Wages aren't the primary determination of slave labor, it's control. I suppose "indentured servant" would be even better, but there are an enormous number of restrictions on H1B holders in how they move (both between employers and countries).
(I don't love this analogy and consider it extreme and not overly accurate)
I doubt you'll find many HN users who don't know what a H1B visa is. That's regardless of my opinion that comparing H1B holders to slaves or indentured servants is a bad analogy.
> Verizon battery backup units that run on small lead-acid batteries which seem to need frequent replacing, and require me to look up the details and order from a specialty vendor every time..
Have you? All of them I've encountered take a very standard 12V lead-acid battery - the same one that's inside consumer UPS units - and you can get replacements from a dozen brands on Amazon and other vendors.
I probably have to replace them every 2-3 years, though I imagine alkaline D-Cells would be far worse.
In my experience, the bigger issue with Verizon's battery backups was that when the battery starts failing, the device beeps loudly every minute. That's especially problematic in apartments, as it tends to be within earshot of the bedroom. And the battery backup system is present in the ONT box even if you don't have phone service, or ever want it; and even if you own your home, it takes a lot of complaining to get Verizon to remove it. Horrendously stupid design.
> All of them I've encountered take a very standard 12V lead-acid battery - the same one that's inside consumer UPS units - and you can get replacements from a dozen brands on Amazon and other vendors.
There's about 70 different sizes for these standard 12V lead-acid batteries though. And most of my consumer UPS units hide the battery behind a security screw and don't list the battery size in the docs. If the battery was removed and not replaced, it's harder than it should be to find a new one.
I've been ignoring those for decades with no ill effects.
If you look at the voltage curves, Alkaline batteries start at higher voltage than NiMH but drop below NiMH voltage pretty quickly, so unless you have a device that stops working when your alkaline batteries drop below 50% charge or so at 1.2V, there's no reason to avoid NiMH.
It my not be a big deal for a completely solid state device but definitely pay attention to those notices for anything electromechanical, the issue isn’t the voltage but the current draw. And given that your broadband device is a transmitter, it could possibly matter at the margin…which for the topic under discussions could be precisely were you need it.
Can you elaborate on that? AFAIK the only real upside of the current draw properties of alkaline batteries are for very low draws where you'll get some additional runtime out of them. (e.g. I can swap the alkaline batteries in my tv remote every 5 years rather than charging the NiMH batteries every 2.5 years.)
Most things are to some degree works of fiction. The public personas of the rich and powerful are generally curated representations of how they want you to see them, and that isn't a new phenomenon.
I appreciate this. The full text search is fairly crucial, as while I've seen the entire series more than once I cannot for the life of me remember "the name of the episode where the aliens pretending to be dumb kidnap Geordi", but the search is good enough to get there without being too obvious.
One where the season 2 doctor replaced Crusher (because apparently the producers didn’t like Gates McFadden even though the cast and viewers did) performed the operation.
And another where Q sent Picard back in time (kind of) to undo the incident that lead to his heart getting stabbed.
The latter episode hasn’t aged well because of one unnecessary romantic/sex scene. Which is a pity because it’s an otherwise fantastic episode.
But then the TOS has its fair share of cringeworthy moments for modern audiences that made total sense in the era it was aired.
> The latter episode hasn’t aged well because of one unnecessary romantic/sex scene.
Meh. I give huge passes for media based on when they were filmed. Stuff that doesn't age well is mostly just "well, it was ok at the time" and move on. TNG has very little in it that isn't really timeless.
Now, for stuff that was bad even for the time, that's the stuff that should rightly be condemned. For example, Code of Honor.
It'd also be nice if the search had fuzzy letter matching, too. American keyboards typically don't make typing "deja q" or "menage a troi" with the diacritics particularly easy.
The Pakleds assembled a huge pile of technologies they didn't invent together into a powerful ship and social-engineered the Enterprise into giving them more valuable stuff to exploit.
This is Hacker News, replace "Pakleds" with "startup founder" and so long as it's profitable that's called being brilliant and innovative.
