Yeah, but that happens only once per person, whilst the other one happens every day.

Yeah, but today is always the first day of the rest of your life.

I think the problem is because CRT displays didn’t have pixels so the uniform noise which is static was not only uniformely spread in distribution and intensity (i.e. greyscale level) but also had “dots” of all sizes.

Also another possible thing that’s off is the speed at which the noise changes: was it the 25fps refresh rate of a CRT monitor, related to that rate but not necessarily at that rate or did the noise itself had more persistent and less persistent parts?

The noise is basically the product of radio waves at all frequencies with various intensities (though all low) with only the ones that could pass the bandpass filter of the TV tuner coming through (and being boosted up in intensitity by automatic gain control) and being painted along a phosphorous screen (hence no pixels) as the beam draw line by line the screen 25 times per second so to get that effect right you probably have to simulate it mathematically from a starting point of random radio noise and it can’t be going through things with pixels (such as 3D textures) to be shown and probably requires some kind of procedural shader.

If government is actually the top power on the land with oversight over and the power to rule over everything, then the power of voters which choses the people who lead said government controls the top power on the land, which is what’s known as Democracy (even when imperfect).

However if government ties its own hands so that it doesn’t really oversee or rule over the domains were Money has the most power, then it’s not the top power on the land anymore - Money is - and the votes of people do not control the highest power on the land anymore, they only control a secondary power, so what you have in not Democracy anymore, it’s Oligarchy - Money is not democratic since doesn’t have any “one person one vote” rule and instead some have billions of times more power than others.

“Small government” is really just a slogan for a government which has had its hands tied by reducing its funding so that it’s unable to oversee, much less rule over, the areas where Money dominates, especially when it comes to facing the wealthiest people and companies. Mind you this only works if the other elements of Democracy are kept, so Money still wants a Judiciary and Law Enforcement independent of Government to uphold their ownership of things and stop the plebes from taking their shit, just a government weakenned in all other areas and unable to fight Money in the Courts.

Why waste time and fuel going all the way to the location of a black hole (not to mention that all the radiation near it isn’t going to be good for the ship) plust the delta-V to reduce their speed until they actually are not in orbit anymore and fall down into it?

Best just jettison them out of the airlock without a suit in the middle of nowhere.

By the way, the picture illustrating the post isn’t actually displaying the real thing - the noise in it is too squarish and has no grey tones.

Recently I’ve been playing Airline Tycoon Deluxe, Sims 3, Battle Brothers, Kerbal Space Program and Prey.

I think the newest is Prey, from 2018.

Airline Tycoon Deluxe is from 1998 and still fun (at the beginning, eventually you just make tons of money, use it to do more of the same to make even more money and it stops being fun). It helps that it’s a 2D game and the fun is in the management mechanics rather than related to anything visual.

By the way, they all run on Linux, though I had to literally pirate the Sims 3 to get it to work even though I own the game.

In my experience, how many people vote tactically massivelly depends on the voting system and whether it’s a presidential system or not.

The kind of utilitarian votes that sees one vote for somebody one does not like is not quite an Americanism because it doesn’t happen only in the US (for example, the UK, even though it doesn’t have a Presidential system, has a lot of tactical vote because they use First Past The Post for Parliament so each parliamentary seat is like a mini-presidential election where thare can only be one winner), but it’s not really common in other countries.

As I said, I was involved in Politics in two countries, including canvassing and leafletting, and from talking to people (as well as observing how my family, friends and party colleagues did their “politics”) voting it’s far more often an affair of the hearth than of the head, starting by how people chose which politicians to trust given that they all promise nice things to them.

The cold and rational pondering about who to vote is not actually that widespread and many of those who try are still being swayed by emotional factors (for example, via who they chose to trust and how much) and people tend instead to vote on who they like and trust (or dislike and distrust all of them hence refuse to vote).

Further, even the cold and rational pondering is often not that rational because when it comes to such complex subjects with such a high level of uncertainty and misinformation, most of what one choses to believe as informations and one’s own most favored forecast, is chosen based on less that scientific proof. (There is so much misinformation, disinformation and outright lying that chosing not to chose - i.e. not to vote - might be the most rational option of all).

What I’ve learned from decades of trying to go at things in a rational way is that we can never be fully Objective so it’s a good idea to be aware of and keep track of the Subjective elements in one’s decision making. Sure, it’s valid to try, just don’t decieve yourself that you have a perfectly logical decision making process and that everybody should be reaching the same conclusions as you.

From were I stand, your idea that you have a valid tactical approach and that it THE superior approach without question is just you misleading yourself about the nature of your information gathering and your thinking processes, hence you passing judgment on others for not going through the same obstacle course you do to end up making a decision which was de facto contaminated by subjective elements such as your choice of what information to trust and what forecasts you judged more likely, is like the blind criticing others for not seeing.

You really are not standing on top the moral high ground you think you’re standing on.

Well, the US turning into a banana republic will at least solve the problem for bananas.

Not just me. This is common in other countries. People most definitely do not treat their vote as an endorsement. You can believe me or not or say I am bad, but this is a matter of fact.

