• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • It’s party marketing, yes, but it’s also Quality of Life features. Windows either has a setting you can find by farting around in the settings or it doesn’t work. Linux can have every setting, but most of them need CLI work, research, and the wherewithal to unfuck whatever you fucked.

    If CLIs could be listed, explained, and parametrized in a simple GUI, it would make learning them 10x easier. More default scripts for unfucking things would also help (like Window’s old troubleshooting wizards). More status checking and better error messages, so one can tell when something is broken without manually inspecting every module.

    It’s gotten much better, and will certainly improve by necessity if more average users pick Linux up, but it’s a step that has to be taken before Linux sees a major marketshare, regardless of marketing.






  • 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.





  • 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





  • 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.



  • 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.