|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You could probably make one now. Reliability and adequate functionality not guaranteed. Nah, neural structures are really loving difficult to simulate on a computer. The best we can do with massive supercomputers is to get a rough approximation of a brain of a fly going. And the complexity increases dramatically (superlinearly) with size. E: You might be confusing it with the various "we now have as much computing capacity as an average brain/many brains in a supercomputing cluster" reports. It's not quite the same thing. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Mar 8, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:a sort of binding poll for the age bracket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Nah, neural structures are really loving difficult to simulate on a computer. The best we can do with massive supercomputers is to get a rough approximation of a brain of a fly going. And the complexity increases dramatically (superlinearly) with size. Dawncloack posted:Some interesting ideas being spitballed ITT. That said, since politicians are just image and 1987 was the last time anyone read an electoral manifesto it would be a binding poll of "what pretty face do you want in government?". I would rather vote only on issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I'd like to vote on issues instead of people, but it's unreasonable to expect people to stay on top of a very wide range of issues that may or may not concern them personally, so at least referenda are not the way. Direct democracy doesn't seem like something that's compatible with a general and monolithic state like ours. People should have the chance to vote on things they know and care about, but organizing that would require major out-of-the-box thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Should we process old people into Soylent Green? Since the affected old people would only live a couple of days till processing and the young would have to actually eat them and deal with the gastrointestinal aftereffects, the olds should only get a 1/(100-exp(5)) voting multiplier ....Beep ... Booop The crystal embedded in your hand will glow at your voting weight
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Everybody gets one vote, but they have to choose in which year to use it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The solution is to weight votes according to how long the voter is expected to live, divided into age groups to simplify things and ensure anonymity. What about dividing by gender as well? Since women live longer, that should be taken into account as well. What about class? The bourgeoisie has a far higher life expectancy, so their vote should be worth more. What about capital ownership? After all, people who own the means of production are the ones who create the most growth, so their vote should be worth more as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Weighting peoples votes according to their average life expectancy sounds like a great idea. Old people, the sick, the fat, poors (who smoke more), worthless drug addicts etc. All people who have shorter lives as well. Should old people be weighted even less when they have no kids ? Presumably they'd care even less for the future. unpacked robinhood fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
uncop posted:I'd like to vote on issues instead of people, but it's unreasonable to expect people to stay on top of a very wide range of issues that may or may not concern them personally, so at least referenda are not the way. Direct democracy doesn't seem like something that's compatible with a general and monolithic state like ours. I'm all for direct democracy and I think it would be the best political system, the time is right and the technology that would allow for constant democratic participation is already here, but the biggest problems would be the logistics involved, and more importantly the people. It's easy for 300+ overpaid professional politicians with assistants but in a direct democracy it would be an enormous bureaucratic clusterfuck at first; citizens would have to be organized and be involved constantly. It would also require years of political education, and only the people born into such a system would actually be able to fully utilize the political tools at their disposal. The only way I can see this work is by having all citizens spend hours every day debating, drafting, discussing etc locally, with civil servants taking care of the bureaucratic side of things on a national level. But it's not hard to see the problems that would cause: people would have to spend less time at work (but share it in the process,) be more considerate of others (good luck with that,) educate themselves on the issues they wish to tackle, people who can't voice their opinion for a reason or another (handicap, old age) should be fairly represented etc. It would take at least a generation to get a functional direct democracy, much less a fully realized one, and I have no idea how foreign relations would work if other countries kept their respective political systems. It's sad that we very rarely hear anyone defending this system, or debating how it would work. I started hearing debates about it during the Nuit Debout last year, but that's about it since the media and people online seemed much more inclined to make fun of them for being radical left-wing utopians than to report on what was being said and debated. Maybe because that would have enabled a democratic alternative, or because believing that other systems might work makes you an idiot. I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Direct democracy is an ideal, but it isn't flawless. Very specifically, the issue of non-expertise is something representative democracy very much directly addresses: Your average citizen won't really know everything they need to know to make an informed decision. In fact, they don't want to know everything they need to know about everything they'd need to know it for. That takes time and energy, and people want to be free to spend those where they want to. So in representative democracy they, in theory, delegate their decision-making power to people they trust to either know what they need to know themselves, or to spend the time to learn what they need to know. That's the representative democracy's ideal. It's important to understand that the ideal will not correspond perfectly to what you'll get in practice. Reality is flawed, and as immaculate as that burger looks in the picture at the fast food restaurant, what you'll get in your hands won't look as good. That said, I do think our representative democracy could use more referenda to keep its citizens more deeply politically engaged. The political crisis that's been felt since the '08 crash has been, partly, a result of an electorate that's been de-energised over the previous 2-3 decades suddenly finding itself in a position where it gives a poo poo. A representative democracy that rests in its laurels definitely doesn't help combat the growth of that complacency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
It would just replace pandering to the olds by pandering to the youth.pandering to the Youngs is what gaves us 5 star, new coke and fight Song.gently caress that .
