Skip to content

Minnesota Shooting Suspect Allegedly Used Data Broker Sites to Find Targets’ Addresses

Technology
75 56 1.3k
  • Seal the Freshness: Growth in the High-Barrier Pouches Market

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Thinking Is Becoming a Luxury Good

    Technology technology
    30
    65 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    311 Aufrufe
    S
    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.
  • 31 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 83 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    133 Aufrufe
    M
    It's a bit of a sticking point in Australia which is becoming more and more of a 'two-speed' society. Foxtel is for the rich classes, it caters to the right wing. Sky News is on Foxtel. These eSafety directives killing access to youtube won't affect those rich kids so much, but for everyone else it's going to be a nightmare. My only possible hope out of this is that maybe, Parliament and ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority, TV standards) decide that since we need a greater media landscape for kids and they can't be allowed to have it online, that maybe more than 3 major broadcasters could be allowed. It's not a lack of will that stops anyone else making a new free-to-air network, it's legislation, there are only allowed to be 3 commercial FTA broadcasters in any area. I don't love Youtube or the kids watching it, it's that the alternatives are almost objectively worse. 10 and 7 and garbage 24/7 and 9 is basically a right-wing hugbox too.
  • Pope Leo urges politicians to respond to challenges posed by AI

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 532 Stimmen
    92 Beiträge
    970 Aufrufe
    C
    Thanks for the speed and the work !
  • Looking elsewhere

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    7 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    J
    That's a valid point! I've been searching for places to hangout for a while, sometimes called "campfires". Found a cool Discord with generous front-end folks (that's a broad spectrum!), on frontend.horse.
  • 241 Stimmen
    175 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    N
    I think a generic plug would be great but look at how fragmented USB specifications are. Add that to biology and it's a whole other level of difficulty. Brain implants have great potential but the abandonment issue is a problem that exists now that we have to solve for. It's also not really a tech issue but a societal one on affordability and accountability of medical research. Imagine if a company held the patents for the brain device and just closed down without selling or leasing the patent. People with that device would have no support unless a government body forced the release of the patent. This has already happened multiple times to people in clinical trials and scaling up deployment with multiple versions will make the situation worse. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818077 I don't really have a take on your personal desires. I do think if anyone can afford one they should make sure it's not just the up front cost but also the long term costs to be considered. Like buying an expensive car, it's not if you can afford to purchase it but if you can afford to wreck it.