I mean, they don’t. They’ll do what the want regardless, it’s just a question of if they do it because they were attacked, they’re defending against an “attack” they know is coming, or because the other people deserved it.

100% thought you had done that, and just wanted to ramble some clarification in case. :) it’s pretty easy to focus on the “big” elections, and how what makes them shitty is essentially the “small” elections working properly-ish.

Personally, I’ve always wondered about a system where people directly vote for the representative they want regardless of geography, and then that person represents their constituency.
Geography used to represent a much more significant part of a persons interests, since you likely worked reasonably near where you lived, shopped and everything else. That’s less true now.
It’s moot since we’re not changing the fundamentals of our system anytime soon, but it’s interesting to think about.

It appears you’re saying that in some circumstances it’s appropriate to layout voting districts based on the political affiliation of the people who would end up in the various districts, with the intent of ensuring some seats are won by a minority party that would otherwise not hold power.

I’m saying that districting should be based on shared interests, predominantly geographic in nature because that’s how our system is designed, but that it should definitely not factor in political affiliation.

This means that if a political group is spread out and in the minority, they will not be represented by someone sharing their party affiliation, and that’s as it should be in our system.

Yes, that’s how it’s supposed to be. Your regional representative is supposed to represent your region. If you’re the minority in the region then you don’t get to pick the representative.

We don’t have a proportional voting system. The system is not designed to ensure that elected party makeup matches voter preference distribution.
The minority voters in your scenario get their say in the Senate votes where everything is equal and the district is the entire state.

In any case, the scenario you’re describing is more representative of the cracking type of gerrymandering that’s the problem. A collection of voters in a region being split amongst multiple districts to dilute their votes is what gerrymandering is.

The issue is less to do with votes inside a district, and more with the apportionment of the districts themselves.

For something like the presidential election a popular vote makes (more) sense.

Where gerrymandering comes in is regional representatives. I’m supposed to have a congressional representative who represents me and my neighbors.
‘Districting’ is the general practice of defining what constitutes a group of neighbors. When done properly you tend to get fairly compact districts that have people living in similar circumstances represented together. The people living near the lake get a representative, as do the people living in the city center, and the people living in the townhouses just at the edge of town do too. (A lot of rules around making sure that doesn’t get racist or awful, but that’s a different comment). ‘gerrymandering’ is the abuse of the districting process to benefit the politicians to the detriment of the voter. Cutting the districts in such a way that people who tend to vote the same way get spread around to either never or always get a majority share, depending on if you want them to win or not.

The above poster is wrong, and gerrymandering never had a valid usage. If 10% of the population has a political belief but they’re spread out amongst different districts, then they’re supposed to lose, not have the system bend over backwards to give them a special group.
Districting has value though, since it’s the way the system is supposed to allow people from smaller areas to have their voices heard without being drowned out by bigger areas, but fairly, such that each representative represents roughly the same number of people.

Other countries also do this type of districting, they just have other systems in place that keep it from being so flagrantly abused.

They also reduce range, increase jamming, and decrease impact force. Last I checked being quiet didn’t increase harm, and doubly so when the reduction in volume is down to somewhere between a firetruck siren and a jet engine during takeoff.

There’s thinking an outcome is the right one, which I agree with, and then there’s mischaracterizing the dangers of something to support that point.
You can think they’re not good for society and also have an accurate understanding of them.
Being factually incorrect and needlessly insulting and dismissive of people who don’t perfectly agree with you is a great way to convey “gun control is for ignorant assholes” instead of what you actually want, which is “ugh, does our society really need fewer barriers to gun ownership”?

Okay. If you’re saying they should be regulated more because they’re more dangerous, you’re wrong because they don’t make guns more dangerous.
If you’re saying that anything relating to guns should be regulated, that’s a very different statement to what you made.
Being dismissive of peoples physical well-being is just unnecessary.

Guns are a dangerous thing just like any number of dangerous things that exist in society. They have legitimate and illegitimate uses and should be regulated to a degree and fashion related to the danger they pose.
A surpressor doesn’t increase the danger, so it doesn’t need to be regulated beyond what other accessories would.

I think that basically no guns should exist anywhere. I obviously can’t get that, so on the list of things I’m concerned about on the way there “surpressors” doesn’t really register, and it’s certainly not above bump stocks, larger magazines, or even semi-automatic weapons.

They’re typically actually designed to protect people’s hearing.

