Comment Daylight (Score 1) 90
I like the Daylight Computer DC-1 for its very fast, e-ink like display which is easy on the eyes. Granted I am not using it daily and my daily computer is a Mac.
I like the Daylight Computer DC-1 for its very fast, e-ink like display which is easy on the eyes. Granted I am not using it daily and my daily computer is a Mac.
FooledGPT
Could it be that since university enrollment is down in general, more marginal kids applied, thinking their odds are better now? Also because of AI fears, those choosing STEM majors are down, and thus more of the applicants may be for "squishier" degrees that don't need as much math.
I blame Excel, AI, Republicans, and climate change.
All 4 are merging into the Bigly Annoyance Party.
Like Jiiiihna. The upside is it makes commerce more efficient, as vendors don't need to deal with cash and related security.
If there comes a time where a centrally managed economy, population distribution, and perhaps genetic engineering becomes more efficient than ours, we may be SOL.
[60's idea] got canned when the John Bircher Society came out claiming it was Communist influence
They were somewhat right: Donald is a dictator-wannabe who has already stuck his fingers into multiple industries.
But I myself won't miss the penny, nor Donald.
> all notes are subject to scrutiny
Clarification: subject to judicial scrutiny to make sure they don't contain personal info or info irrelevant to the case.
In the clean-room approach, the other party or examiners are required to be strip-searched and to wear simple prison-like clothing as they go into a room without internet connections to examine the info in question? They can take written notes, but all notes are subject to scrutiny before being handed back.
I'm sure it will be the exact same experience as a Steam Deck, just slightly cheaper since it doesn't need a display or dock to connect to your TV.
Fuck every last bit of that.
Shut up and take my money!
"Bend over and I'll show ya" -Clark W. Griswold
I'm sure that's not the only contributing factor, but I'm also pretty sure you don't upend kids' lives (don't forget the impact on parents - lots of people lost jobs, which also disrupts kids schooling) across multiple years without disrupting their math training.
Oh, also, the shitbag trolls here are funny. Now that they can't pretend the white kids aren't pig-ignorant, this is suddenly all about testing.
I will argue that it [run-off voting] may be better, but still has problems (e.g., a centrist candidate who would beat either of two opposite wing candidates on a one-on-one election could be eliminated in the first round).
This happened twice in Alaska's congressional race with ranked choice voting.
If you want to do something about the current voting system give everybody a $500 refundable tax credit for voting so we have almost 100% turnout of eligible voters. Campaigns would need to persuade people instead of focusing on turning out their supporters.
Interesting, but tends to make a different problem worse. There is no actual individual incentive for voters to devote time and energy to becoming knowledgeable about candidates and issues. This would tend to increase the number of apathetic voters, rather than knowledgable voters.
If you want to do something about our unrepresentative house of representatives ratify the original proposed First amendment that was never ratified. It limited house districts to 50,000 people.
You want six thousand representatives?!?
I would have said that the problem with the House of Representatives is exactly the opposite: it has too many members, not too few. As for the original constitution, the first congress with all 13 states had 65 representatives. That's already a large number for an organization to debate rationally, but way better than what we now have, 435. That's unmanageable.
We need to drop the number of representatives, not increase it. (Likewise senate).
If passed there would be a group of over 6000 citizens whose approval would be required on legislation. They would not only represent us, they would be far more representative. As it is, every person in congress is part of a wealthy elite. The base salary in congress is almost three times the median household income. They aren't remotely connected to the typical American's lifestyle. And the typical citizen has no real access to them when they each represent almost a million people.
A congress of 6,800 members would mean each member would have pretty close to zero weight. And you wouldn't be able to pay them, so this would be a volunteer congress of part-timers who can afford to be not paid. They would never meet together, but that's ok, since there's no way 6,800 people could have a reasonable discussion.
I'd think this a worst case solution.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman