trump asked google to rename atlantic ocean "trump ocean" (newsweek, cnn)
058
i live, i die, i live again
Besides, some people have heart problems even if they eat healthy and exercise and do other things -paul
toggle listening for notifications
(i updated the version of php the message board was using, yesterday around this time, if anybody was worried) ~a
mig: good with some exceptions ~a
a: I think we can agree on data centers good, but special treatment for them bad. - mig
paul: data centers are a huge form of corporate welfare. i feel that is the angle that you'd potentially agree on. on the other hand, i think non-ai data centers are good for the world, assuming there's no (or low) corporate welfare involved. ~a
paul: "I really don't think Democracy is improved much by encouraging no-information voters to vote." me neither. i would never do that. hopefully you know i would never encourage people to vote just to vote. "vote or die" is a pretty funny notion, but i also think it's dumb and actually kinda dangerous. ~a
paul: "are you willing to admit that this is just a blatant troll attempt?" yes. that was a troll. i almost mentioned jim crow laws and decided to leave it out. your arguments do tread close to being in favor jim crow laws (and literacy tests / poll taxes specifically). you wanna require a real id to vote today, and i don't know why. can you tell me why? if in person voter fraud without a realid isn't an issue why are you for this? ~a
paul: "flying or buying cough medicine or alcohol" i've been consistent that your metaphor sucks. i said why it sucks. and you keep using it? ~a
paul: i don't care about maximizing the number of people who vote. i care about making it easiest for the people who are most hurt by our system to vote. i also care about election integrity: but i'll keep saying it: in person election fraud doesn't exist. election integrity isn't a problem with non-voter-id laws. you CAN make it easy for the people most hurt by our system to vote without hurting our election integrity. you CAN. ~a
a: What's your opinion on data centers? -Paul
a: Am I serious? Not really. I don't think it's worth the hassle. But I kind of like the idea in theory. I really don't think Democracy is improved much by encouraging no-information voters to vote. -Paul
a: Like, if you are going to vote and don't even know a single candidate or issue... What are you doing? Just going to vote straight ticket without knowing anything at all about the options? -Paul
a: "poll tax or a literacy test" Poll tax? I don't see any reason for that. I don't know about a literacy test (are you willing to admit that this is just a blatant troll attempt?), but let me throw another idea back at you: Require voters to be able to name a single thing they are going to be voting on. -Paul
a: That I don't think it's so completely unreasonable to consider requiring one for voting. Do I think it's a national emergency that we need to enact right now? No. But I think it's a more reasonable trade-off than most other times we're required to provide ID. -Paul
a: I think I've been pretty consistent that I don't know much about (or care much about) the Save Act. My point has always been that in a world where we accept the (pretty minor) inconvenience of showing an ID for flying or buying cough medicine or alcohol or visiting your kid's school for a meeting with their teachers... -Paul
a: "there's zero inconsistency there" There's only zero inconsistency there if all you care about is maximizing the number of people who vote. If you care about election integrity at all then it's a big inconsistency. -Paul
is trump supporting russia? it seems strange to me. we're literally attacking ourselves in iran so directly? ~a
click on this video from the independent and go to 0:22. why is her eye visible above her hair? someone at the independent has added a face filter to her face? why? ~a
i hope. ~a
mig: i found this online, and thought of you. it is satire. ~a
mig: it's kinda hard to know, right? regardless even if there's a small chance, or no chance, of impact, it seems pretty illegal and immoral? ~a
I’ll amend with *significant* impact. - mig
a: do we have any evidence russian bots actually have any impact on elections? - mig
disinformation campaigns in the united states could be affected by ukranian bombing in russia right before the november elections. it's pretty crazy to me that we've finally reach the point that data centers are affecting the results of elections. when we were told about the internet in the 90s nobody ever said anything about this. ~a
paul: i've been thinking about this and i have a question which i think might help get to the core of our disagreement. what are your thoughts on a poll tax or a literacy test when voting? ~a
paul: the save act lets you use a passport, or a military id if it says your place of birth, or a real id if you live in one of those five states, or a government issued id that says your place of birth (lol), or a government issued id if you also bring your birth certificate (lol). ~a