I do remember waiting for the formulaic “aha! Tricked you! You thought we were dumb moment” and then it was just like “nope, this is just the way they are”, was definite an interesting twist.
No, they really were (hilariously) dumb and simple. Of the top of my head I remember their capital was named “Big Strong City”, their “Red Alert” was “Red Alarm” (it’s funny in context) and they didn’t really understand that’s an emergency, and despite being corrected multiple times by the woman herself, they kept thinking captain Carol Freeman was captain Kathryn Janeway. For reference, one of them in black and the other is white.
Lower Decks is canon, not “a form” of it (exaggerated or otherwise) but just as canon as any other show, and it’s my opinion (of course you may disagree) that it enriches Star Trek’s lore. Yes, that means the Koala is canon (it even shows up in the intro on the Strange New Worlds crossover episode!), but when you think about it, that’s not any more silly than Q or the myriad other bizarre things on other Star Trek shows.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter. They’re fictional shows so all that’s important is that we enjoy them in our own way, but I don’t think Lower Decks exaggerated how dumb the Pakleds are, I think it explored them so much because them being dumb made them a good comedic fit. When I watch the TNG episode and Lower Decks, I see consistency. More than comedy, Lower Decks has an immense respect and care for the lore.
That’s a very uncharitable reading of my comment when I literally said it was canon.
The “exaggerated” bit is clearly meant to highlight that Lower Decks is written to be a comedy first. So certain parts of canon are amped up for comedic effect.
The rest of your post seemed to imply that I was unimpressed with Lower Decks, and Star Trek in general, when it has comedy episodes. Nothing about my comment suggested that. I actually think Lower Decks (post season 1) was the strongest spin off in new Trek. And I even loved the SNW / LD crossover episode too.
I regret that you took my comment as negative, please believe that was not my intention. I tried to be exceedingly clear about what was opinion and that I think we’re fine to disagree as long as we’re enjoying ourselves.
There was certainly no implication directed at you¹. I don’t know you and wouldn’t assume your tastes. Rather, I was sharing my excitement at Lower Decks. I’m glad that you liked it too.
I wish you a nice Saturday.
¹ And it saddens me that these days so many people on HN constantly assume implications which aren’t there, and always negatively, instead of taking comments as they’re written and defaulting to assuming kindness.
Urk. Man, people like you really take the joy out of life. Here everyone else is, just having fun with harmless geekery, but something just compels you to be pedantic and wrong.
“Big Strong City” is not “just vocabulary”, it’s an example of how they think and what they value, what they give importance to. “Red Alarm” is vocabulary, but that was not the example (that was to situate people who have seen the show), the relevant bit is “they didn’t really understand that’s an emergency”. Mixing up two people is not vocabulary.
Now, was it worth it to poo poo on everyone’s fun just to try to show how smart you are and embarrass yourself in the process by revealing a lack of understanding of the subject matter?
Don’t be that kid at the party who’s always calling for attention and all of the adults secretly wish their parents hadn’t brought him along. Do better.
Ah yes, if you like Pakleds, you should really watch Lower Decks! Also if you like TNG, as it's set in the timeline just after TNG and has guest (voice) appearances from many TNG, DS9 and Voyager characters - though not Picard unfortunately (IIRC).
The Voting Rights Act has been gutted, allowing southern states to gerrymander and reduce the voting power of minorities. Not even hypothetically, Texas did so moments after the Supreme Court gutted the VRA.
States are aggressively attacking minority voting rights through several angles - reducing sites you can vote and hours you can vote at them, especially in minority areas, ID requirements that hurt people who don't own cars and thus don't need Drivers' Licenses (and are essentially a form of poll tax), and many other nefarious tactics.
And mainstream conservative justification, including the US Supreme Court, is that because this is not overtly racist in its design, but just coincidentally racist in its impact, it has plausible deniability. Basically an extension of the “racism is over” school of thought.
And an extension of the progressive / conservative disagreement between how a system is designed vs. the impacts of a system determines its fairness and justness.
Edit: funny, I pre-sniped the sibling responses to your comment.
