Skip Navigation
Dobbs had the opposite effect conservatives intended
  • That'd be what we'd do if we were sensible - to be clear I don't endorse any of that racist bullshit I was just explaining that even with racial or cultural weird ideas there are better options than abortion control.

  • Dobbs had the opposite effect conservatives intended
  • That indicates a desire to boost population growth, not necessarily an ethical objection to abortion - I do think you're absolutely correct about a fair portion of those politicians and donors but there's still a large portion that I think are just using the movement for points.

    There would also be more efficient solutions to this problem if that was their primary concern - we'd like see more focused attacks on Loving vs. Virginia if it was specifically racially motivated (rather than "American culture" motivated)... and even then I think the best approach would just be super-charging child tax credits and potentially introducing childless tax penalties.

    I think my original statement was overly simplified, though.

  • Political violence rises in EU driven by extremism and disillusionment
  • This isn't an uncommon view, but I think it's pretty socially unhealthy for us to glorify discord. Sentiments like "The down votes mean I'm right" or "Bans prove they were speaking the truth" erode our ability to have a discussion and share our knowledge.

  • Is it possible for devices on an online group chat to toss a coin without trusting each other and the server?
  • Let's break out some scenarios, I'll assume we are always an honest actor...

    Scenario 1, the data is all collated and published - you look at the ledger and see the value you reported is accurately recorded in the ledger... you poll other servers and they all also report that the inputs were accurate, you also take the ledger and re-evaluate the result and it matches what the server reported. What action should be taken? How many bad actors exist? Is the server a bad actor?

    Scenario 2, the server collects and reports the data, the ledger looks right to you, but one server reports that their value was manipulated. The ledger does match the computed value though and it's currently 1, should it be 0 instead? What action should be taken? How many bad actors exist? Is the server a bad actor?

    Scenario 3, the server collects and reports the data... 70% of clients report manipulation, the ledger is consistent, though. What action should be taken? How many bad actors exist? Is the server bad actor?

  • Is it possible for devices on an online group chat to toss a coin without trusting each other and the server?
  • Your scenario assumes a trustworthy server that won't manipulate the secretly held ledger of throws - it also doesn't seem resilient to even a single bad actor client as there isn't a clear way for the server to choose a result (though maybe your imagining everyone submitting a 1 or 0, summing those numbers and then mod 2ing the result?)

    Edit, actually to that point OP - it'd help to know what lack of trust we're optimizing for - the comment above (assuming the mod2 approach) would work for a very large untrusted pool of servers as long as you fully trust one arbitrator server - while other concensus based approaches would work better for a network of servers that are mostly trust worthy but contain a proportion of untrustworthy servers.

  • Fabricated Conversations

    Just a sanity check here but... yall ever been mid conversation with someone and confused that they've forgotten a thing you talked about... until you realize that previous conversation took place entirely in your head?

    13
    InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)XM
    xmunk @sh.itjust.works
    Posts 3
    Comments 3.2K