In political science, the term polyarchy (poly "many", arkhe "rule") was used by Robert A. Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. This form of government was first implemented in the United States and France and gradually adopted by other countries. Polyarchy is different from democracy, according to Dahl, because the fundamental democratic principle is "the continuing responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals" with unimpaired opportunities. A polyarchy is a form of government that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle. So yeah, you are right. A representative "democracy" is not a democracy. It's a monarchy with more than one ruler. A gummy bear is as much a bear as representative democracy is a democracy. I didn't know that, because i was taught in school that a representative "democracy" is a form of democracy. And the name makes it sound like one. But it isn't. It's not even supposed to be in theory. I am sure 99% of people living in a representative "democracy" don't know this. I hereby encourage everyone to abandon the word representative "democracy" in favor of polyarchy or maybe oligarchy. This makes it much clearer what we are talking about. Also i doubt the authors of this article know this, because they imply that representative "democracy" is desirable, but it is obviously undesirable.

Lemmy has a lack of women problem because Spez probably isn’t shadow banning women as often as men. Fuck Spez.

No, there's no way to automatically make something become law. A successful petition just forces the European Commission to discuss it and potentially propose legislation. Even though it's not forcing anything to happen, there is an incentive for the commission to seriously consider it as there is probably a political cost to officially denying a motion that has proven that it concerns a large amount of people.

Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then. it is mostly for compatibility reasons. no win32 programs are equipped to handle such granular permissions and sandboxing, they are all made with the assumption that they have access to whatever they need (other than other users' resources and things that require elevation). if Microsoft would have made that limitation to every kind of software, that Windows version would have probably been a failure in popularity because lots of software would have broken. I think S editions of windows is how they tried to go in that direction, with a more drastic way of simply just dropping support for 3rd party win32 programs. I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. ok, so if you run linux or windows utils in a compatibility layer, they still have less of a limited access? by which I mean graphical utilities. just tried with firefox, for macos it wanted to give me an .iso file (???) if so, it seems apple is doing roughly the same as microsoft with uwp and the appx format, and linux with flatpak: it's a choice for the user

What are you on about with this? Last news post 2013?

Giving up advancements in science and technology is stagnation. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting giving up some particular, potential advancements in science and tecnology, which is a whole different kettle of fish and does not imply stagnation. Thinking it’s a good idea to not do anything until people are fed and housed is stagnation. Why do you think that?

Their previous GPU used an old AMD GPU design if I recall correctly. I wonder if they have in-house stuff now.