Guns should be restricted, but silencers aren’t particularly special amongst gun accessories for being more dangerous or violent than any other.

It basically makes it so you get serious hearing damage slightly slower. The shot would still be heard from quite a distance.

Bump stocks and the things that make guns automatic-but-technically-not-in-the-legal-sense should be taxed to hell or outright illegal since they actually increase the danger.

No, that makes them slower because theyre leaning into the wind. You want to try to mostly use A’s, because they’re the most aerodynamic, and anything else should be formatted as subscript to keep code size down and reduce drag. C should be avoided at all costs because it’s just going to catch the wind.

The police have gotten very effective at quashing effective movements, and we’ve had decades of concerted effort to make it more difficult to organize and to get people to actually oppose the concept of effective resistance in their own favor.
People with power don’t want people threatening to destabilize that power. People who set media narratives need access to people with power, and so they don’t want to convey those destabilizing factors positively.
This makes people view them negatively, if they even see them at all.

America has never had a culling of the rich and powerful. The closest we got was when we decided to exchange a rich and powerful person far away for a few closer to home.
As such, there’s no weight given to the morale of anyone who isn’t rich and powerful.
Reporters, politicians and businesses people have never had to put their heads in the scale when making choices.

This isn’t the best or most popular way to do it, but: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install

There is a way built into windows to deploy and use Linux from inside windows.

It’s not the most pure experience, but it’s a way to make sure you have something like a feel for how some parts work before jumping in any deeper.

A bootable USB stick is another way to try before you commit. Only reason I might suggest starting with trying it the other way first is in case you run into issues connecting to the Internet or something you won’t feel totally lost. Having to keep rebooting back into windows if you have a problem can be frustrating, so getting a little familiarity with a safety line can help feel more confident.

Issues with a USB boot are increasingly uncommon, as an aside. Biggest issue is likely to be that USB is slow, so things might take a few moments longer to start.

From there, you should be pretty comfortable doing basic stuff after a little playing around. Not deep mastery, but a sense of “here are my settings”, “my files go here”, “here’s how I fiddle with wifi”, “here’s how I change my desktop stuff”. At that point a dual boot should work out, since you’ll be able to use the system to find out how to do new things with the system, and also use it for whatever, in a general sense.

If it’s working out, you should find yourself popping back into windows less and less.

It’s more that it’s evidence that a reasonable person could doubt. It’s the prosecutors job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense needs to convince a reasonable person that you might not have done it.
If there’s other evidence phone location and activity data could be argued to be faked, but in isolation a reasonable person could doubt that someone faked their phone activity and location.

The court isn’t interested in exonerating people, it’s only interested in arguments supporting guilt and finding holes in them. It’s why they don’t find you innocent, only “not guilty”. You don’t argue that you’re innocent, you argue that the reason they say you’re guilty is full of holes.

Multiple people is significantly more force than even a knife.

Proportional force means the force must be proportional to the threat, not to the force the other person is using. If someone threatens death with their hands, you can use deadly force to defend against a deadly threat.

One would be reasonable in concluding that masked people trying to force you or someone else into a van is an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault.

You can’t use deadly force to defend against harassment, or theft because that’s disproportionate.

unlike Democrat and Republican voters have morals and will not tolerate genocide no matter how hard they fearmonger.

And yet their principled opposition not only did nothing, it’s very clearly made things worse for basically everyone. The genocide didn’t stop, but now there’s not even token opposition. Iran is being bombed. Civil rights are being rolled back across the country, food aid is being taken from millions, and it’s just starting.

The Democrats were never “doing genocide”, just like the Republicans aren’t now. The Democrats weren’t saying they would do enough to stop someone else from doing it, and the Republicans were saying they would encourage them to do it harder.

Red MAGA … Blue MAGA…Democratic party is a bigger cult than Republicans

Congratulations on being an unwitting mouthpiece for the RNC. "Maga is just a rude word to call someone! It’s not literally what we have on our hats!” "staunch opposition to fascism is closed minded and just as prejudicial as wanting to eliminate trans people!”

I hope your movement does stop Trump and cause effective change and reform. I’m not holding my breath, because I don’t think they were counting on your votes in the first place and the next time they think about you will be when they want you to be mad at the Democrats again to keep you from voting for them.

And then Jill Stein won, and the genocide stopped, right?