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:What about dividing by gender as well? Since women live longer, that should be taken into account as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Direct democracy is an ideal, but it isn't flawless. Very specifically, the issue of non-expertise is something representative democracy very much directly addresses: Your average citizen won't really know everything they need to know to make an informed decision. In fact, they don't want to know everything they need to know about everything they'd need to know it for. That takes time and energy, and people want to be free to spend those where they want to. So in representative democracy they, in theory, delegate their decision-making power to people they trust to either know what they need to know themselves, or to spend the time to learn what they need to know. That's the representative democracy's ideal. It's important to understand that the ideal will not correspond perfectly to what you'll get in practice. Reality is flawed, and as immaculate as that burger looks in the picture at the fast food restaurant, what you'll get in your hands won't look as good. A good post. I consider myself an anti-establishment voter. My main issue today with our representative democracy is that the vast vast majority of MP's are not better informed about an issue than many civilians. Many career politicians never worked in a company or at the lower end of the labor market. The number of representatives with degrees in economics or finance is dropping, let alone the complete absence of engineers or people with advanced degrees in the hard sciences. I therefore don't have much trust in the representatives learning about what they need in order to make "good" decisions. Instead it's just do what the lobbyist say, or follow 100-year old party doctrine. In my opinion, referenda are a solid mechanic for the representatives to get regular feedback on the wishes of the people, and the need to explain unpopular decisions. Sadly, I don't think our representatives have an interest in that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Yeah the ideal that elected representatives would be better informed is mostly wishful thinking. The real difference is that they have public servants to make detailed analyses for them so they just need to read. I think this is actually good for direct democracy, because no one can seriously claim that only a political class is suited to making informed decisions. But the people making decisions still have to be kept informed, and that's a huge logistical challenge without full-time politicians. However, referenda as implemented right now seem like a system designed to bring out the worst in people and erode our trust in a more democratic democracy. Once in a blue moon, you have a huge media spectacle about a question that's so big that most people can't be well informed on it. The voices in the media drown out actual facts with emotional and tribal bullshit. And in the end people don't vote on the thing they're nominally voting on, they vote on whether they trust the people that want the thing they're voting on. It's a circus. I feel like the lack of respect for the common people as decision-makers is actually making the people not respect the responsibility of making decisions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
uncop posted:Yeah the ideal that elected representatives would be better informed is mostly wishful thinking. The real difference is that they have public servants to make detailed analyses for them so they just need to read. I think this is actually good for direct democracy, because no one can seriously claim that only a political class is suited to making informed decisions. But the people making decisions still have to be kept informed, and that's a huge logistical challenge without full-time politicians. Referenda are just worthless period. If they have 2 options they boil down complex issues into yes/no positions. If they have more than 2 options it's easy to skew the options just by wording them in a leading manner. Referenda does have a place at the local level of politics where you can have questions which everyone involved is heavily vested in, but with national questions it can't avoid being a shitshow because a majority of your electorate just has no idea what the choice is even about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Referenda are just worthless period. If they have 2 options they boil down complex issues into yes/no positions. If they have more than 2 options it's easy to skew the options just by wording them in a leading manner. Referenda does have a place at the local level of politics where you can have questions which everyone involved is heavily vested in, but with national questions it can't avoid being a shitshow because a majority of your electorate just has no idea what the choice is even about. I like the Swiss version where you can prohibit annoying people from becoming Swiss nationals by local referendums. Nota bene: There are obvious ways this can be misused of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Grow up. His post is perfectly grown up, unlike yours which is as drenched in the naivete of youth as a good croissant is in butter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 10:35
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You're looking at things in a world where politicians have pandered to the older established segments of the population for decades. Yes, it would take some time to adjust, but politicians caring more for the younger generations might actually work to improve the economic prospects that have made these generations distrustful of democracy. As for Brexit, it's merely a really clear example of old people getting to vote for something that they'll feel for a decade at most, while scuppering the hopes and dreams of the young. If the impact of the Brexit vote would have been so much worse for the "young" whose hopes and dreams were scuppered according to your statement, how do you explain this graph, which clearly shows that the young did not even vote, even though their hopes and dreams were threatened?  If you want to reform the election law, the only good way to do it would weigh each vote by the taxes paid by the respective voter, so that people who contribute more to the state have more of a say, comparable to the election law used in Prussia from 1848-1918, but with today's technology it could be more gradual than just 3 classes.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha holy poo poo.GaussianCopula posted:If you want to reform the election law, the only good way to do it would weigh each vote by the taxes paid by the respective voter, so that people who contribute more to the state have more of a say, comparable to the election law used in Prussia from 1848-1918, but with today's technology it could be more gradual than just 3 classes. All these vote weight ideas are bad, but yours is literally worse than 10 hitlers man, what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Truga posted:hahahahahahahahahahahahaha holy poo poo. Just browse certain right-wing US sites, there are a lot of people who thought the early US election model where only landowners can vote was such a good idea. It's "No Representation without Taxation" for these fucks, I'm not surprised at all that GaussianCopula is a fan of a similar system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
