Skip to content

U.S. Senator Tom Cotton probes Intel board over CEO Lip-Bu Tan's former China links, raises national security concerns amid Cadence scandal

Technology
44 14 0
  • Thinking Is Becoming a Luxury Good

    Technology technology
    30
    65 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    256 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.
  • 86 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    252 Aufrufe
    A
    You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity From the article: Location also affects how carbon emissions are managed. Germany has the largest carbon footprint for video streaming at 76g CO₂e per hour of streaming, reflecting its continued reliance on coal and fossil fuels. In the UK, this figure is 48g CO₂e per hour, because its energy mix includes renewables and natural gas, increasingly with nuclear as central to the UK’s low-carbon future. France, with a reliance on nuclear is the lowest, at 10g CO₂e per hour. This is a massive difference, and clearly doable, nothing that would be limited to the distant future. So I get this right? I'm naive for expecting govt regulations to put companies' behaviour under control, whereas you're realistic by expecting hundreds of millions of people deciding to systematically minimise their Youtube/Tiktok/Spotify/Netflix/Zoom usage? Hmm, alright. And yet in an another comment you also expect that Spotify shouldn't introduce video streaming, without any external regulation but out of pure goodness of their hearts?
  • 14 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 172 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    169 Aufrufe
    P
    That is still beyond extremely optimistic
  • 138 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    301 Aufrufe
    S
    Nobody fucking cares.
  • 226 Stimmen
    53 Beiträge
    710 Aufrufe
    E
    Well fuck me I guess lol
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet