent, and just plain rude.
In many cases, HTTPS is overrated and creates more problems than it solves.
A website probably cannot aim to support every browser in existence, although supporting Lynx is a good start. You can also use plain text formats and other protocols (e.g. NNTP, Telnet/SSH, Gopher, etc) too.
The websites that don't support so many browsers, often have other problems too such as being slow and wasting memory, etc.