But that would be big government, something half of the electorate fight against tooth and nail.

The only way I can see why Nintendo would do this would be if the current Switch couldn't handle Breath of the Wild 2. It will be interesting to see what happens if BotW 2 requires new hardware.

Blockchain is for when you trust no one. I personally don't want to live in a society where I trust no one. The one situation where I believe that blockchain will work is voting. You limit who can join the blockchain to registered voters, and every registered voter tallies the election results on their own client. There's a limited number of entries into the chain, and then its over. For everything else blockchain is a problem looking for a solution.

I wish that Trumps act was getting tired. Sadly it just seems to charge up his base as they see "the libtards" getting confused or upset at his statements. They don't care about what Trump says or does, they just want "the libtards" to feel hurt, confused, or frustrated in some way.

Wasn't it list last week where Trump was talking about how nobody knows how he's done more for clean air and clean water than anyone else? It's not hard to guess why no one knows that Trump. It's all of the actions your administration is doing to hurt air and water.

Something that you learn quickly is the importance of knowing what you are asking for. My boss will regularly ask for some data, and I'll get him the data. His responsible will inevitably be something along the lines of "No, when I said 'Long time' I meant an hour, not a day. Oh, and I only wanted it for operations during peak hours, etc". After having had years of these back and forth exchanges I figure he'd be getting better at asking more specific questions, but he has not. There's no way a computer will ever get a program right, just by having a human describe it.

If not dark matter, what do you think of the RelMOND theory then?

Okay, but do you understand that the Orange Man is Bad? If you feel that you are being bombarded by articles, multiple times a day, day after day, showing the law breaking, mismanagement of Government, abuse of power, and other "bad", under the Orange Man; that it's worth considering that possibly, just maybe, that the Orange Man actually is Bad? And for the sake combating "bad", you should vote for this primary opponent?

Democrats also had lots of chances to ask questions and yet didn't go down this path. Now that I think about it, I never hear anyone say "Well, Republicans do it." Which doesn't mean that it doesn't happen; if people do make that statement it's so rare that I can't recall the conditions under which it happens. But I can't go a day, without reading comment sections on the internet where Republican faults are pointed out without someone saying "Democrats do it too" or "Both sides are just as bad" without any evidence, examples or anecdotes to back up that position. It's like you think that if a Republican has done it surely a Democrat has too, which may not be true. Or if Republicans are doing it often surely Democrats are doing it the same order of magnitude.

Japan has a Not Invented Here problem. If it wasn't developed by a Japanese company, they are hard pressed to even consider it.

And it may also hamper the speed at which lies spread.

It doesn't have to do with right or wrong, it has to do with facts, accuracy and a shared reality. I know that I don't want my fellow citizens to be primarily driven by an intentionally deceptive narrative.

Changing how people would have voted otherwise isn't a real world consequence?

This will be just like the S/Mime icon that emails can have. If someone goes from having one to not having one, no one cares. What would be more useful is if the UI could highlight abnormal behavior. For example, if you regularly receive email from msmash@slashdot.org, and then one day receive an email from msmash@dotslash.org, the email client should have some bright bold warning that there's something suspicious about that last email. Verification icons don't mean a thing.

I was in jury selection once for a case where one of the charges was driving without a drivers license. The guy was refusing a lawyer, and was doing jury selection himself. He asked all of the potential jurors to raise their hands if they had a drivers license (which we all did). He then declared that the trial must be dismissed because no one in the jury pool was one of his peers (ie, someone without a drivers license). The judge wasn't amused.