vinniep

*Second best army in Russia

I understand your viewpoint, but don't subscribe. Voting isn't about supporting a system. The system exists, with or without your participation. Shy of a full blown civil war (which is more likely to make this worse than better), the only way to change the system is to use the system to change itself. The general election in November every 4 years is the last stage of a long process that starts with local parties and elections, weaves through the primary process, and culminates on election day. We need more people that are dissatisfied with the candidates to get more involved, not less, and to go to the early phases where a smaller number of active participants can have an outsized impact on the whole system. To me, one of the many alternative voting systems would be a huge improvement (I have preferences, but honestly just about every one of them is better than the First Past the Post system we use), so advocating for that and supporting local candidates that can push those ideas forward is where my energies go.

Both parties actively try to give voters from the other party reasons to be dissatisfied and disengaged. Don't play into it.

Also

If enough people stop treating third parties like a wasted vote,

People might if any of the third parties had a serious candidate and a serious governing platform. Each of them is fundamentally flawed in one way or another, and a few of them are flawed from top to bottom. I get that you're dissatisfied with the status quo, but which one of these 3rd parties would be able to actually govern and not make a complete and utter mess of everything? Could you imagine if one of the major 3rd parties actually won? It would be an unmitigated disaster.

Unfortunately, that means that you're taking a vote away from the candidate from the two main parties that is closest to your views, which helps the candidate you oppose the most.

The two party system is truly problematic, but when it comes to November you have two options currently and voting for a 3rd party has the same impact as not voting at all. Voting for the candidate that you oppose the least lets you put a finger on the scale to at least try to avoid the worst possible outcome relative to your beliefs and values.

I absolutely agree, but you're talking about a situation where we already have 10 different ways and 20 EC2 instances. When you get to that point (or start approaching it), yeah, do the complex thing - no argument at all. The challenge is to wait until the last responsible moment to make that pivot and to not dive deeper into the complexity than you need at the current time and place. I've worked with countless small companies and teams in the past that have created whole K8s clusters, Terraform provisioning plans, and the whole kit for a single low volume service because "we'll need it when things scale out later" and later never arrives.

This is great until

I think that's the point. Don't jump to the complex right away. Keep it simple and compose the capabilities you have readily available until you need to become more complex. When the task requires it, yeah, do the complex thing, but keep the simplicity mandate in mind and only add the new complexity that you need. You can get pretty far with the simple, and what about all of the situations where that future pivot or growth never happens?

The philosophy strikes a cord with me - I'm often contending with teams that are building for the future complexities that they think might come up, and we realize later that we did get complexity in the problem later, but not the kind we had planned for, so all of that infrastructure and planning was wasted on an imaginary problem that no only didn't help us but often actually make our task harder. The trick is to keep the solution set composable and flexible so that if complexity shows up later, we can reconfigure and build the new capabilities that we need rather than having to maneuver a large complicated system that we built on a white board before we really knew what the problem looked like.

Yeah, I don't think the dying on the inside is the particular sort dying that is notable here.

The Guardian's story on this has more of the important details

The human testicles had been preserved and so their sperm count could not be measured. However, the sperm count in the dogs’ testes could be assessed and was lower in samples with higher contamination with PVC. The study demonstrates a correlation but further research is needed to prove microplastics cause sperm counts to fall.

The testes analysed were obtained from postmortems in 2016, with the men ranging in age from 16 to 88 when they died. “The impact on the younger generation might be more concerning” now that there is more plastic than ever in the environment, Yu said.

The study, published in the journal Toxicological Sciences, involved dissolving the tissue samples and then analysing the plastic that remained. The dogs’ testes were obtained from veterinary practices that conducted neutering operations.

The human testicles had a plastic concentration almost three times higher than that found in the dog testes: 330 micrograms per gram of tissue compared with 123 micrograms. Polyethylene, used in plastic bags and bottles, was the most common microplastic found, followed by PVC.

It won't matter if there are ways to side load or circumvent, though. 99.9% of users will not be willing to be bothered with such things and the US market would effectively die for the app.

Either tiktok becomes an American company or leaves… Ah, the free market has spoken

People keep saying this and I'm struggling to understand where this idea is coming from. The bill isn't saying that they have to sell TikTok to a US company. They don't have to sell it to the US government, or an owner in the US. Just divorce the company from explicit control by the Chinese government. Currently, the government can request any data they want from TikTok and they are obligated to provided it. Similarly, business laws in China mean that the government can also push changes down into the company, like a tweak to the algorithm to influence foreign perceptions of a topic for example.

The requirements laid out in this bill are meant to break that obligation and influence. It doesn't say who should own the company - only who shouldn't.

How would we feel if say, China decided Microsoft/Google/AWS/Oracle had to sell to a Chinese company on the grounds of national security?

But no one is saying that ByteDance has to sell TikTok to a US company. Just divest it to an owner that is not beholden to the Chinese government and obligated to share any and all data upon request. Compared to the legal requirements that China puts on US companies operating in China, this is a pretty tame ask.

It has a secondary interaction interface that's novel - if you hold your hand at the right position, it projects data or controls into your palm which can then be navigated by tilting your hand and "clicking" with a finger tap gesture. This interface is also more private, and used for entering your pin to unlock the device, but can be used for other interactions like viewing long form responses to voice prompts where you can scroll through the data rather than trying to absorb everything as it's spoken (or if you don't want to have a spoken reply).

It's an interesting concept, but I tend to agree with the user you replied to in that this is a solution in search of a problem.

I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.

― Al Franken,