1.The majority of people are not intelligent. Source is polls on whether there was wide spread election fraud
2. Politicans want money and power. They have no issues lying or manipulating people to get it
3. In a country like Russia the government can counter any information with widespread arrests and fear.
4. In a country with free speech there is little to no recourse.
Meaning that Russia, China, etc can use misinformation against us and we can't do anything. On the other hand we can try the same but they can simply use authoritarian tactics to supress it.
5. Trump has shown that the threshold for lying was set artificially low by past politicians. His success while lying about events that are easily disproven multiple times is evidence for all future politicians to lie.
“The number of people overall who believe the election was fraudulent has hovered around 35% since November 2020, but this percentage has not increased significantly as the claim purports.” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/02/viral-imag...
Which is different than asking if voting fraud changed the outcome and more importantly different than asking which side benefited. Someone who calls targeted overly aggressive culling of voter registrations fraud has something of a point, even if that’s a long way from stuffing ballots or meaningful changes in results.
I don't think taking all political affiliations into account makes sense. Let me use another poll that had a similar outcome of your poll for all political affiliations:
A 2023 poll found that 71% of Republicans believe the election was illegitimate. [1]. The exact question in the poll was "Thinking about the results of the 2020 presidential election, do you think that Joe Biden legitimately won enough votes to win the presidency, or not? Do you think there's been solid evidence of that, or is that your suspicion only?"
All - Note legitimate Solid + suspicious = 38%
Republican - Not legitimate: solid evidence - 41% suspicious only - 30%
1. Democrats or liberals (poll allowed for either) who didn't vote for Trump or dislike him are going to say the election was legitimate regardless of evidence and outcomes of investigations. This is why I only use what Republican voters think (about 2020) as an indicator of public stupidity *
2. This poll was in 2023, after court cases and numerous state investigations/recounts. Therefore saying it's "suspicious" is as stupid as saying there is "solid evidence".
If you have a suspicion a crime occurred, then multiple investigations find nothing or show the evidence your suspicious were based were fake, and you don't change your view that's stupid.
> Which is different than asking if voting fraud changed the outcome...
That's what Trump and many of the key players on his side claimed.
> Someone who calls targeted overly aggressive culling of voter registrations fraud has something of a point..
No, they don't. They are misusing the term "fraud" in an election situation (a.k.a "election fraud) [2]. Voter/Election fraud is clearly defined by the US government [3]. Voter suppression through a legal action isn't fraud. You can claim that it's "wrong" or "immoral" but not fraud.
The difference is clear if you look at something as either an opinion or fact. An opinion is not falsifiable.
"Widespread election fraud is why Trump lost the 2020 election" - This either happened or it didn't. It's not an opinion/judgement. [4]
"Aggressive culling of registrations caused a candidate to win/lose" - Since culling of registrations legally happens [5] whether or not it's aggressive is a judgement because "aggressiveness" is subjective.
> even if that’s a long way
It's not on the same scale because one is a crime. I think I need more to understand why you want to merge different accusations of fraud or suppression when discussing different elections.
[2] Wikipedia's article on Election fraud describes it better.
"Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election manipulation, voter fraud, or vote rigging, involves illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both. It differs from but often goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression. "
[4] You can say "I believe X happened" which is an opinion however this is a judgement that needs a factual base. If the evidence is fake, doesn't exist, or you were lied and you are aware of this, then you're lying about the basis for your opinion which invalidates it (imo)
[5] I'm assuming you meant legal culling
* There's similar high numbers for Democrats talking about Trump's win in 2016 though most polls ask about Russian interference helping him, which is a judgement not a lie since this did happen, but it could also be an indicator. The 2020 situation was just much more obvious because the claim by Trump is of cheating NOT influence. The lie is that Trump was directly involved and to a high degree but blah blah complicated.
> Therefore saying it's "suspicious" is as stupid as saying there is "solid evidence".
