Tlaloc_Temporal

I like hiding votes until you’ve voted. Allowing users, communities, or instances to change how posts/comments are sorted might help too.

True, a fully transparent system would require every voter to understand the machine and how the systems prevent tampering.

At the same time, I don’t think even a majority of voters know how the voting process works in the U.S. and Canada today, simply trusting that such a process exists. I’d argue that many of the processes aren’t even fair, with gerrymandering and spoiler effects being common. Large numbers of people even believe that mail-in votes are simply a tool for fraud.

So yes, ideally everyone would fully understand every step of every system of the voting process, but a working system is possible without that. If a more opaque system could increase verifiability and/or allow faster easier voting, it might be worth it. Of course currently existing voting machines do neither, and massively increase opacity at every level, so they’re quite terrible, but I don’t think they need to be perfect to be useful.

Boost is fantastic for keeping my place. I just don’t have to worry about switching to the web to look something up, or even just to do some math. Even if the app gets killed in the background, you’ll be returned to where you were. It’s great, I wish every app could have such a good memory.

That’s just human s though. The only way to fix that is force everyone and everything onto All.

Theoretically, a voting machine could be open source, tracable, verifiable, and well regulated.

In practice, all your currently existing industries can only make black boxes that even the makers can’t guarantee the workings of.

You can’t find a single example from r/Overwatch? You’re not looking very hard then:

“Jump scare at the end of POG” “Supports almost never get POG, now we don’t even get a card at the end of the match.” “First POG is match POG” “We want to talk after the PoG” “This guy’s whole team left after the first round so we gave him POG…” “Behind every Rein Pog is a support going through a rollercoaster of emotions” “I remember when PoG was tweaked for assist points and every pog was Mercy rezzing two people and dying.” “My friends and I have always called it POG. Not sure why but its what we do. I guess thats where it came from”

In fact, the large majority of the use of “pog” refers to Play Of Game and not hype. I did notice that this usage is more common in the last 4 years, while pogchamp is mostly used 4-7 years ago. The earliest upvoted usage of POG I can find there is “Taking Trobjorn and Bastion POG into a new dimension.” from 8 years ago though, so it was used contemporaneously with PogChamp.

POTG is definitely much more popular there, but saying the POG usage doesn’t exists is just wrong.

Also, news organizations have a horrendous record with slang, that’s terrible evidence. Especially when your source is a 404.

Besides, I can get spurious souces too (and they work!):

“POG” an overused term on twitch that means “Play of Game” Woah, that was pog. by SSR Rules September 23, 2020

Hmm, so I learned of pog in 2016 when my friends were into Overwatch, and pog was definitely used as an acronym from Play Of the Game (POTG is very clunky to say).

However, the PogChamp usage is from 2011, so the play of the game usage is either coincidental or an intentional decision on the part of Blizzard/Activision.

Most importantly, the POG in PogChamp does actually refer to the beverage disks. Weirdly enough, they were just a prop in an awkwardly acted ad for a gaming peripheral by a professional Street Fighter player/streamer. The actual usage of PogChamp probably started on 4Chan before appearing on Twitch, after which it spread.

Is it really pogs that started this and not “Play Of the Game”?

I agree that the vast majority of ads are manipulative, but are there not legitimate uses in notification? Like posters annoucing an event, requests for scientific trials, or even lost posters.

Maybe if you only see the political ads of a single party. It would still be better because you would know of even a single stance of one party.

Last election, I can’t remember a single actual stance taken by any party based on political ads. They were all attack ads. Without discussion you couldn’t separate the resonable accusations from the trash anyway.

Basing your politocal opinions purely on ads is a terrible stance anyway, and the party best at fearmongering will win there. There aren’t any restrictions on ads that can fix people forming opinions only on ads anyway, we’d need to encourage public political debates and discourse instead.

Sadly, google cats aren’t part of the cat distribution system.

Debates and actually adressing the problems.

You can’t say “Party X just wants your money”, try “Our party will help you keep your money”, or even “Unlike some parties today, we will put your taxes to good use”.

It’s a lot harder to make a compelling attack without a concrete focus. “Some parties are corrupt” is so trivially true that’s it embarassing, but “Party X is corrupt” is a rallying cry.

It won’t prevent lies by any means, but since specific claims can only be nade about your own party it gives an advantage to talking about your own party instead of every ad being incredibly negative claims one step off of a flame war. Hopefully that leads to building a strong case and then defending that case during debates, but at least the ads will have less direct negativity.

This is most of my memory of Canadian elections too. I wish even mentioning other parties wasn’t allowed in campagin material, like how in some parts of government politicians can only refer to each other by title and not by name.

I’d guess Pipi Longstocking.

But have they tried a babbon heart?

Ooo, does that have something to do with how moving your arms like that flexes muscles around your throat? Is this an autonomic process like flexibg the timpani muscle when chewing?

How about “Your brain and body are often predictable, more than most people realize”?

This is also data from an opt-in survey of only one kind of user. The real number of Linux users is probably somewhat higher due to the higher level of privacy conscientiousness in the community.

You underestimate how little people think when purchasing things. None of this would be a problem if everyone looked at the price per 100g first, but ooo 3 $5… And then the size reduction usually goes alongside a packaging change, like jumbo or family size; “New look, same great taste!”. It’s all a distraction, out of sight, out of mind and all that.

Also, the 330ml cans are taller, and because of the square-cube law they only need to be a little skinnier to be smaller. They’re also not usually displayed next to the normal 355ml cans. Out of sight…

Also, who is going to laude a big corp product for a logistics change in the first place? I barely see anyone complaining about shrinkflation for packaging reasons as it is. I’d see a better slack fill level on one product and think, “This must be old stock” or “This is the last time we’ll get bags this dense”.

They’re also incentivized to keep the same size packaging (both for logistical and public perveption reasons) and ship less product in those packages. People are willing to pay $6 for a big bag of chips, despite the big bag weighing 150g less than the normal bag 5 years ago.

They don’t get paid by the gram, they get paid by the bag. A bigger bag looks more impressive, and thus can be sold for more. Same for those tall skinny beverage cans. They look bigger than the regular cans, but are actually 25ml smaller, and yet go for a similar price.

This will continue until the price per gram is what people look for (emphasis on this at the point of sale would help), or the mass of each product is standardized. 50g, 100g, 200g, 350g, 500g, 750g, and whole kg sizes only, none of this 489g nonsense.