Almost everyone.

But why?

Did you read the abstract? This doesn’t seem to be what they’re saying at all.

💩

First good thing Musk has ever done?

I’ve often wondered what the implications of the internet will be for future historians. On the one hand, there is now an enormous body of writings from not just the educated elite as in the past but from all sorts of ordinary people, which is something that has never really existed before.

On the other hand, how and for how long will these writings be retained? If we stop writing things on paper, will these digital writings become completely inaccessible at some point? Could we have a situation where there are almost no writings from a certain period down the road? That would be unfortunate.

I could see that being an improvement, although it’s not terribly different from the current system. It might be clearer for the public to understand.

On the other hand, reps would have to explain to their constituents why they voted for the kicking puppies act which people might have trouble grasping.

I think it’s a good method for achieving compromise. If the various factions perceive more benefit than cost, the bill passes. Obviously some bad things get snuck in, but you get good things out of it as well.

Even if your personal calculus is that this bill does more harm then good, I don’t think banning this method is a good idea.

There is certainly a level of disfunction that it can’t overcome and we may have reached that.

Well I don’t know which state you mean but a lot of them are not divided the way then federal government is.

Because it’s the only way to get things done in a divided government?

I have read lots of history but I take your meaning.

Perhaps a better phrasing would be: there is no ethically sound reason to pursue this as an end goal.

I don’t really understand why that would be an objective for anyone.

What would the purpose of this even be?

China dipping their toes in some CIA shit. Ominous.

But that’s already the case? Swing states get to decide national policy far more than other states. Giving proportional representation would at least ensure that the states with a bigger voice have more citizens. Citizens in small states would still have an equal voice, unlike the current system.

I think universal equality in political power is far more compatible with federalism than the current system.

Why would ditching the electoral college require dismantling state governments? That makes no sense.

Interesting article—is this person saying that they or their colleagues had the idea for Reddit and they had the founders implement it?

Also, the second half of the article is pretty baffling. What ideas has Steve Huffman brought to the table?

My sense is that Reddit today is mostly the same as it ever was. Sure, there have been some tweaks: it has a sleeker interface, better algorithms, can natively host media now. But those are not really new ideas, just obvious extensions of what the site was used for. All those employees have to find something to work on.

The only thing objectively better about today’s Reddit compared to the past is that having a larger user base allows for more niche communities to exist. Otherwise most of the big changes the company has tried to enforce have been flops or largely neutral.

I doubt most users care about the IPO directly. What does it matter if the platform is owned by a few scumbags or many?

But as we know, pressure to attain profitability may push Reddit to introduce increasingly user-hostile features. This is where the possibility for the next revolt lies.

I mean I am completely unsurprised by their misbehavior, I’m just slightly more optimistic about our ability to resist them.

That said, the one danger I can see is Meta gaining more authority over the activitypub developers. That is probably something worth being vigilant about.