I appreciate you called out the more fundamental disagreement here: "... the progressive / conservative disagreement between how a system is designed vs. the impacts of a system determines its fairness and justness."
I think a lot of people miss this or pretend that the conservative position is just old-school racism (although it definitely is sometimes). But there are really hard philosophical, ethical, and political questions at the base of a lot our political problems. I think it helps keep people from arguing past each other if they can find out where the really "hard" part of their political disagreement actually is.
That's not "unfortunate". It was a deliberate choice. Any term used to describe the problem is treated as if it meant something bad, and then we're told we can't talk about it because it's "politicized". As if the entire point of the political process was about something other than resolving disagreements.
Your framing is fundamentally illiberal. Refraining from engaging using “well deep in your heart” excuses means you can self-righteously ignore any position you disagree with and never have to face real argument. And it is wonderfully non-falsifiable, so you can always use it!
It is not "illiberal'. It is descriptive and objective. As opposed to pretending I am naive dumbo.
I did not engaged in "well deep down". I said "the motivation is clearly that. Even openly stated again and again and again whenever in front of symphatetic audience"
I highly recommend the video series "The Alt-Right Playbook" (in the sense of an expose, not a how-to) which has an episode dedicated to this, titled "Always a Bigger Fish". [0], which goes into how people might be talking "past" one-another.
______
> Your conservative friend is often baffled as to what you're even trying to say when you point out there's not enough high-paying jobs or affordable health plans for everyone.
> There's not supposed to be. The system requires an underclass. Someone's gotta clean the toilets.
> Capitalism, then, is a proving ground: it's how you demonstrate where in the hierarchy you deserve to be. Do you have more than you need, or less?
I'm sure the video goes into more depth, but the "inevitability of hierarchy" explanation has never made sense to me.
If reactionaries place more importance on hierarchy, then shouldn't this mean accepting the hierarchy as it stands and knowing their place in it? Progressive beliefs are often seen as being a product of out of touch affluenza, so [stereotypical] progressives' relative direction in the hierarchy should be clear. Meanwhile the underclass below them with shittier jobs should make them feel content from being above a different group of people - illegal labor especially puts even more people below them!
Rather what they would seem to want is some other hierarchy where they sit higher. And while it's completely understandable to want to improve your position, it's specious to give this credit as some noble abstract belief in hierarchy rather than mere zero-sum scrapping to improve their lot.
So at least to me, reactionary propaganda exploiting people's sense of an [unfair] hierarchy doesn't seem like anything particularly different than reactionary propaganda exploiting people's sense of $whatever else to get them riled up and turn off their ability to reason or communicate. It's never actually about the lofty value, but rather emotional appeals to how you've been wronged so let's get revenge.
Progressive thinkers like Ibram X. Kendi believe every single policy issue must be evaluated on the basis of whether it happens to impact different races differently. Essentially turning the state into a gigantic social engineering project.
Unlike conservative agenda of ... massive social engineering? Like, conservatives openly talk about shaping society the way they want it, punishing those who dont conform and try to pass laws to do so.
And the alternative for you is to just ignore that any law (or government action) has any different impact on race at all? Why are we arguing at the extremes? What alternative history must one subscribe to in order to believe that ignoring disparate impact won’t end in humans rights abuses? Have you even heard about something like how nuclear testing and proliferation disproportionately impacted the Navajo nation especially because they had absolutely no recourse against it? Are we just supposed to say “tough luck”? “Might makes right?” “Should’ve gotten a better lawyer?”
I don't actually believe that it disproportionately affected the Navajo nation. I believe that it affected the Navajo nation some because a lot of nuclear tests were done in the remote western deserts which is where the Navajo reservation is. And I believe that some people who claimed they were advocating for Navajo interests claimed this constituted an offense against them in such a way that it justifies some kind of disparate action law. But I don't actually believe that Navajo were more affected than non-Navajo by nuclear testing; and I don't want people to be able to claim that they were in such a way that it creates any kind of legal obligation on non-Navajo.
>And the alternative for you is to just ignore that any law (or government action) has any different impact on race at all?
