this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
267 points (96.5% liked)
Programming
17398 readers
144 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm just glad to see the White House listening to people who understand technology for a change.
We need legislators who aren't all literally older than cryptography. If they weren't bought and paid for by billionaires that would be nice too.
That requires a population willing to vote for such legislators.
Don’t blame the victims for a sham of a democracy. First-past-the-post (FPTP) is there to prevent anything outside of a two party system where primaries are filled with (fully allowed) election fraud and cheating.
FPTP does destroy a lot, I'll give you that, but municipal and regional elections have miserable turn-outs too and they have much more potential for perceptible change than state or national change.
In the USA things have to get way worse than they are now before they get better. A very very large percentage of voters would have to be fed up with FPTP to force change in that area. Also, they would have to be educated enough to understand that FPTP is a problem.
For one, FPTP doesn’t get enough credit for just how nefarious it is. And let me be clear: I am speaking of the presidential election specifically, though I’m sure this applies to many aspects of this “democracy” including state elections, etc that you mentioned.
Instead, the overarching establishment narrative likes to point the finger at the electoral college (which also quite heavily biases the power of votes toward voters in less populous areas and states).
Since the established oligarchs (who own the news outlets) tend to control information delivery in this country, how would you break through that wall? Would you engage in peaceful protest (or self immolation)? Well, they’ve got a playbook for that too. They will discredit you and make you seem unhinged. For proof of that, look at the way they’re delegitimizing the brave, selfless active duty Air Force member who engaged in peaceful protest by self immolation outside of the Israeli embassy against the Gaza war for just how easy it is. Most news watching voters probably already think he was crazy. It didn’t quite have the power that that act had during, say, the Vietnam war.
Since you’re here, I’m guessing you’re a software engineer. Do me a favor: Model the real world dynamics of a US presidential election using domain driven design, making sure to accurately represent the two objectively unfair stages:
Rule #1: All candidates must pass stage 1 to be eligible for stage 2.
In stage 1, feel free to cheat, commit fraud, and engage in any strategy you need to prevent anyone but the owners of the party’s preferred candidates from winning. After all, your party is a private organization that can engage in whatever unfair tactic they deem necessary.
In stage 2, (if you’re paying attention, you ALREADY have irreparably biased the possible outcomes by cheating in stage 1) because of FPTP, you can now simply choose between only two of the MANY, MANY parties.
If you designed a system like that as a software engineer, your colleagues would be at your throat about how flawed that design was. However, here in the US, that’s just the design of our dEMoCrACy oF tHa gReATeSt cOuNTry iN tHa wErLD! 🥴
Edit: That “much worse” statement seems to come from a place of privilege. Don’t forget that. RIGHT NOW, more people are homeless and destitute than any other time in MY LIFE (I was born in the late 70’s). And most people literally have no say in whether or not their tax money is being used to genocide Muslims overseas to make room for a puppet government. Remember: You’re an anti-Semite if you oppose genocide.
Clearly. Good people can't do bad things.
Don't mind me, just reposting a FPTP video I just saw in another thread on lemmy.
It also heavily discourages voters from participating because they've never felt represented, as the two party system is ultimatively a minority rule. So why should they care for local elections held within the same system?
Edit: a word.
It requires score voting so that, even if heavily gerrymandered, one can still meaningfully express a preference without throwing one's ballot in the garbage.
It's never throwing your ballot in the garbage though. I used to think the same way, but every vote on the left, even if for the lesser evil, even if they lose, moves the conversation to the left. When we all stay home you get maga nutjobs stealing the show running unchecked.
Last thing is that gerrymandered states are the EASIEST to upset by increasing voter turnout. To gerrymander effectively you have to put your opponent in dense areas they'll win by a large margin, then spread your side so that you barely win the rest of the districts. That means that a 5% increase in votes on the left can take you from a loss to a nearly complete victory in a gerrymandered state.
Vote splitting on the other hand is a trickier beast, but in the end if all the left votes go to a moderate then that gives the left a lot of leverage because if the moderate candidate doesn't bend to the left then they'll lose the next election.
Always vote.
Election reforms require getting out to vote now even if its harder.
You are correct. I hope nobody thought I am against voting. Everyone needs to vote.
Mostly just saying it outload, I know I fall into the trap myself and just need reminding "perfect is the enemy of good" sometimes.
This admin honestly has been consistently doing so IMHO. Having read a memo that felt like a crock of shit yet, except for maybe the unfunded nature of some of the demands.
I feel this is a bit of a moot point from the White House. Memory-safe languages have been around for decades. I feel like the amount of C/C++ out there isn't so much that people think having dangerous stuff around is good, but more that nobody really wants to pay to change it.
You don't have to ban C or C++; you just have to prove your programs are memory safe. It's been decades since I've coded in C, but surely Valgrind and ilk are now capable of providing reasonable proof of memory safety. You might have to turn up all the dials and set all-warnings-are-errors, but I'd be surprised if C tooling wasn't available to provide sufficient proof for a given statically-linked program.
Be prepared to be surprised then. If such tooling was available, why isn't it being used by the projects for whom it matters? Yes, there is tooling available, but all the big parties using them are admitting it's not good enough for them. Those tools help, but they do fail in the "sufficient proof" department.
For some follow-up reading:
They all share the same basic facts: C and C++ are inherently memory unsafe. If any of them could've "just prove[n] your programs are memory safe", I think they would have.
Oh, my dear, sweet, summer child. Welcome to capitalism, and the rule of "good enough." Static code analysis tools cost money, and take time to run. I've yet to work at a company that didn't have a documented process for entirely bypassing QA in urgent situations; although, when I contracted with the USFS, they were much more reluctant to cut corners - that was under a Democrat president; when Republicans took charge, they cut a lot of things, including software quality controls.
But - as I said - I haven't touched C in decades, so I can't refute your claim that such tools don't exist.
Nothing, and certainly not Rust, is "perfectly" memory safe. You get closer with Haskell. At some point, you define what "good enough" is, and it's up to languages to provide tooling to either meet those standards (and be approved), or don't.
Granted, it'd be far harder for, say, Ruby to meet those proofs than a language like Rust, but the critical point is to have a defined standard of "good enough" for languages to work towards.
I want Lemmy to have reactions, so I do't have to clutter the thread just to say: 🤝