ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
For the Danes.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
Might someone recognize him? Sure, in any individual case the odds might be low, but if the scale of fraud is large a 1% chance each time is likely to happen.
It depends, someone here linked one time to a story about wide-scale fraud done by a political machine it Chicago that went on for years, and only came out because someone got cut out of a deal, and snitched. What's more, on questions where one side is strongly politically invested in a particular answer, I don't think you can assume the normal truth-seeking process will work as usual. I've seen this in the transgender issue, where the pro-trans side was knowingly and deliberately hiding studies that showed the evidence for gender affirming care is poor. Normally this would be a scandal, but there's been no professional consequences as far as I can tell. The voter-ID question seems to draw the same kind of zeal, so I'd fully expect people in a position to say something to look the other way, because doing otherwise would be inconvenient for the narrative of their tribe.
What you're saying might work in states where institutions are politically mixed, and the sides keep each other in check, though.
I'd add "requires being able to make fake forms of ID."
Are there not states that don't require any ID? The Google summarizer thing seems to be under the impression that there are quite a few.
The "But once it's actually done" part is assuming the conclusion
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. If you want to tell me "there's in no evidence for X", "what kind of evidence would you see, assuming X happened" is a perfectly valid question to ask,
[Many states have rules about signing an affidavit], and they can compare signatures after the fact.
It looks like you forgot to include a link. How many states, and how often are these signatures compared? How reliable is the signature comparison method to begin with?
And you keep not addressing the part where there aren't any complaints about people being told they've already voted. Sure, you can make a safe bet about who is likely to vote and who isn't, but safe bets still sometimes lose.
What do I have to address here? This seems to show that unless someone loses the bet, you will not be able to show there was fraud after the fact, just like I suspected. Further, if you're particularly good at making these bets, losing a few won't even matter, because a part of your argument is "the amount of fraud is miniscule, so there's no reason to enhance integrity".
A hurdle doesn't have to be insurmountable to be a hurdle.
A hurdle that you only have to overcome once, is not much of a hurdle. You can even sweeten the deal. We had people people here recount the absurdity of the American approach to ID, just include in the law that whatever ID document you're proposing shall be valid in all American institutions, public and private alike, and you will have actually reduced the total amount of hurdles people have to overcome.
I don't study the governments of other countries, but from what I've heard they have different laws on how people get IDs. But I do study pay attention to American politics, and I have seen American Republicans repeatedly target things like early voting which is primarily used by Democrats. I'm not accusing them of this in a vacuum.
Well, I'd like to hear some details on what you think is so different, because I've often heard American progressives just outright lie about the state of laws in other countries (for example there were similar arguments about abortion laws, where conservatives pointed out late term abortion is illegal in Europe, and progressives tried claiming the law is dead letter, which is complete nonsense). Also, if there is some version of ID-law that Democrats would support, it's rather suspicious that they never argue try offering a counter-proposal, and instead just go on and on about how voter ID is unnecessary, racist, voter suppression.
Mechanically, how do these fraudsters operate?
No, the question was "Mechanically, how would you even know that, if you don't bother verifying the voter's identity?" You even quoted it!
From what you said it looks like you're assuming there's little fraud because it requires some prep, brings little individual gains, and carries some risk of punishment, but once it's actually done I see nothing about how you would prove it happened after the fact.
Gee, I wonder who someone who uses a student ID to vote might vote for. Or that the fraudster might get a hold of someone's expired photo ID.
The problem with portraying this as an evil Republican plot to exclude students from voting, is that students can just go an get the type of ID that enables them to vote. You know, just like they do in every other country.
Lots of other first world countries limit free speech or gun ownership too. I always get a chuckle about selective calls to copy other countries.
Same, I find it very humorous that American progressive portray Europe as some far-left utopia that every right-thinking person should emulate, that they routinely claim Democrats would be see as right-of-center here, but the moment you bring up basic election integrity they spontaneously erupt into a cascade of fireworks, hamburgers, and bald eagles.
Anyway, you have again not answered my question. Does this mean you think that the same European governments who are routinely repressing right-wing speech, are somehow requiring voter-ID in order to repress left-wing student voters?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The metric of IQ was invented in 1905. Around the 1970's we measured Irish IQ, and it seemed low. In the late 1980's Ireland became a banking hub and in the decades that followed we measured their IQ's and they weren't low. Those are the facts as I roughly understand them, without causal links added.
My issue right now is that debating these facts seems a bit futile, because you explicitly said you wouldn't change your mind until we came up with an atomic-level simulation of society. Why shouldn't I hold you to the same standard?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Approximately my experience with Exa-Punks. The coding interface is more practical, and you can just damn well code properly, but half way through I had the overwhelming sensation of "Wait, am I not normally getting paid for this? I won't even have a hobby project to show for it at the end of it all..."