I mean, every law will inevitably impact different groups at least a little differently. I'm not a fan of obsessing about race every time a law is written, no.
>What alternative history must one subscribe to in order to believe that ignoring disparate impact won’t end in humans rights abuses?
This seems like sloppy reasoning. If a person's rights are being violated, they ought to be able to make that argument in court without reference to disparate impact.
What we've seen in the US is the 90s "judge people as individuals" paradigm has been replaced by a "racial collectivism" paradigm. In recent years, this new paradigm was initially mainstream on the left, then became mainstream on the right:
The "racial collectivism" paradigm is corrosive to individual rights, no matter who wields it. Furthermore, collectivist activity on the part of one ethnic group ends up being countered by collectivist activity on the part of other ethnic groups, in a doom spiral. The result is descent into hateful sectarianism. Scroll through X on any Tuesday to see what I mean.
>nuclear testing and proliferation disproportionately impacted the Navajo nation especially because they had absolutely no recourse against it? Are we just supposed to say “tough luck”? “Might makes right?” “Should’ve gotten a better lawyer?”
Consider a hypothetical where the town near the nuclear test has a population which is a perfect microcosm of the US in terms of race, gender, age, class, etc. No "disparate impact" argument can be possibly made in this hypothetical, since all of the racial "collectives" are equally harmed.
Does this change the fact that the nuclear tests are harming people? Or the best approaches to the problem?
Racial collectivism just isn't a good approach. People are more responsive to the needs of others when they view them as fellow humans or fellow citizens, not representatives of alien collectives.
> This seems like sloppy reasoning. If a person's rights are being violated, they ought to be able to make that argument in court without reference to disparate impact.
Where does that leave the equal protection clause?
> >And the alternative for you is to just ignore that any law (or government action) has any different impact on race at all?
> I mean, every law will inevitably impact different groups at least a little differently. I'm not a fan of obsessing about race every time a law is written, no.
If it affected you directly, you might care.
Because it doesn't, you are in the position to pick and choose what you give your interest and energy to.
It's not, as those policies allow those in power and currently benefiting from the status quo to abuse minorities. It's why rights and equal protections have to be codified.
I hate this line of thinking. It's hard to argue that Republicans are strictly racist when you have people like Tim Scott in respected positions. Literally Condoleezza Rice was the Secretary of State. If we are going to take racism seriously, race needs to be the causal mechanism... not culture, not politics.
The distinction between cultural differences and something like strict colorism make this a difficult issue to adjudicate. Correlation does not imply causation, and looking at nontrivial counter-examples should be helpful.
It's really difficult to argue the party's goal in gerrymandering is trying to prevent black people from gaining significant positions in government when the same party is electing and appointing black folks to significant positions in government.
The presence of token minorities doesn't change the intention or effect of their policies.
There aren't enough rich people out there for Republicans to win elections based on the votes of people their policies actually help. They use things like racism and transphobia to energize voters among groups they hurt (such as folks relying on medicaid, social security, farm subsidies, clean air and water, etc.)
The presence of many token minorities, some of which are elected by popular vote, does undermine the argument that the point is to stop minorities from achieving elected office.
Again, you are conflating racism with passing policies that harm groups that correlate with race. Those are not the same thing.
The point of the Civil Rights Act was that many southern states were trying to stop black people from achieving office because they were black. They weren't trying to infringe the voting rights of white liberals. There is a world of difference between trying to end Medicare and trying to end Medicare... only for minorities.
> you are conflating racism with passing policies that harm groups that correlate with race. Those are not the same thing.
Authors of the voting rights act understood that the former is so often a veneer for the latter that they are functionally the same thing. You are making the same argument as mid-century racist policymakers that were defeated by the VRA. Back then you would argue that Poll taxes and voter tests aren't illegal, they just prevent the indigent and uneducated from voting. Well those policies were the beating heart of Jim Crow, which the VRA intended to defeat.
You essentially argue that policymakers should enjoy the right to quietly undermine minority voting power up until the point where they explicitly say "and I'm doing this because I'm a racist targeting minorities". Well we've been there. It's been illegal to make laws directly against racial groups since reconstruction. This is why much of Jim Crow was built on a foundation of targeting adjacent traits rather than race specifically, and why many lament the defanging of the VRA.