Being from an “other” country, having lived in another 3 of said “other” countries, an even having been involved in politics in 2 of them, what you wrote is complete total bullshit.

Plenty of people do indeed have an utilitarian view of their vote, but lots of people, maybe even most, treat their vote as an endorsement.

In fact from my own experience in various countries the utilitarian view is more common in countries with less Democratic voting systems with few actually electable choices, similar to the US (so, for example, Britain) whilst the endorsement view is more common in countries with highly Democratic voting systems with lots of choices (such as The Netherlands, which has Proportional Vote).

I’m sorry but whilst you having an utilitarian posture is perfectly valid, your idea that it’s the only valid posture and other people don’t have different postures is complete total mindless self-centred bollocks.

That’s because the “all star team of designers and engineers” spent 80% of their time in meetings to keep management up to date with the progress of the project, listen to yet another wild ass idea from marketing and because they adopted a new and fashionable Software Development Processes without understanding the principles behind it so have a daily 1h standup.

I think the first part of your post kinda starts to answer what you quoted from me below it.

Love for your country is an emotion, so it’s not rational or logic.

It is however something one gets from society because nobody is born with love for one’s country nor naturally grow it by themselves without outside contact, whilst most people naturally grow love for their parents, brothers and sisters (or are born with it?) as well as love (in the broader sense) for some of the people you know well (i.e. good friends and in a different sense romantic partners).

Mind you, love (again in the broader sense) for a group one belongs to (for example one’s sports team) is natural for most people, often to the point of being tribalism.

Anyways, the point being that countries are artificial, societal constructs, so that’s the first part of “love for your country” being artificial and whilst the general cognitive mechanisms to learn to “love” a group is natural, for it to be for the very specific group which is a country, requires that you’re somehow influenced from the outside towards it, if only by constant exposure to talk about “our country”, so that too can be artificially pushed (maybe it might happen naturally from mere exposure and without a “push”, though from what I’ve observed having lived in a couple of countries, the levels of Nationalism and Patriotism in a country seem to be positively correlated to how much the media and politicians talk about “the country” which for me indicates that for most people such love it’s pushed on them).

Sometimes a point is well made even if I disagree with it, the conclusion in it or disagree with the path it suggests whilst agreeing with the objectives.

It’s like how in Politics in better times (or less adversarial countries) one might respect a political oponent whilst disagreeing with them.

There’s also a trait in some cultures were people tend to try and poke holes on other people’s ideas and point out the bits they find incorrect, not because they’re against it, in disagreement with it or to put down that other person, but to try and help improve that idea even further - in other words, genuine constructive criticism. A downvote isn’t constructive, and sometimes people deserve an upvote for trying or for how far they got, even if the end result could be better.

But why would the boundaries of your “home” be as big as a country?

Sure, being proud of yourself makes sense, and of your family and close friends and of the things were you or they have a strong influence over like their homes and what they do which in some cases means their jobs.

However being proud of something were you and those you hold dearest are but a tiny, tiny fraction with pretty much zero influence is not at all the same thing, especially if most of the great things about it are the product of the works of people long dead.

My point being that pride in one’s country is an artificial thing which you’ve been pushed into having from the outside and as such is a prime vector to manipulate you (and all it takes is to listen to politicians harp about the greatness of one’s country to see that it is indeed being used for that by some), not something natural like pride for you and those close to you and their deeds.

I wouldn’t be surprised if my words above feel wrong, but under a cold logical analysis, do they come out as wrong?

In all fairness it’s only an assumption of those who confused Nationalism with Patriotism.

Patriotism (what can I do for my country) fits naturally with Leftwing principles (such as “The greatest good for the greatest number”) whilst Nationalism (what can I get from being born were I was born) fits naturally with Rightwing principles (such as “What’s in it for me?”)

I don’t think a “Putin link” is necessary to build a justification.

It’s enough that Musk is a bilionaire controlling the platform and intefering in it: that thing is not a fair platform of communication, it’s algorithimically shaped to make it a Propaganda vehicle and there’s no point in frequenting a place whose function is to make you think and do what others want you to think and do.

This desperate attempt at a finding a “Russia excuse” is a massive Americanism reminiscent of McCarthism and generally boils doing directly or indirectly a self-serving excuse from politicians from “moderate” parties who have spent the last 2 or 3 decades serving interests other than those of their voters and who now are reaping the natural results of that, and they want to blame anybody else but themselves. When the rationale “by an amazing coincidence” entirelly absolves the people putting it forward and doesn’t come with strong proof, it’s bullshit until further evidence for it emerges. We saw a lot of that shit parroted by Democrat tribalists here in Lemmy right after their loss in the Presidential Elections in the US - the fault was from everybody but they themselves.