Hardly, I find quantum mechanics suspect without having a better option. I’m not saying there’s any kind of conspiracy or anything and sure it fits the experiments we have done. Yet, I suspect most people who actually learn the details have similar reactions it doesn’t fit our experience. Sadly the universe doesn’t care it it seems consistent to us.
There’s a deep cultural divide in the US to the point where people have trouble remembering how close support is for each party. Because politics is so regional it’s easy for each side to overestimate how popular that side is. Imagine living in a county where 80% are voting for one side and almost all roadside posters are supporting one candidate. Suddenly the other side winning just doesn’t fit everyday experience.
When either side wins a huge number of people will find it suspicious, that’s just how our heuristics and pattern matching work. A historian looking back on 2020 and 2024 isn’t going to find the election results odd because wider forces definitely favored the winning side in those elections, but people today don’t have that separation. Thinking there’s widespread and obvious fraud is different.
Corporate personhood exists so that you can be hired by a company instead of a specific person in HR or have a cellphone contract with Verizon instead of a particular sales associate and companies can buy real estate and so on without requiring a whole bunch of extra legal work defining all the ways in which corporations are legally treated like natural persons. That necessarily includes giving corporations some of the same rights and duties as natural persons. But I do think that corporations have been given too many rights which have been interpreted too broadly. The notion that a corporation has a constitutional right to spend however much money it wants to influence politics due to free speech is ridiculous.
I like how all these articles miss the elephant in the room: using a chatbot as an assistant is offering your data, thoughts, insights, and focus of interests to a corporation that's at best neutral and at worse hostile. Moreover, that corporation may also share anything with business partners, governments, and law enforcement institutions with unknown objectives.
As personal websites become less and less frequent, it become easier for governments to disregard them and regulate them out of existence. Expect the barrier to entry for building a website to become so high only corporations can afford it.
For example, HTTPS-only in browsers and CA TLS only connections in HTTP/3 protocol libraries. It's near impossible to host a visitable website without getting permission from a third party corporation every 90 days. These things make sense for corporate/institutional/etc sites but make the barrier to entry, and especially mantainence over time, of personal websites much more difficult. To the point it really does keep people from running personal websites. And it also creates central mechanisms of control for those that do jump through the hoops. LetsEncrypt won't remain benevolent forever as it's popularity grows. Just look at what happened to dot org, and what's happening in the USA in general.
HTTP+HTTPS is a fine solution for personal websites.
On the one hand, yes, certificates are issued by certificate authorities. And this is a critical part of the current web landscape.
But, I'll counterpoint that LetsEncrypt isn't the only ACME provider. Should they behave badly others can step into the gap.
The 90 day thing isn't a barrier. Certificates in general are automated- it's no harder to be HTTPS than HTTP.
Promoting HTTPS and dropping HTTP is ultimately valuable to all sites, because it prevents HTML injection. Given that your reader will be accessing the web via an ISP it prevents that ISP from injecting things into your site.
As an author of my own websites, I'm https only, and I think LE improves the indie web experience. There is a long chain of big companies between my site and my reader (Isp, LE, DNS, browser etc) but HTTPS offers me the best way of making sure the contect I create is the content delivered.
Why is dropping HTTP valuable? CA HTTPS is extremely fragile and will eventually break over even just a few years without mantainence. HTTP sites have no expiration date(s). HTTP+HTTPS is the best of both worlds. Unless your threat model includes targeted MITM attacks and your website requires the execution of javascript code.
I feel the same way about letting a corporation control who can visit your site and when (CA TLS only). I personally tunnel to a VPS for browsing because my ISP, Comcast, will do MITM injections of javascript into HTTP pages. This notably used to break the Steam browser.
So the best solution is HTTP+HTTPS on the server and using HTTPS till it inevitably breaks (for legal, technical, social, or other reason), then the HTTP is there to keep things accessible. I'm not anti-HTTPS. I'm anti-HTTPS-only. And you should be too if you care about human persons over corporate use cases.