>Authors of the voting rights act understood that the former is so often a veneer for the latter that they are functionally the same thing.
You can't say this with a straight face. Before the civil rights act we literally had white's only sections of businesses. Separate-but-unequal was the apartheid of the South. That just doesn't exist anymore in any kind of open and accepted way, thank god.
>You essentially argue that policymakers should enjoy the right to quietly undermine minority voting power up until the point where they explicitly say "and I'm doing this because I'm a racist targeting minorities".
Again, I'm not saying that at all, the Supreme Court isn't saying that either. You are again conflating minorities as a singular voting bloc with a singular voting interest. The entire point here is that there is plenty of evidence that this is about politics, not about race.
I think gerrymandering is atrocious. I think we should move to a proportional voting system where gerrymandering is no longer achievable. The idea that 25% of a population can dictate government control to the other 75% of the population by drawing arbitrary lines is atrocious. I just think it's quite clear that this isn't happening to suppress the vote along racial lines.
The idea here is that I think it's quite plausible that black republicans are being used along gerrymandering line to help elect republicans. If it were about race... then black republicans would also need to be disenfranchised.
Jim Crow was very obviously terrible... it was also very overt and obvious. I grew up in Texas, and the idea that the right is a secret cabal of racists trying to create some kind of white government is insane. The idea that the general socioeconomic concerns of the black community put most black voters on the political left makes vastly more sense, and it also explains the significantly larger numbers of Hispanic representatives on the Texas right.
It's not one data point. There is plenty of evidence that this is about politics... not about race.
>ID requirements that hurt people who don't own cars and thus don't need Drivers' Licenses (and are essentially a form of poll tax)
The majority of non-US democracies require ID to vote, and it's considered normal and un-controversial. Here in the US, there is a tempest in a teakettle because this has been deemed a "civil rights issue". It really illustrates the role that "civil rights" plays in modern US political discourse.
The nature of that ID is essential. If it used to authenticate someone for voting, which is a RIGHT, then every citizen must have a RIGHT to possess that ID. Not only that, but obtaining the ID must not pose any encumbrance beyond the effort to vote.
Americans manifestly do not have a right to possess a driver's license, it's a privilege. The process for obtaining one requires expenditure of time, energy, and money.
The only form of government "ID" that could presently meet the bar is social security cards, as every citizen has one by right. That is obviously a bad idea. There is no "move fast and break things" when it comes to democratic process. If something as important as this cannot be done right, then it should not be done. The right to vote is sacred and cannot be infringed upon, period.
Drivers licenses haven't been the only form of state ID across the US for well over a generation now, and as national-level ID usable in any state there is the passport (and at less cost there was the passport card).
The physical Social Security card was never meant to be used as ID (the number on it is, de facto, another story).
Obtaining ID cards in other developed countries requires the same payment of application fees and visits to offices, so those steps being required in the US, too, aren't any refutation of the OP's comment.
>Americans manifestly do not have a right to possess a driver's license, it's a privilege. The process for obtaining one requires expenditure of time, energy, and money.
28 USD for a non-driver ID in my state of residence (1) (exceptions: free if you are homeless or are a blind veteran)
65 USD for a passport card (2) (the cheapest passport option).
Both require attending in-person appointments.
For contrast:
Voting is compulsory in Australia. Citizens may register to vote entirely online, and may prove their identity using a Medicare card or citizenship certificate (or driver's license or passport, ofc) (3). (Aside: this page of FAQs explicitly calls out that these two means of proving ID have been added as a response to increasing feedback from young people, disabled people, and people living in remote areas about having less access to driver's license or passport.)
Obtaining an Australian Medicare card is free, and citizens may prove their identity using a birth certificate (no need for it to be certified) and submitting their application + supporting documents by email (or by mail, but that costs postage) (4).
Australia is somewhat unusual here among developed democracies, as a simple web search will show. Elsewhere obtaining an ID typically requires at least some payment and time spent visiting an office.