paul: "Why would my drivers license not suffice? I have a Real ID. Does that not work?" dude. i've told you five times. five times if this time counts twice: "'only five states issue Real IDs that indicate U.S. citizenship'. i wanna put this in caps-lock. maybe instead i'll just quote it again. 'only five states issue Real IDs that indicate U.S. citizenship'" ~a
paul: you are exactly right. we want it both ways, and we need it both ways. and there's zero inconsistency there. in fact, it's important that we have it both ways. it's both important enough that anybody should be able to vote, and it's important enough that everybody should be able to vote. people who can't afford to buy alcohol, people who can't afford to buy expensive medicine, and people who can't afford to travel by plane. ~a
a: "they demand a drivers license that you do not have and i do not have" I am not familiar with the intricacies of the save act. Why would my drivers license not suffice? I have a Real ID. Does that not work? -Paul
a: But at the same time somehow voting is also no big deal and not as important as buying cough medicine, or alcohol, or getting on a plane... -Paul
a: "who dies when someone illegally votes? well, nobody dies, but it sucks lots?" Right, I think you're trying to have it both ways. Somehow it's so important for everybody to vote that the very idea of any action making it slightly harder to vote is just completely a non-starter... -Paul
paul: do you think it's fine that the same people who can't easily get a passport are the same people who are most disadvantaged by our current system? ~a
paul: now let's add on the "save act" to all of this. the "save act" has voter id requirements that are unparalleled. they demand a drivers license that you do not have and i do not have. i have a military id that would work (and i assume you don't), and we both probably have passports that would work. do you think it's fine to require a passport to vote? ~a
paul: the people who can't afford dextromethorphan, and buy the cheap stuff that doesn't require an id, and can't afford to buy an id, are the same people who you should be shedding a tear for. if you don't shed a tear for them i feel like you come across as heartless. ~a
paul: who dies when someone illegally votes? well, nobody dies, but it sucks lots? we all die a bit. except! it *does not happen*. in person voter fraud does not exist in the US, with our non-voter-id systems in place. if nobody was being harmed by dextromethorphan then nobody would require an id for dextromethorphan. in other words your metaphor sucks: adding voter-id requirements helps nothing but hurts TONS. shed some tears! ~a
paul: i have all of the tears to shed. you don't need an id to buy all cough medicine but i assume you mean dextromethorphan? a small fraction of the states require an id to purchase dextromethorphan. and many of those states only require an id if you look under 25. but also, there are reasons for those restrictions: the reasons are that kids die and are harmed by addiction. ~a
a: "but our system can't take that into account" I know, and agree. If you want to vote then you absolutely should be able to. But I just don't have a lot of tears to shed for people who can't be bothered to do something that is required to buy cough medicine. I don't think our democratic process is necessarily improved by getting as many people as possible to vote. -Paul
hell i'm not even sure if i like that only adult citizens can vote. if we're gonna ban kids, and resident aliens, and felons, we should ban old people, and racists too. i was talking to two of my friends over the weekend, when they both told me that neither of them were voting in this next election. because they weren't allowed to vote. i was like, what?! ~a
paul: i think there's a difference, of course i do. anybody who doesn't vote the way i like has an invaluable vote. but seriously, i do definitely agree there's a difference. but our system can't take that into account. and shouldn't ever take that into account. if anything the system should prioritize the votes of the disadvantaged instead prioritizing the votes of the advantaged? if anything? ~a
a: I kind of feel like that latter vote doesn't have the same value as the former. Do I know how to quantify it? No. Does it mean we should treat them differently? Not really. But I do think there is a difference. -Paul
a: With somebody who never follows politics, couldn't tell you who the current President was, never votes and has no intention to vote in an election but gets guilt tripped by a family member into signing an absentee ballot that was given to them and voting party line like their family member wants them to. -Paul
a: I kind of don't think all votes are equally valuable. Compare somebody who follows politics closely and researches the issues and and has thought about their stance on the issues deeply... -Paul