green

I think this is a "walk and chew gum" situation. We can do both.

For the sake of transparency, I am not a Dem. But I do find it beyond criminal that Dems (even if it's grassroots) has not whipped up an organization to both threaten a third-party AND primary Dems.

This also gives Dems diversification in strategy. The opposition will now have to counter two potential threats while protecting home-court. It really makes too much sense.

But unfortunately Dems are allergic to winning. This is not even to shit on you (you are probably not a Dem whip), but just an observation I've had. It's always 0 or 100, and highly telegraphed strategy. No precision, no timing, no urgency - just losers.

The problem is that people think they can outwit the fundamentals.

You need to vote EVERYTIME - even if it's pointless - because you need to complete the tit-for-tat exchange. If you do not complete the exchange, then you have lost all of your leverage. This is negotiation 101.

Even if you don't vote Democrat, you need to vote for someone - you cannot abstain, this is always the worst option. Voter suppression is obviously a different story, but if you're choosing not to vote, you are not suppressed.

TL;DR people are not good with money. There is no point is arguing finances with people that do not know basic math.

So what the conversation devolves to is "stable" vs "experimental" and very few people will choose to be experimental with their health.

The best way to shift favor would be for it to be required to show the cost of insurance on every check (it is currently a hidden fee). This way, when "hooman see big number" removed from gross pay they may reconsider.

I would argue it isn't a losing strategy at all though.

If people start campaigning and supporting a third-party right now, there's actually a shot to win some house seats and local elections next year. That would also be the best time to try, since Repubs have majority of every branch anyways.

After winning local, then they can think senate. Remember that capitalism was only controlled in the 1950s because it feared communism. If you do not pose any threat (even if it is an empty one), they simply will not listen.

The logic still doesn't track though. Even if it was a choice, who cares?

People are making choices to murder people, poison the drinking water, rape the weak, spread prion diseases, and strip your rights. But I hear nothing from the same exact people screaming about trans - which has no effect on your living conditions.

Like we really need to stop trying to rationalize these people. They are seriously worthless scum until they start speaking in good faith - which they won't because they can't rationalize misplaced fear.

Considering America has only increased in overall productivity for the last 30 years, I would say it's going just fine. See the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But according to you, the one making the claim, it isn't. Where's your evidence? Your feelings don't count.

Have you ever seen the qualifications of DEI candidates? People always say DEI, but always leave out the part that their resumes are often the best.

So we agree that America has been hiring based on race, and I'll even go further and say its been for the last 250 years - but it's for whites. Being white is not a merit-based qualification.

Also you think America has only been falling apart for the last 15 years? Did you just forget 1985-1993? This is a troll account, but at least make the bait believable - it's pathetic.

Just guessing, it likely failed due to:

• Being relatively unknown
• I2P being relatively small
• Java being a non-standardized language
• No data verification (malicious host can corrupt data)
• Poor UI and UX
• The main developer leaving

These are killshots to this type of service as people need to develop/extend/use it - for it to be viable. It is in the right direction, but (similar to many cornerstoning attempts in FOSS) is not handled gracefully.

Yeah the uni-directional relationships are also significant. It also happens to translate well; if Mr.Beast goes to randomcorp.com he is almost guaranteed to pull more people over than if SchmoeJoe went. Those people in turn would cause the website to be a more attractive option (less weight on the edge).

That would mean that there even is nuance within tyranny, which is funny to think about.

There's also the possibility of cycles! What a fun rabbit-hole. Definitely worth a thesis paper or large-scale open discussion.

P.S. Also agreed that with a "limit" it is not TSP, and is much simpler. It evolves into TSP only when you think about a message originating from a source and making it to everyone - with the same effect for responses.

First off, agreed that monkey brain + internet = unsolved.

Second, I think that this overall is a math problem and what you're describing is metadata. Before I continue, there are many ways to solve and interpret problems - this is just how I see it.

If you think about this as a graph, it makes a lot more sense as a math problem. People want to communicate and the message has to reach each of them once through the shortest route. In essence, this becomes the "Traveling Salesman Problem".

Next, imagine the distance between points on the graph become longer (when people group together) and shorter (when people split apart) - we now have described tyranny of the majority.

What you are describing (from my perspective) is the cost of going from one part of the graph to the other. This indeed is a very important part of the problem and directly relates to the tyranny, but does not solve it. Instead to solve this problem, we would have to find a way to standardize the distance between any two points in the graph (i.e it cannot take more than 30 feet to reach any given destination).

I cannot begin to describe how difficult this would be, but my brain is telling me it's solvable.

The comments (and your github post) helped me think about this a bit deeper. This is why discussion is helpful.

There's a lot of nuance to be had here, but it's a conversation for another time.

You bring up something interesting though

IRL you would leave but on the internet you want them to leave.

I wonder if this is because people view these spaces as a home or a "third place". Like if someone did something offensive in your home, you would indeed ask (or force) them to leave.

People also find it insanely difficult to "leave" because all of their friends are on the platform. Since it's almost never open-protocol, that means being locked to said space - so you can only get people you don't like to leave.

We generally agree the moderation has become overbearing. I would argue most of it is straight up ineffective and performative. We need actual data and science backing moderation policies, not just "this feels good".

This is interesting perspective.

If I'm interpreting what your saying correctly, this becomes an alternation of the "Traveling Salesman Problem" - where people are the nodes, sending information is the destination, and medium of communication is the weight. The goal being finding the shortest path for two-way communication (go to destination and return).

If this is the case, "tyranny of majority" is indeed a very difficult problem to solve. This phenomena causes the weights of the graph to become change based on the number of surrounding nodes. Higher when less nodes (i.e Lemmy) and lower when more nodes (i.e Reddit).

To go even further, companies are manipulating their weights (creating closed ecosystems, etc) to make is so two-way communication is only viable within their bubble (think an edge of infinite weight). And it would also mean that it truly is unreasonable to expect laymen to "memorize the graph" (know a forum for everything) - it indeed would be just easier to know a subsection (i.e Reddit, Facebook, etc)

I'm just spitballing here, but a lot to interpret if true.