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I played around with @PokerPirate's idea shutting off the lighting for dead bugs, the effect is indeed interesting, but the issue is that (Go/)Redot gives me no control over the draw order of particles from the shader program, and the dead mosnters often end up covering up the live ones. So I started working on the cleanup program (shown after the fade-through at the 12s mark), and the effect is a lot more legible. The dying monsters go "light out", and then disappear, and are respawned.
I also added a kill counter (so far only in the window title bar on top), and I think it exposed the issue with the respawn system. I noticed that as time goes on, the kill rate seems to be increasing, and the number of bugs visible goes down. I think what's happening is that since the coordinates the bug is respawned at are time-based, several of them die at the same time, they get spawned at the exact same spot. I also think the collision detection ignores this scenario to avoid division by zero issues, so they just continue simultaneously existing in the same spot. Next step is to sort it out, and hopefully have a working system to permanently render the dead bugs to the background.
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
In a certain sense, I don't think we can be 100 percent sure until we have computers that can simulate the physics of our biological processes to a high degree of accuracy
If the only thing that could convince you is literal sci-fi technology, why are you doing the "it worked for the Irish" bit, then? That argument certainly doesn't meet the standard that you put upon people who disagree with you, so it should be rejected on similar grounds.
It would actually be great news if it was all genetic, because that means we could probably do voluntary eugenics or gene therapies
The bad news would have been that we've spent an inordinate amount of time and resources victim-blaming, and excluding people out of public life, for not enthusiastically hopping on the current race-equality bandwagon. This is why I asked who will be held accountable for it, it's not something we can gloss over with "teehee, I guess it doesn't matter now".
I think we're highly biased by our novelty-focused culture, but I would wager that America is producing excellent cultural and entertainment products at least as consistently as Ancient Greece or Rome did.
By that metric, there's nothing special about New York. I'm not buying a ticket to watch any of the stuff they make there, there's more than enough local artists I can enjoy. Even in the US a trip to the city scarcely seems worth the bother, and the city's impact on the rest of the culture is dwindling.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
In surprising news, Kim Jong-un wins North Korea’s parliamentary elections with 99.93% of the vote.
I always wondered: who does the 0.07% of the votes go to? Do they pick a lucky volunteer tasked with running against Dear Leader? Is there someone autistic enough to actually try on their own?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Irish Americans had high rates of criminality until the around the 20th century. And the Irish in Ireland had low IQ's until their country became a banking hub.
It's debatable whether or not this is an honest presentation of facts, but just assuming it as true for the sake of argument: liberals have been promising to do the same for other populations since time immemorial. American blacks are still not integrated, and Africa is still a basket case. How much longer until you accept you were wrong, ans who will be held accountable for it?
Sure, instead it got the consolation prize of being the wealthiest city in the world, and one of two megacities that makes a major imprint on all of American culture and entertainment.
American culture and entertainment are on life support.
I might sound like a broken record, but I think TFR is the root cause of all this. Western governments see population decline (and consequent tax base erosion) as a sovereign risk and will do whatever they can to forestall it.
We know this is not the reason, because the governments have data that show immigrants are a massive money sink. Some of them even decided to share it with the public!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
The amount we've found is so infinitesimal that the upside to implementing voter ID is nil
Mechanically, how would you even know that, if you don't bother verifying thr voter's identity?
That implementing it to make people "feel" that the election is more secure is pointless
Why does literally every other country do it, then?
That voter fraud is already a low salience crime, because there's no personal benefit and you'd have to do it at a massive scale to accomplish anything.
Politics is notorious for being motivated by collective belonging. Limiting the analysis to direct personal benefit seems like intentionally blinding yourself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
To get local politics more on side. There was a story bout Trump looking into supporting the populist right-wing parties in Europe, or Europens helping the campaign against Trump, for example.
Also, during the era in question, liberalism was particularly high on it's own supply, and it seemed like the western elites literally believed the End of History thing, and thought they can turn Arabs into gay race communists overnight.
How exactly are you supposed to argue the object of a policy without questioning motives?
What do you mean? I've seen plenty of discussions of say, the minimum wage, that don't assume the pro- side is explicitly aiming to drive low-wage workers out of jobs.
Lots of places allow a driver’s license
Not anywhere in Europe that I know of. It's the government ID card, or a passport, nothing else. I suppose I can't guarantee no one else does it, but driver's license-as-ID is a distinctly American thing to me, that,if anything, sounds more exclusive not less (what if I never owned a car, so never bothered getting one? Don't driving lessons + exam cost way more than getting an ID?).
