Social affinity and reputation represent winning strategies that have served humans very well since the dawn of time. It shouldn't be surprising that they continue to be extremely effective even (or perhaps especially) in the age of AI.
Exactly this. These systems are supposed to have been built by some of the smartest scientific and engineering minds on the planet, yet they somehow failed (or chose not) to think about second-order effects and what steady-state outcomes their systems will have. That's engineering 101 right there.
That's a small part on why people became more cynical of tech over the decades. At least with the internet there were large efforts to try and nail down security in the early 00's. Imagine if we instead left it devolve into a moderator-less hellscape where every other media post is some goatse style jump scare.
That's what it feels like with AI. But perhaps worse since companies are lobbying to keep the chaos instead of making a board of standards and etiquette.
Ukraine was never a nuclear power any real sense. The USSR's bombs were parked there, and Ukraine merely had physical (but not operational) custody over them after the USSR fell. Ukraine could have kept them to bootstrap a nuclear arms program, but they didn't, so they were never had a nuclear deterrent to give up in the first place.
Nice russian talking point. UA designed developed and maintained most top tier soviet nuclear weapons. The largest nuke plant in USSR was Yuzhmash in Dnepr and largest design bureau again in UA Dnepr KB Yuzhnoe. UA had to help maintain russian nukes after the collapse of USSR cause russia lacked tech. capability.
You know the truth full well, but insist on perpetuating the myth of genius Ukrainians and dumb Russian orcs.
The USSR had a policy of distributing economic development over its entire area instead of concentrating it in one place. Once a high-tech facility was built, it would be staffed by specialists recruited from all over the Soviet Union. They would be offered generous relocation assistance.
Now, I am not saying that Ukrainians are dumb or anything like that. What I am saying is that in a centrally planned economy the location of a project is chosen according to different criteria.
Where did I say russians are dumb? The claim I am disputing is a myth that Ukraine was just a place the nukes were stationed in and they had no capability to manage them. While USSR was often making sub-optimal decisions availability of eng. talent was def a consideration when sites were being chosen. There is a very long list of key Nuke and space related R&D and manufacturing in UA. They are concentrated in exactly 3 places (Dnepr, Kyiv, Kharkiv), so you spiel on distributing does not make much sense.
It could be as simple as "wealthy areas get more county services." There are practical considerations when choosing polling places, like the availability of parking and enough space to accommodate a line, check-in tables, voting booths, and ideally separate entrance and exit doors. Public schools and county rec centers are go-to locations because the county (who administers the election) already owns them and they have the space needed. Churches are great too, but they require having an agreement with a private organization.
There are non-internet ways to do that. States are really the "laboratories of democracy" on that front, with different states having affordances like long early-voting periods and mail-in voting.
However, those are in the context of whatever political system they're in. No level of efficient election design is going to put a dent in the fact that California loves direct-elected downballot offices (e.g., treasurer, controller, insurance commissioner, state judges, local judges, etc.) and referenda, which all result in super long and complicated ballots with 50+ questions each.
My local issue of interest is how my county and state administer elections. I volunteer as a poll worker for nearly every election, with a preference for the "boring" low-turnout contests like state legislative and local board primaries. This experience has given me insight you would never get on national news but lots of people blindly argue about: voter ID requirements, how provisional ballots work, why higher-population counties take longer to report results on election night, what election night "calls" actually mean, entirely mundane failure modes that can slow down the line, etc.
You'd think that for such an important issue like elections you'd get more interest at the local level where regular citizens can actually get involved. But nope. We're always desperate to fill poll worker assigments on non-presidential years, even though those are the best and least stressful opportunities to experience first-hand what it's all about.
In the long run shareholders care about customers though, not the UI. Of course in the short term the stock market has always been about something other than fundamentals, but in the long run shareholders who care about customers tend to do better and most shareholders are in it for the long run - but they never are enough to be powerful today.
reply