>Democracy does exactly that - it gives everyone the same vote, regardless what minority they come from. Therefore, it protects any minority for maximum possible extent.
From my reading, doesn't this say nothing? "democracy protects minorities as much as democracies could ever protect minorities."
>the majority is emergent
How does "emergence" affect the possibility of tyranny?
>it violates the basic democratic rule, "every person should get the same power in politics"
So maybe the takeaway here is that pure democracy is insufficient? The original point was that "Political systems should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority."
>Democracy is defined by the end result (same access to power), not the procedure (voting).
Isn't this just semantics?
>It's true that even without stripping other voter's rights, minorities can still be persecuted. But it is a cultural issue, which won't be resolved by formal constitutional framework.
Isn't "stripping other voter's rights" a loaded way to put it? Freedom to vote doesn't necessarily have to mean freedom to persecute--freedoms generally end at the boundary where they begin trampling other freedoms. Also, in which situations "It is a cultural issue"? What does that imply? Does DemocracyOS fix cultural issues?
>In fact, historically, it very often were elites (that you may think are the solution) who participated or even organized these persecutions.
Did the parent suggest a return to oligarchy? Do current elites participate in persecutions?
>For example, in the U.S., there is a large minority of people in prison who are not protected by democracy, because they don't have voting rights.
How will people in prison obtain fair representation under DemocracyOS?
>This can possibly protect a minority, but it can also delay progress in helping minority. The minority that needs to be overruled in super-majority voting can keep the status quo longer than desired by most, and that's unfair too.
So the solution is to never protect minorities in the first place?
>We don't know what the future morality will be; it may be different in positive, not negative, fashion compared to today's morality. We could perhaps say, though, that the future society will be more happy with their own morality than ours (because they can compare the two, we cannot); therefore, it should be possible for them not be too conservative and implement it.
Yes, political systems should enable the implementation of policies. This says nothing about the merits of different political systems.
No, it's similar to pareto optimality. Democracy protects every possible minority equally. It won't give any minority an inch more rights so they could tyrannize the majority.
> How does "emergence" affect the possibility of tyranny?
A lot, because of human empathy. Why would you vote for a tyranny of relatively small group of people? Most people can see that one step ahead and know that they are the next. Also, in more direct democracies, people vote more often and have different views on issues, so they are minority and majority at the same time. This influences their willingness to compromise.
> So maybe the takeaway here is that pure democracy is insufficient?
It is insufficient, but not in the general sense "because of tyranny of the majority". Democracy doesn't try to solve specific cultural issues, it's a decision making mechanism. If your objection is just a general "tyranny of the majority", then I doubt there is anything better (because you have to start somewhere, and democracy gives everyone the same power).
> Isn't this just semantics?
No. There are different methods how to have same access to power. All of them can be considered democratic, although each has advantages and disadvantages. Also, to prevent Russell-style paradoxes, you cannot decide democratically whether or not you want to abandon (or establish) democracy. You can however decide that with a vote.
> Freedom to vote doesn't necessarily have to mean freedom to persecute--freedoms generally end at the boundary where they begin trampling other freedoms.
I think you misunderstand the sentence - I meant that people that are being persecuted can still have voting rights. Although historically, I would say any group with voting rights was being persecuted much less than without.
> Also, in which situations "It is a cultural issue"?
What I mean is that it's not just legal framework that causes oppression, people's beliefs cause oppression. The laws are, and always will be, reflection of those beliefs. If you don't like that someone is being persecuted, you can't just change the law, you have to change the culture.
> Do current elites participate in persecutions?
Depends on who you ask, what your specific persecution you have in mind. But in most cases it's just sitting by idly, whether or not it's participation again depends on your view.
> How will people in prison obtain fair representation under DemocracyOS?
I wasn't addressing DemocracyOS specifically, but in my country (Czech Republic), we have provisions for prisoners to vote if they want to. So in our country they have fairer representation than in the U.S. (at least some states).
> So the solution is to never protect minorities in the first place?
I am not sure what "protections" you have in mind. As I already explained, it's hard to conceive that e.g. Saudi Arabian elites would decide to protect women minority. It's a matter of culture and you cannot rely on any elite (even appointed one) to do that. Society as a whole has to believe that's a good value.
And as far as general protections go, I can't imagine anything better than democracy, which just gives everyone same rights. Any other solution will by definition have to give someone more say, and this person or group will be more fallible and can cause more oppression themselves.
While I dislike programming in PHP (the syntax is ugly mostly), and I like Python and JS, I don't think getting away from PHP is a solution and the solution. PHP is not the problem in this situation. It's the people who is working there with OP.
This is what a lot of it is about, balance. When we write open source software, we don't usually have costs, time isn't a factor, we aren't being rushed by a long todo list, so we can invest in the code. In business, we don't always have this luxury.
I'm writing a middlebrow (lowbrow, really) dismissal because this actually deserves it. This is... shamelessly phony. "Your laptop is now a hologram"?[1] Do I have to 3D scan my laptop in? Are they going to mind-upload my Intel CPU to the cloud while they're at it?
Your use-case for AR is a ghostly 5FPS replica of my laptop or phone that I can vaguely gesture at? Tracing in the air to lathe a rocket hull will bring me closer to the world? Meta has access to non-rendered pages of app icons inside the iOS sandbox? "ROCKET COMPLETED"? "500+ Meta Applications in development"?
They say this is real footage, and have a big red "BUY NOW" button. What target audience is this supposed to convince?