They also tend to integrate their existing database of citizens.
The EU has no centralized database of citizens, but every EU citizen can vote in the local and European elections in the country they live in.
which America stubbornly refuses to do
That's something that can be debated, or added as a condition for supporting the policy. No need to go "muh racism".
I daresay most of the other democracies are smaller and more centralized
Individual countries are smaller, but not by that much. Germany has a population of 80 million. Russia spans a larger area and has 140 million. The EU is more decentralized, spans a comparable area to the US, and has 400 million people.
None of this strikes me as particularly relevant in the era of the digital panopticon anyway.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
How is this “sleight of hand”? It’s the crux of the argument. Opponents really believe that the laws will hurt many more qualified voters than fraudulent ones. If true, maybe the stated object isn’t the “real” object.
They should be able to make the argument about the object of voter ID, then, without having to question the motives of it's proponents.
This is exactly how the signature Jim Crow policies worked. Setting voting requirements that were easier for your guys and harder for their guys. People are citing THE RACISMS because THE RACISMS are kind of the most obvious comparison.
This is also how literally the entire rest of the world works: if it's too hard for you to get an ID, maybe voting just isn't for you. Acting like race enters into the equation at all is basically agreeing that the racists are right.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
which was basically corporatist colonialism without any noblisse oblige
I'm happy to admit that European colonialism with noblesse oblige was better (I think even the Chinese were impressed with what was left over), but we seem to have decided that it's racist and it's better to do nothing, send food over every mce in a while, and constantly self-flagelate. So the Chinese seem to win this one.
Let's say the US massively pulls back from it's efforts stabilizing the world. What do you think fills the void, and why would it be better?
Probably some rough times initially, with people jumping in to fill the power vacuum, and later on more uneasy truces, and less galaxy brained attempt at End Of History-esque spread of liberalism.
Though I have a bit of an issue with the question - pulling out now means we'd get the worst of both worlds. You already messed up the world several times, and withdrawing isn't going to undo it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
I see you haven't watched any of thr new Treks, then.
If you could see the exact same trend going back decades, then the tariffs had nothing to do with it. Or maybe it turns out that the recent trend doesn't add up to a spit in the bucket, and only looks bad if you zoom in extremely.
Any chart that mysteriously begins at the point of the thing it's trying to criticize is virtually guaranteed to pull that trick. Even longer (but still short term) charts are suspect, Paul Krugman was notorious for that shit, for example.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Empire of Dust
Of the things you mentioned this is what I'm most familiar with. What's supposed to be the problem with building infrastructure while being mildly derogatory of the natives? Even if I'm the target, I'll literally take it over the gay race communism you guys shoved into Europe.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
- Something something, there's no evidence anyone voted multiple times.
- Did you check?
- Lol, no.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Emphasis on "organic". Mass movements require coordination, and anyone who tried organizing something as simple as a book club will tell you how much inertia coordination typically needs to overcome.
I suppose an organic mass movement is not entirely impossible, but when we're talking about simultaneous uprisings spanning multiple countries, we're entering pissing on some and telling them it's raining territory. Even with the recent protests in Iran, you could literally see the blob prepping for the op.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
That doesn't answer the question. Do you think that a world where the IRGC has nukes is more stable or less stable than the counterfactual that we currently live in?
Yeah, the part that answered it is "I'm not sure, but it's not difficult to imagine". You can round it off to "yes" if you don't like my uncertainty.
Secondly the only two countries to voluntarily relinquish an existing nuclear weapons capability that I am aware of are South Africa and Ukraine, who are you referring to?
Gaddafi. Looking it up now, I see he didn't quite make it to the finish line.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Given the crackdown of western governments against social media, when a few elections didn't go the way they wanted, I find it hard to believe that the role of the US in the Arab Spring was non-central, and it was all about some dude setting himself on fire.
Frankly, the very notion of "organic" mass movements is in dire need of evidence.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
My question for you is do you think that allowing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to have nukes would have a stabilizing effect on world affairs or do you agree with me that it would have a destabilizing effect, if the latter how much of a destabilizing effect?
I mean... during my lifetime, no one had a more destabilizing effect on the world in general, and the Middle East in particular than the United States. If it's even true that Iran is scrambling for nukes, it's patently clear the reason they're doing so is because America deposed a ruler that handed off his in good faith, on the assurance that he will not be attacked. I'm not sure what effect a nuclear Iran would have, but a world that becomes more stable as a result is not difficult to imagine.
Wait till you see how the US stock market is growing compared to others.
Can I please get this chart in a version that goes back more than one year?
Sure, unironically might be a better world then we live in today, particularly if this includes certain "greatest allies" of yours.
More options
Context Copy link