To be clear, you’re advocating for women to lose the right to vote? The misogyny in this thread was disappointing already, but seeing this comment being voted up is maybe a sign I should not be on this website any more.

Voted up?

If you mean the troll post didn't immediately fade with one downvote that might just be a matter of having two accounts.

Of course I do – most men too.

I believe in voting by peers. That is my peers – not the ruling class or the lumpenproletariat.

I do agree that you should gather around other programmer-sock-wearing "ladies".

Too bad discord keeps vulnerable children away from you now.

They can be! The key phrase to search for is “tubular weaving”.

The article points out that the problem is deeper than this:

> Once I compared my personalized sloper to commercial patterns and retail garments, I had a revelation: clothes were never made to fit bodies like mine. It didn’t matter how much weight I gained or lost, whether I contorted my body or tried to buy my way into styles that “flatter” my silhouette, there was no chance that clothes would ever fit perfectly on their own.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45747938 for discussion of the original article where this idea was described.

I was surprised at the audible difference it made to reset the RNG seed for the hi-hat noise function every time it triggered. I’m curious what the justification for doing this is—does the randomness arise from the geometry of the hi-hat itself and not the way you hit it? Is the idea to imitate the sound of sample-based percussion?

My understanding is that because it's a very small sample, it's basically a combination of a subset of sine waves, and because we're very sensitive to the nuances of high-pitched sounds, even small changes in that space make a lot of difference. Every RNG seed produces a different sounding hihat, and if you don't reset it, it continues producing different hihats, which is unnatural. Another explanation is also to resemble sample-based audio, but perhaps it's all of these things combined.

I tried it once, but a core feature I needed (running code asynchronously on a timer) didn't seem to be available in the free version.

He’s also built a popular movement invested in getting his policies implemented. He may not “control the busses” as an individual government official, but his movement can pressure the people who do.

Any physical item can be customized with the proper tools, and they often are. Software should be the same way!

Apple relies on internal feedback and executive reviews rather than user testing. They likely received a lot of different feedback internally, but the execs decided to ship it anyway. I think they would rather ship something half-baked than change the yearly release process that has been continuously operating since the early days of iOS, and at the scale of the whole platform, it's hard to turn back once you've committed to making the changes.

sorry, "rule following" is possibly a sub-optimal language choice. I more mean the sort of selfishness that leads to corruption. Those who see their turn in government less about directing the nation and more as their turn to line their pockets and abuse their power.

True, and yet...

I think there is broad consensus that too much poverty is a problem, and (perhaps somewhat less broad) that therefore too much wealth inequality is a problem. I think there's fairly broad consensus that college costs are a problem, that healthcare costs and access are a problem. I think there's a fair consensus that fixing these things would make the nation better.

Then you get to "how do we fix them?" and all consensus disappears.

As for the rules, it seems pretty clear to me that "the rules" are the Constitution and the existing law, plus the rules on how to pass or repeal laws.

But this framing also misses one category: Those who think that they should break the rules to make the nation better. I think that they are misguided at best and lying (either to others or to themselves) at worst.

Why misguided? Because preserving the rule of law is a really big deal. Even if they have the best of intentions, once they knock the law down flat and pave a road over it, they won't be the only one to drive on it. Tyrants try to build that road; if it's already there, the tyrant's job becomes much easier and much harder to stop.

So I oppose such tactics. It doesn't matter whether they are well-meaning or not. Even if the person doing them will never be a tyrant, the next person who wants to be a tyrant will find the door wide open.

I see another problem with rules, that being the little rules that were put in place to solve some social issue at a time and are now out of place but waiting to be used as a stick on someone who's a burden on the establishment. It's hard to look forward when you're always looking over your shoulder. We need a github for law makers, the law needs PRs with documentation for the reason the law needs changing, and links to the research that brought a conclusion. And tests to make sure the law isn't unfairly impacting an unintended audience. Or just having a negative impact in general.

Majority opinion can look like consensus. And yet things like wealth inequality make for an uneven distribution of opinion where the minority end up having the most votes in effect.