I think that's immaterial to the present thread. Such countries exist and are regarded as developed democracies by the usual respected rankings, so to argue that "well, they aren't really democracies then" would not be a very productive enterprise.
Are these REAL ID? Are they free? How long does one has to drive to find an office who can deliver those? How much paperwork is needed? How many times does one has to get back in person to that ID office?
Stop. We can all see you argue in bad faith. You are at best incurious and naive, and at worst...
Do you pay taxes? Have you ever applied for a loan/bank account/rent/mortgage/etc? Have you ever enrolled a child in school? Have you ever applied for a job? Have you ever had to fill out paperwork after the loss of a loved one? etc etc etc etc
These are all tasks that a functional adult in the world needs to do regardless of background / race / creed / etc.
It's not bad faith to say hey as a functional adult you should go get a fucking ID.
What is the % of people that honestly do not have one? Pass a law and give people 4 years to go get one.
Like why must you insist on treating people like hopeless children?
I think it is bad faith to implicitly assume a driver's license is required when there are easier options.
I have a state ID, a REAL ID. It was not particularly difficult to get. I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that there are major cross-national differences in difficulty here.
Thank you for reminding us that you aren't working three jobs in the same day to make ends meet, have disposable income and free time to collect the documents and get to the office twice,and live in a district where said office isn't half a day of driving (with the current gas prices) away.
And of course, you are fine with people with less affodances than you not being able to vote. Such moral character on top of your comfortable life.
You make it sound like this would pass into law and within 48 hours everyone would need to go get an ID.
You'd pass this into law and then have it take effect 2-4 years out, and if you can't go and secure yourself an ID after 2-4 years of notice you aren't a functional adult.
It is also funny you have at people not being real adults when the vice president of the United States - himself very worried about election fraud - is saying people in Alaska may be confused between two Sullivans on the ballot because "people are busy. People have lives. People have jobs". Apparently he thinks a large proportion of Alaskans aren't functioning adults. Funny, that.
>Thank you for reminding us that you aren't working three jobs in the same day to make ends meet, have disposable income and free time to collect the documents and get to the office twice,and live in a district where said office isn't half a day of driving (with the current gas prices) away.
Sure, I mean, going to the grocery store is also very oppressive. You need money, time, transport, etc.
>And of course, you are fine with people with less affodances than you not being able to vote. Such moral character on top of your comfortable life.
I have no issue if people want to implement measures to make it easier to get ID. But given the state of US democracy, election security currently seems important enough to me that voter ID laws seem reasonable. That's how policy works--there are tradeoffs. Want me to pearl-clutch about your moral character in allowing the country to descend into fascism through a contested election?
>I have no issue if people want to implement measures to make it easier to get ID.
That's the big "if". That's why the current representatives who pretend to want to secure the elections are only pretending. That's why you are not answering in good faith, because you are ignoring/handwaving that crucial part.
>Sure, I mean, going to the grocery store is also very oppressive. You need money, time, transport, etc.
Going to the grocery store is not a constitutional right. We already went through this vacuous argument when Republicans pretended that "you have to show ID to have unlimited pasta at the Olive Garden" as an excuse for their sudden request to force states to impose ID requirements just before the midterms. Again: bad faith argument.
I live in a country where there is ID requirements to vote. It is also a place where we use paper ballots, and polling places have never queues longer than five minutes, and voting only happens on Sundays. There is no mail voting. There is no gerrymandering. This is all possible because the whole system is made to make voting convenient and always has been. This can't be said of the USA which has an old and present history of massive voter suppression and electoral manipulation. The current push from Republicans to "secure" the elections is a complete bad faith attempt because they are completely open, at all levels, this is only to cancel and contest Democrat votes. That's what you describe as "election security currently seems important enough to me that voter ID laws seem reasonable". You completely ignore that, as well as the lies behind the argument:
"From 16,000 to 185 to Zero: Trump’s Claims of Illegal Voting in Nevada Fizzle"
ID cards in other developed and democratic countries typically require payment of application fees (sometimes modest fees, sometimes substantial fees) and visits to offices, too.