>For example, HTTPS-only in browsers and CA TLS only connections in HTTP/3 protocol libraries. It's near impossible to host a visitable website without getting permission from a third party corporation every 90 days.
This is why cacert.org still has value and is worth trying to preserve, donate, and contribute.
Automation only hides the complexity. It doesn't solve it. Try using an acme1 client these days. Try using an older computer that has some LE expired root cert. etc. Over years it will break and then you've got a facefull of complexity.
I suppose you're right, it does slightly lower the barrier to entry compared to doing all the cert stuff manually. But not compared to HTTP itself. Then the first time it breaks (and it always will over a few years) the barrier to continuation is even higher.
The are, basically, two kinds of licenses, for websites participating in commercial activity (ads, shops), called ICP证，and for smaller websites, not directly involved into commercial activity, ICP备案.
Not outdated. If you know the answer on how to implement Fibonacci, you are doing it wrong. Inferring the answer from being told (or remembering) what is a Fibonacci number should be faster than asking an LLM or remembering it.
> Inferring the answer from being told (or remembering) what is a Fibonacci number should be faster than asking an LLM or remembering it.
Really?
If I were to rank the knowledge relevant to this task in terms of importance, or relevance to programming in general, I'd rank "remembering what a Fibonacci number is" at the very bottom.
Sure, it's probably important in some areas of math I'm not that familiar with. But between the fields of math and hard sciences I am familiar with, and programming as a profession, by far the biggest (if not the only) importance of Fibonacci sequence is in its recursive definition, particularly as the default introductory example of recursive computation. That's all - unless you believe in the mystic magic of the Golden Ratio nonsense, but that's another discussion entirely.
Myself, I remember what the definition is, because I involuntarily memorize trivia like this, and obviously because of Fibonacci's salad joke. But I wouldn't begrudge anyone in tech for not having that definition on speed-dial for immediate recall.
Already knowing the Fibonacci sequence isn't relevant:
> He was unable to explain to me how he would have implemented the Fibonacci sequence without chatGPT.
An appropriate answer could have been "First, I look up what the Fibonacci sequence is on Wikipedia..." The interviewee failed to come up with anything other than the chatbot, e.g. failed to even ask the interviewer for the definition of the sequence, or come up with an explaination for how they could look it up themselves.
I assume in an interview you can just ask for the definition. I don't think the interview is (should be) testing for your knowledge of the Fibonacci numbers, but rather your ability to recognize precisely the recursive definition and exploit it.
Also schoolboy French speaker, but my assumption is that it's a malapropism: "Les Canadiens sont inquiets du coût de la vie!" would mean "Canadians are worried about the cost of living", and my guess is "cul de la vie" is how some heard his accent.
> Carney tripped up, most notably when he said, “we agree with Hamas,” instead of “we agree about Hamas,” to the delight of Conservatives all over social media.
The next Canadian federal election will be no later than October 20, 2025. Possibly much sooner.
While Carney's party has seen a bump in the polls recently (thanks to Trump) which changed the predicted result from an opposition blowout to merely an opposition lead, Carney is nowhere near as good a communicator as Trudeau and will likely not do well in the polls.
It sounds like the person you’re replying to thinks Carney's Liberal Party is set to lose the upcoming election. Before Trump started going after Canada, the Conservatives seemed like a sure bet to take over Parliament. But since the tariffs came into play, the Liberals have really picked up steam.
No matter where you stand politically, I think Trump isn’t the best at thinking strategically. He could have waited for the next Canadian election and probably ended up with a party in power that would be easier to negotiate with. Now, things are a lot less certain, and it could even give the Liberals a chance to come back stronger.
It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out. Plus, it’s kind of idiotic that Trump pushed for the USMCA, which looked like a win for him, but these tariffs seem to go against the spirit of that agreement. It makes you wonder why anyone would want to deal with him in good faith moving forward.
reply