At times I'm mused that man is perhaps calibrated to live in tribes of 100. If you're known to ten million, however, you can get the 100,000x the correct dosage for whatever attention your actions draw.
Hard to fix, -- since even if people were considerate enough to make a tenfold reduction you'd still be overdosed by 10,000x.
I guess Californians believe that Marin and 'Jefferson' have equivalent interests and can be well served the same representative without disenfranchising anyone... and that because it's more natural for a state with 2.23 democrats per republican to have 5.3 democrat representatives for every republican rep than the current 4.7 dem reps per republican.
Ah, the bridge jumping argument. What about if someone takes a slug at you when you’ve done nothing wrong? Or challenges your HN comment? You respond.
No, Texas has no such law, and that’s a shame. If Texas had, it might have prevented this situation. California is being repeatedly threatened by the Trump Republican government. The threat was exacerbated by the Texas Legislature (not the voters, of course). California voters would never have approved Prop 50 without them.
> The amount of profit they make is decided by the state regulators
Which set things up so the money PG&E makes is a linear function in the money PG&E wastes. -- the regulations set a fixed profit margin, so to make more money PG&E need simply waste more money and pass the cost onto the public which is exactly what they are doing.
The rates that PG&E charges are also decided upon by the regulators. So no, what you say isn't correct. In fact, the people who decided to cut the tree trimming budget, those were appointed state regulators. And that decision led to the increase in fires.
A felon convicted of essentially same 'crime' his opponent in the prior election committed but was given a settlement and a fine instead.
Hilary Clinton funded the creation of the Steele dossier-- which was later shown to be generally false and unsupported-- but paid for it through one of her law firms and misclassified it as legal expenses in an effort to conceal its origins.
Trump was criminally charged with falsification of business records because he paid Stormy Daniels hush money (to get her to deny her earlier claim that they had an affair) via his lawyer, and classified it as legal expenses. A visible hush money payment would have made it ineffective, just at the Steele dossier being known to be a campaigned paid hit piece would have made it ineffective.
There are plenty of things to ding Trump on, but I think if you're trying to persuade someone that the legal system wasn't weaponized unfairly against him this is a particularly poor example.
Even an argument that the facts make him worse here (e.g. maybe you say concealing an accusation of an affair says more about his integrity than paying for a false report says about hers)-- wouldn't change that this is just not a good example.
Particularly because there was nothing unlawful about the hush money payment itself-- the crime was an obscure accounting violation resulting from it... and in any other circumstance nothing would happen at all or at most, as seen with Clinton, a nominal fine would result. Sure, it's true that random details (like what state the acts in) will often decide if an act is technically illegal or not, but that's hardly an argument for the fairness of the justice system or that it was fairly applied to him.
I don't even hope to convince you of this-- but only to convince you that your example is unlikely to convince others, and is easily exploited to wrongfully convince people opposite your intentions.
You are exactly right. We all need to realize that the left misused government power against the right just as Trump is now misusing it against the left.
I hope people retain these opinions of government power when their "side" gets back into power and they use that power to shrink the government so much that this cannot happen again in our lifetimes.
> We all need to realize that the left misused government power against the right
How? The arguments I've heard require both of the following to be true:
1. Medical misinformation is a cornerstone of political thought in the right instead of non-politically-aligned anti-scientific nonsense.
2. The government suggesting to media companies that they limit the spread of that misinformation, and those media companies voluntarily implementing systems that do so in order to keep their customers and employees from dying, constitutes government coercion of speech.
True, de jure, many states didn’t have enforceable stay-at-home laws, but de facto, closures, mandates, and social pressure still kept most people at home for ~year.
You obviously had money, no kids, and AC. Glad you had a better time of it than many.
You do realize all of those things initially happened before Jan 6th, 2021, when DJT was president? This is the pot calling the kettle black here. As for the free speech chilling, the current administration has targeted people who talk ill of the president, which is a much more direct and egregious chilling effect on speech than what happened during the lockdown. Biden's admin did no such thing. Platforms may have taken down alleged "misinformation" (which they are also doing for the current admin, too!), but the Biden admin didn't target anyone who talked ill of him or his admin. If you have counter examples, feel free to provide them.
I said nothing about trump. Both parties are guilty of huge abuse. Biden did not fixed it when he got in office. Stop picking sides and see it isn't binary and both parties are rotten.
Look at the grandparent comment to what I replied to. I'm not picking sides, they did.
I agree, both parties are rotten, but in a thread pointing out the left abused power where the right did not, you need to swing the opposite way to end up there.
This is exactly the sort stuff the top level comment was complaining about.
Regardless of what team you're on if you can't come up with a few things that were done that were bad and a bunch more things that were said and advocated for by politicians that were way worse then you are the problem.
I can come up with a few things that were done that were bad. GP made a very specific claim of a bad thing that was done, and I can't come up with things that never actually happened. If you don't understand the difference between those, you are exactly the type of low information voter that grifters prey on.
> once the system is created it’s easy to envision governments putting whatever images they want to know people have into the phone
A key point is that the system was designed to make sure the database was strongly cryptographically private against review. -- that's actually where 95% of the technical complexity in the proposal came from: to make absolutely sure the public could never discover exactly what government organizations were or weren't scanning for.
Sorry, but you're relaying a false memory. Conversation on the subject on HN and Reddit (for example) was extremely well informed and grounded in the specifics of the proposal.
Just as an example, part of my responses here were to develop and publish a second-preimage attack on their hash function-- simply to make the point concrete that varrious bad scenarios would be facilitated by the existence of one.
They also require articulable and legally legible damages, and if you want to make it worth your time they have to be significant compared to the legal cost and in no significant way attributable to yourself.
A lot of things a laypersons would agree were damages just won't fly in civil court and even when there is damage it's limited by factors like what actions you could have taken to mitigate (but may not have).
Hard to fix, -- since even if people were considerate enough to make a tenfold reduction you'd still be overdosed by 10,000x.