Personally I don't think you need to restrict who gets to vote, but restrictions on who gets to run for office would be a pretty good idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 11:16
|
|
OperaMouse posted:I consider myself an anti-establishment voter. My main issue today with our representative democracy is that the vast vast majority of MP's are not better informed about an issue than many civilians. Many career politicians never worked in a company or at the lower end of the labor market. The number of representatives with degrees in economics or finance is dropping, let alone the complete absence of engineers or people with advanced degrees in the hard sciences. I fully agree with this sentiment, it's a shame that some people in Germany prefer a former alcoholic high school dropout over a physicists with a PHD, but that's the reality we live in, where populism trumps qualification.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
The only thing you should ever hold referenda on is moral issues; the death penalty, abortion, stuff like that. Because those are real issues that people can grapple with by themselves and come up with and answer they believe in. Anything purely political, heinously complex (re: Brexit or the Ukraine association treaty) or to do with finances should not ever be put to a referendum. Edit; LOL this is why I have GC on ignore - how is it possible that one human is that loving dumb and terrible? Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:If you want to reform the election law, the only good way to do it would weigh each vote by the taxes paid by the respective voter, so that people who contribute more to the state have more of a say, comparable to the election law used in Prussia from 1848-1918, but with today's technology it could be more gradual than just 3 classes. this is worst god drat thing i have ever read in my entire life holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:The only thing you should ever hold referenda on is moral issues; the death penalty, abortion, stuff like that. holy crap no, that's a terrible idea, and not just because it might lead to outcomes you might not like. Abortion is as much a political issue as it is a moral one, because it is about men's control over women's bodies. No anti-abortion campaigner has ever proposed the measures which actually reduce the abortion rate, namely proper sex education and free provision of contraceptives, and neither do they ever seem to care about policies that actually make having the child a more feasible option. And if you trust any justice system to apply the death penalty in a fair and nonbiased and non-racist way, you're entirely too optimistic about human society and nature. Referenda about these issues give society entirely too many opportunities to trample on individual and minority rights. We as a society are just as capable of being stupid about the death penalty as we are about Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:The only thing you should ever hold referenda on is moral issues; the death penalty, abortion, stuff like that. Because those are real issues that people can grapple with by themselves and come up with and answer they believe in. You can very much make the case that abortion and death penalty shouldn't be put up for referendums precisely because of the extreme manner it often gets moralized. Basically don't have referendums, they all bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:If you want to reform the election law, the only good way to do it would weigh each vote by the taxes paid by the respective voter, so that people who contribute more to the state have more of a say, comparable to the election law used in Prussia from 1848-1918, but with today's technology it could be more gradual than just 3 classes. Oh yes, because the top 1% in the UK needs to have 27% of the vote because they're not powerful enough already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Have referendums for poo poo like the national bird, flag design, etc. You might end up with dickbutt for your coat of arms, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for giving your braindead masses some direct democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/839816824275480578 https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/839816180055568384 e: also, PS reformers/moderates/centrists are organising to make a statement backing Macron: https://twitter.com/mwesfreid/status/839774146120777728 LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:e: also, PS reformers/moderates/centrists are organising to make a statement backing Macron:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
The neo-liberal wing of the modern left in Europe really are such horrible people. Ditching their own party candidate because hes actually vaguely left-wing... Maybe being optimistic once the PS, Labour etc divide and die new actual left wing parties may rise from their ashes. But more realistically if events to date are any guide their voters will probably just turn to populist fanatics 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
I really hope all these guys get kicked out of the PS, allowing it to once again be a socialist party. I don't mean them leaving the party on their own; I mean them getting kicked out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Unironically a good idea. If there have to be nukes in Europe, they should protect the whole continent and be infrastructure funded by the whole continent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I really hope all these guys get kicked out of the PS, allowing it to once again be a socialist party. I would love for this to happen, if only because it would obliterate Mélenchon's argument that he can't ally with the PS because of their neo-liberal wing. Kick these sellouts and rally the left around the FI, Greens and PS.  (it's not gonna happen but I'm free to dream)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I expect development of the EuroBomb to be just as smooth and painless as the EuroFighter. France can cough up a couple more bombs for all of us, if we pay for them and keep unity of command. no biggie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I expect development of the EuroBomb to be just as smooth and painless as the EuroFighter. So kind of awkward and overpriced, but still much better value for money than the US alternative?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:44
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The Eurofighter is a nice cute plane irl :3
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:The Eurofighter is a nice cute plane irl :3
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
you can buy those off hobby king
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
blowfish posted:So kind of awkward and overpriced, but still much better value for money than the US alternative? Woah, did you miss that Trump shaved $600B off the pricetag!? Now they are very good uses of money
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:55
|
|