I don’t really know how much Russia interferes with Twitter or with the various elections the West (I’m pretty sure they at least try, but there are so many interested in making it seem huge and shifting all the blame to it, that what we common humans with no access to intelligence brefings hear about it is too thick with propaganda to be trusted), but then again the same goes for Israel and other countries and even individuals with enough means to pay for it (or ownership of media vehicles) who have an interest in shaping the outcomes, especially multi-millionaires and billionares - remember the massive role of Cambridge Analitica in Brexit, and they were paid not by Russia but by wealthy Americans.

What I’m saying is that ultimatelly it’s the being a Propaganda outlet that matters and the “whose propaganda” is irrelevant: none of those actors are doing their manipulative “opinion forming” for my best interests and their chosing to use such techniques tells me that they see other human beings as nothing more than puppets on their strings, so they’re not the kind of people one can trust in any way form or shape.

Personally I droped Twitter following the whole Brexit thing and well before Musk, though the latter did made me actually delete my account rather than just leave it there unused.

I don’t think there is any valid excuse to force somebody to “come out of the closet” against their will, even hypocrisy. It’s their choice to come out, not anybody else’s.

I would expect that gay men, given the massive prosecution that they’ve been subject to in the past (and still are in many countries nowadays), would share that feeling, but maybe it’s because I’m from a generation that grew up at a time when homophobia was absolutely normal and later lived in places which weren’t like that at all were I’ve met gay men who had left their own countries in order to be able to be with the people they loved, and were I figured out just how unfair and casually nasty I had been in the years before.

Doing this kind of thing thinking you’re holding a high moral ground because the other person is in some way immoral is exactly the kind of thinking extreme religious types have when they go after, amongst others, homosexuals.

As much as I dislike conservatives, I dislike even more doing this shit to somebody and the kind of person who would do so.

I’ve done a lot of posts critical of the posture and actions of the Democrat Party and their whole “If you don’t vote you’re voting Trump” propaganda (which are right there in my post history with lots of for and against votes), but as I see it the point being made by this tweet is different.

I don’t read this tweet as being about people who didn’t vote at all because the present day Democrat party, Democrat Candidate and Democrat President’s actions didn’t appeal to them (which is what seems to be responsible for the Democrat loss), I think it’s about people who actually explicitly voted Trump (so, none of that “implictly voting Trump if you don’t vote” bollocks but actually putting their vote on Trump)

And I absolutelly agree with this tweet: that man is a complete total worm - in everything from what he’s done to what he says and even his body language - and on top of that was offering scapegoating and hate as policies.

I can get it that some people couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the Genocidal ethno-Fascist supporting, pro-Oligarchy hard-right Neoliberal, slimy snakesoil salesman liar Democrats, but anybody actually voting Trump is not simply distrusting of or dissapointed with the modern day Democrat Party, they’re active supporters of an even broader and deeper kind of nastiness.

I’m truly, totally, completely shocked … that Windows is still being used on the server side.

The point is that willingness to vote, dislike of Trump, the strenght of ones principle, even political awareness and other similar things are scales, not just absolutes.

Some people will always vote, some never, others can be convinced or convince themselves with different levels of inducement (be it fear or enthusiasm).

Ditto for dislike of Trump - people are all over from love him to hate him and everything in between.

As for principles, well, some people are inflexible no mater what, most are somewhere in the middle being capable of breaking certain principles in certain conditions and other have a Groucho Marx take on them (“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, well, I have others.”)

And ditto for political awareness: just because all you see and hear is the very politically aware types talking about politics because they’re loudly political, doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot people who think, for example, that “it’s all a show and my vote makes no difference so why should I care?”

Just because you, being at a specific point of those various scales, are very politically aware and could easily be cowed by fear of Trump whom (I assume) you detest to vote Democrat even if they were actively going against your principles (assuming one of them is “people shouldn’t be killed due to their race”), doesn’t mean that many others at different points of those scales ended up not voting for Harris when they could otherwise have voted Democrat if it wasn’t for her making choices that went against their strongly held principles or her campaign strategy of fear rather than hope didn’t work on them because they have mixed feelings about Trump so don’t fear him or think their “my vote makes no difference - they’re all bullshitters who don’t do what they say” so don’t see the point in voting for the other guys because Trump is Bad.

Harris’ actions and campaign strategy did capture the votes of people like you even if you had to hold your nose (which they couldn’t care less about) to vote Harris, but those choices of them stopped from voting Harris plenty of people who sit elsewhere in these scales and would otherwise vote Democrat.

Clealy had she chosen differently she would’ve captured the votes of people not quite at your end of those various scales but by all indications the positions she assumed and campaign strategy moved the peak appeal points in those various scales in such away that it dropped a lot more votes (mainly on the Left, Highly Principled and Distrusting of Politics sides) than the ones it gained from appealing to the other side (mainly Rightwing, Party fanatics and unprincipled or even supporting of the Israeli Genocide).

The Democrat loss is not the fault of voters for being who they are, it’s the fault of the Democrats for chosing a strategy of using the fear of Trump to retain votes whilst breaking some pretty strong principles of many people with their support for mass murderers of children, and not fixing certain things during the years they were in power and then last minute announcing measures for it (which is really not going to convince the people more distrusting of politicians to go out and vote).