Is that pocket computer required? If so, seems strange to access your virtual phone through a phone-sized pocket computer. I can appreciate that virtual screens will eventually be a selling point, but not maintaining the idea of a virtual phone and laptop.
Yeah, virtual phone and virtual laptop seem ridiculous when you have an AR headset. There's even a virtual laptop keyboard... how could the glasses possibly detect your typing?
That Oculus demo looks great! See, there's an honest video you can actually believe. Promising for sure.
I believe proprioception is resilient to minor offsets or miscalibration, as I've seen such illusions at science exhibits--false hands that you're tricked into thinking is your own. And the STEM system (absolute body position tracking) apparently is high-precision.
It's more likely that immersion will be broken by perceptible latency.
This _really_ bugs me. It's pretty clear that the UI is simulated footage _maybe_ recorded through some strange projection system, so that they can claim it is real -- but only by a technicality.
It's one thing to promise a delivery date based on a simulated product, that could be passed off as wishful thinking. To claim that something is real footage, under a technicality, is dishonest. It's especially sad, coming from a YC company.
"Your laptop is now a hologram" refers to the fact[1] that you won't need a physical machine (aside from the Intel i5 cpu in your pocket). The keyboard is virtual, and the monitor is virtual. Everything else is physical but it's tiny.
Agreed, it looks ridiculous having the full enclosure of the laptop (or phone) rendered and floating in front of you when you could just have the screen and keys separate from each other and independently movable.
that claim is ridiculous. How do they plan to mirror your smartphone and pc ? Something like VNC maybe, which will at least require a rooted/jailbroken phone. And why a virtual 11 inch form factor ?
Id love to be proven wrong, but as this clearly isn't real footage, lets see what comes out of it.
I have to admit I'm ignorant as to what Java libraries I'm missing out on by not using a JVM language. I hear about this advantage a lot though! What are some examples of good Java libraries that aren't as good in other common languages?
....to name a few. It's probably useful to take some thing that you'll need and look in ecosystem X for it (say... .NET) and then compare what's available there to what's available on the JVM. In my experience, the JVM wins out almost every time when it comes to number of options and maturity of options.
Thank you for linking this. English is a second language to me, and reading that list i found i've been following those rules a lot and have been getting grumpy about people who didn't and made it difficult to understand them. Now i can point those people at that essay.
Right..... So you're saying that your code works? Like, it doesn't crash? That's... awesome...
Buzzword bingo does not add value. It only obscures meaning. Of course your code works. Of course you use existing technologies. That work. In existing code. That you leveraged. Using techniques. And technologies.
He was saying many other people have contributed java libraries his programs can use, so that he doesn't have to hire an expert in HTTP, or computational geometry, or many problem domains that aren't the direct concern of his application, yet are necessary for it to work.
He said it in a compact way. It's a form of compression.
These are only the relatively new additions, and there are really too many to count. I would certainly add the JDK's java.util.concurrent to the list, as well as Netty and the excellent servlet containers (Tomcat, Jetty, JBoss and others).
I think the point is that most of the time when you think "I need something that does x", there is a library for that; whether it is a core library or not. In Lisp I guess you often find something very specific that doesn't quite solve the problem you have.
Having said that, I really liked the Google Guava library, although a good bit of that stuff is working around or solving problems with Java itself.
Guava is fantastic. So many times in the last few years, I've pointed people to Guava in code reviews "hey, this thing you just wrote, Guava already has that."
If you're using another "common" language, you're probably not missing out on anything. The distinction he was making was between Java and a "not common" language, like Common Lisp, for example.
To get back into your account you're provided backup codes that you're supposed to store somewhere safe. Otherwise, if your phone were stolen you'd be out of luck, yes.
From my reading, doesn't this say nothing? "democracy protects minorities as much as democracies could ever protect minorities."
>the majority is emergent
How does "emergence" affect the possibility of tyranny?
>it violates the basic democratic rule, "every person should get the same power in politics"
So maybe the takeaway here is that pure democracy is insufficient? The original point was that "Political systems should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority."
>Democracy is defined by the end result (same access to power), not the procedure (voting).
Isn't this just semantics?
>It's true that even without stripping other voter's rights, minorities can still be persecuted. But it is a cultural issue, which won't be resolved by formal constitutional framework.
Isn't "stripping other voter's rights" a loaded way to put it? Freedom to vote doesn't necessarily have to mean freedom to persecute--freedoms generally end at the boundary where they begin trampling other freedoms. Also, in which situations "It is a cultural issue"? What does that imply? Does DemocracyOS fix cultural issues?
>In fact, historically, it very often were elites (that you may think are the solution) who participated or even organized these persecutions.
Did the parent suggest a return to oligarchy? Do current elites participate in persecutions?
>For example, in the U.S., there is a large minority of people in prison who are not protected by democracy, because they don't have voting rights.
How will people in prison obtain fair representation under DemocracyOS?
>This can possibly protect a minority, but it can also delay progress in helping minority. The minority that needs to be overruled in super-majority voting can keep the status quo longer than desired by most, and that's unfair too.
So the solution is to never protect minorities in the first place?
>We don't know what the future morality will be; it may be different in positive, not negative, fashion compared to today's morality. We could perhaps say, though, that the future society will be more happy with their own morality than ours (because they can compare the two, we cannot); therefore, it should be possible for them not be too conservative and implement it.
Yes, political systems should enable the implementation of policies. This says nothing about the merits of different political systems.