Like I said, I don’t question the intention or code of ethics for the people involved, but there’s a reason they and people like them get a lot of support from the RNC.
They aren’t voters who are realistically going to vote Republican, so the best they can do is be diverted to a spoiler candidate.

Thinking that that translates to political leverage against the Republicans is just naive though. They didn’t vote for them in the first place, so it’s an empty threat.

The people who might opt to not vote for Biden or Harris aren’t people who would have voted for trump in the first place, so I don’t see them having a lot of leverage.

I can’t tell you what code to follow, but the whole thing reeks of people who didn’t get the memo that trump doesn’t need them to bleed votes from the Dems anymore.

So, I wasn’t referring to enjoyment. I spoke of engagement or interest. It’s why programming is more appealing than data entry.

You’re just doubling down on the false dichotomy I spoke of. It’s not at all uncommon to find someone with plenty of experience who can easily and honestly tell you why they think what the company they work for does is interesting.

Asking someone why they think working at the job they’re applying for is appealing isn’t “hiring for enthusiasm”, and it’s honestly odd that you keep casting it that way.
I get where you’re coming from, and I partly disagree. It doesn’t seem like you’re parsing what I’m saying because of this “either one or the other” attitude though.
No offense intended, but it makes you come across as burnt out and sad. I don’t work for small companies, with inexperienced people, and I’m not constantly shipping broken code that needs rewriting. I’ve been doing this for roughly 15 years and I can honestly say “working in security in general is interesting because it forces you to think about your solution from a different perspective, the attacker, and working at $AuthenticationVendorYouQuitePossiblyUse in specific is appealing because you get to work on problems that are actually new at a scale where you can see it have an impact”.
That’s not gushing with enthusiasm: it’s why I’m not bored everyday. If you’re actually just showing up to work everyday and indifferently waiting to be told what to do because it’s all just the same old slog… That’s sad, and I’m sorry.

I’m lucky that after all these years still get those moments of great enjoyment when at the end of doing something insanelly complex it all works

I just think it’s worth pointing out that that is an example of the work being engaging.

No one is so naive as to think that you work a job for anything other than money. The original post doesn’t even seem to convey that it’s bad to ask about the pay and benefits. It’s saying that if, when directly asked, the candidate has no answer to what seems interesting about the job they might not be a good fit.

You seem to be an experienced software developer. You’re easily qualified to do basic manual data entry. Same working environment, same basic activity. Would you be interested in changing roles to do data entry for $1 more salary?
I’m also a software developer, and I can entirely honestly say I would not, even though it would be less responsibility and significantly easier work.
Even the boring parts of my work are vaguely interesting and require some mental engagement.

It seems there’s this false dichotomy that either you’re a cold mercenary working 9 to 5 and refusing to acknowledge your coworkers during your entitled lunch break, or you’re a starry eyed child working for candy and corporate swag. You can ask for fair money, do only the work you’re paid for, have a cordial relationship with coworkers, and also find your work some manner of engaging.

It’s not unreasonable for an employer to ask how you feel about the work, just like it’s not unreasonable for a candidate to ask about the details of the work.

Sure. I wouldn’t disqualify someone for being ambivalent towards what we’re working on, but the person who seems interested is gonna be better to work with.

Likewise when looking for a place to work, if the tangibles are equivalent I’ll prefer the place with better intangibles.

I’m not in HR or management, so I don’t care about cost effectiveness or productivity beyond “not screwing me over”. From that perspective, it’s generally nicer to work with someone who finds it interesting than with someone who doesn’t.

There’s no point asking “why do you want to work here”, because the answer is obviously a combination of money and benefits, and how food and healthcare keeps you from being dead.
I can’t fault an interviewer who’s clearly trying not to ask the obvious question and instead actually ask how the candidate feels about the work instead of disqualifying them for not volunteering the right answer.

It’s not unreasonable for an employer to ask a candidate how they feel about the work anymore than it’s unreasonable for the candidate to ask about the working environment.

I actually kinda agree with both here.

It sucks working with someone who is utterly disinterested in the work, if it’s anything above rote work.
Asking the candidate what they found interesting about it is at least a basically fine idea. If they can’t answer when you ask, that actually is kinda concerning.
Big difference between asking and expecting them to volunteer the information.

At the same time, if the people interviewing you can’t even pretend to show basic conversational courtesy by asking some basic “what do you do for fun” style questions or anything that shows they’re gonna be interested in the person they’re looking to work with, that’s a major concern.