I'm having the same issue with my pixel 8 (along with the screen randomly turning green out of nowhere, so I have to "ground" the display to get it to work again)
In general the 8 feels a lot more cheaply made than the 6
I agree that the android UX is better than apple (or at least, it makes more sense to me). But I'd consider moving to iphone for build quality alone
The US is just one giant corporate playground that companies force people to move to for the regulatory climate. It isn't meant for raising a family. People will either be transplants or neo-feudal serfs working in kitchens. The whole thing will turn into the Bay Area
People will get to choose between a vibes-based "equity" ideology where achievement is disregarded or the republican woodchipper of austerity. Either thing leads to the same outcome: everything becomes stupider and shittier. The whole system is moving of its own accord towards enshittification. People should just get the grieving over with and leave
> An alternative interpretation, which we advance in this analysis, is that populism enables the expression (and execution) of authoritarian impulses within a democratic system. If this interpretation holds, then merely addressing economic inequalities or enhancing political representation through mechanisms such as referendums will be insufficient to mitigate underlying authoritarian impulses. Governments will need to proactively reinforce existing democratic safeguards before populist actors assume power.
I.e. the solution to democracy is getting rid of democracy. More doublethink I guess
> What if the choice of the majority of the people is anti-democratic?
Isn't the majority choice a priori democratic?
Unless you're saying the majority is saying "let's throw away voting and go back to monarchy"... which they aren't, systemic change on that level is usually a highly niche opinion
"which they aren't" ... OK, you seem oddly confused about what's actually being discussed.
Let me help: here's a passage from the paper itself "On one hand, some scholars argue that populism is inherently illiberal [...]. Populist movements embrace majoritarian politics and seek to suppress opposition, often through a charismatic strongman who pledges to dismantle institutional constraints in the name of executing the people’s will. Under this interpretation, populism becomes synonymous with authoritarianism."
So while you clearly don't perceive populism as anti-democratic ... because you're immune to "doublethink", or something — others, including some of the people actually cited in the paper clearly do. Also, famously: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/abs/po...
And oh BTW, no. The majority choice is not automatically a priori democratic, unless by "democratic" you mean the literal Greek etymology of the word and not its actual meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
> unless by "democratic" you mean the literal Greek etymology of the word
So like, what it says in the dictionary? As in, I'm using the word as it's actually defined?
Is conveniently redefining words to fit your argument supposed to not confuse people?
Here's what it sounds like to an idiot off the street like me:
> "democracy good"
> "letting voters actually get what they want bad"
>"democracy = letting voters actually get what they want"
> a bunch of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics... let's wave a magic wand here, "democracy = <something completely different that you need to read a couple hundred pages of Karl Popper to understand. The public need not have an opinion here, they just need to smile and nod>"
If you mean to say that democracy (i.e. the public getting what they want via electoral process) is a flawed idea, just say it. It just sounds like you're going through a bunch of bs and vague gesturing to Karl Popper to avoid saying that
> Here's what it sounds like to an idiot off the street like me
Idiots on the streets are usually one of the main weaknesses of democracy.
The idiots under a democratic society should be seen as what they are: a threat which the only way to counteract is through education, including civics. The problem with our current modern democracies is we haven't found a way to treat the threat as what it is, and focus on solving the core issue: idiocy.
We try, education of societies in general is better than any point before in history but still lacking a lot, ergo your comment.
Are we now going to disregard anything that can't be properly defined in 10 words or less because otherwise it just sounds funny to "idiots off the streets"? I guess the two paragraphs on wikipedia are too elitist for the idiocracy yall seem to yearn for.
Imagine those idiot doctors going through all those years of medical school instead of just buying a dictionary. LMAO what a bunch of losers.
Nice try building ttat straw man, but if your choice is an anti-democratic one—as is often the case with populists (read the fxcking paper)—then by definition you’re dismantling democracy, not practicing it. Deal with it.
> All this to say I’m awfully scared now of the risk of my interactions with women being used in the future as a false narrative to cancel me.
Maybe just keep a war chest and slam them with a bunch of lawsuits if they get annoying. Or at least, that's how the professional bullshitters like Trump solve this problem
I'm convinced there's no way around this mob-like behavior. So much of our standing in society depends on things where there is no due process
The only way around this is to just keep stuff compartmentalized (work vs non-work, social group x vs social group y, relationships vs family, etc)
Or else certain kinds of people will form these "bullshit networks" that are sort of like mafias. Then they use the leverage that comes from it to bully other people around. It's the same network that amplifies a cancellation attempt
I've seen this play out in offices, friend groups, over extended family, etc. The best way to address it is to spot this kind of person, keep them compartmentalized, and give yourself the ability to walk away at any time as a check on their behavior. Or else there's no real bound on how awful they can be
> Also it is still so surreal to me to see prestigious publications like the New Yorker talking about 4chan
They have to acknowledge the internet, even if it's more plebian in nature, because that's where shit happens now. They aren't on the cutting edge of cultural commentary anymore. It's just yesterday's medium fighting to stay with the times
reply