Does the American left feel the same way about firearms? I've heard for years that there should be registration and licensing on them (which I actually agree with).
Some Americans called left believe the right to firearms is for states not people. Some believe rights can have reasonable restrictions and a weapon and a ballot are different. Some quote Karl Marx who said Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered.
As someone from one of those non-US democracies, the reason why we can mandate IDs for votes is because they're basically trivial to get, whereas from what I've heard of the American hodgepodge of state-level IDs and "this one counts while this one doesn't" shenanigans, that doesn't seem to apply to the US. Now, I know that over there, the several states are responsible for running the elections within their borders -- that being in the US Constitution -- but some states seem to try to (and succeed in) making it unnecessarily difficult, and that may or may not be on purpose. Civil Rights groups certainly seem to think that it is, and that it affects minority populations disproportionately, because of course it does.
For a point of comparison, here in Finland we require that a voter has a valid ID, that is an ID card, a driver's licence with a photo in it, or a passport. Now what if you _don't_ have one of those IDs? Easy, you go to the police station and get yourself a temporary ID, which is by law given free of charge. You do need to get a passport photo taken for that, but those can usually be done in about 10 minutes for around 10 Euros.
And of course there are other things outside of the ID issue which make the elections not rigged against minorities. Simple things like having the actual election day on a Sunday, the polling stations being usually in walking distance in cities -- people living in the countryside most likely have a car -- and that said polling stations tend to be in schools, shops, and other such places where people would be going anyway. Oh, and you usually also get polling stations popping up before the actual election day so that people may vote in advance, in said shops, schools, and similar assorted places.
---
The US could totally start doing ID mandates, but the problem is that in the US, their usage doesn't seem to be out of a genuine worry about election integrity or other similar concerns, but out of voter disenfranchisement, which again, hits minority populations disproportionately hard.
>You do need to get a passport photo taken for that, but those can usually be done in about 10 minutes for around 10 Euros.
This doesn't sound like a big difference in effort from the last time I got myself an ID.
>Oh, and you usually also get polling stations popping up before the actual election day so that people may vote in advance, in said shops, schools, and similar assorted places.
Yep, the US also has early voting and vote by mail.
>their usage doesn't seem to be out of a genuine worry about election integrity or other similar concerns
> This doesn't sound like a big difference in effort from the last time I got myself an ID.
And you probably don't live in a dense urban area, or at least a minority-heavy part of one.
I grew up in Michigan. In the suburb where my parents lived, there were 8-10 voting machines for a not-large population and voting was a matter of pulling in, walking inside, casting our ballot, and leaving.
In the college town less than 20 miles away it was a very different story - far fewer machines per person, polling places far away from where students live so they have to find a ride to get there, and more - and this was an intentional tactic to discourage youth voting.
Allocation and staffing of DMV and similar offices where one has to go in order to get an ID are manipulated in the same way.
I've been trying to understand the logic of this comment for the last five minutes, but genuinely the only explanation I can come up with is that it's satire.
They alleged that Michigan makes it difficult to get an ID for voter suppression purposes, but ID is not required to vote in Michigan. Which leads me to suspect that the user in question is making up their talking points out of thin air.
At no point did they imply that Michigan currently requires voter ID. Arainach gave you an example of disparity in ease of voting.
As a separate point, they preemptively mention that a similar disparity exists re/ getting an ID, which is what you're trying to add as a requirement. It's a straightforward argument.
So where do you get "that Michigan makes it difficult to get an ID for voter suppression purposes"?
The US could make IDs free and then make election day a national holiday, in which case the resistance to ID requirements probably wouldn't be as strong. Currently voter ID laws will suppress voting, whereas the goal in a democracy should surely be that everyone has ample opportunity to vote and have their voice heard.
Yearning for a day when conservatives, whether they identify as one or not, recognize that there’s a rich history of human suffering under the yoke of conservative thought leaders that could be easily avoided if they just opened a history book. Or just read the news. Because there’s no interruption between the two. Jerry Jones is in the background of a photo of the Little Rock 9. Donald Trump led a hate campaign against the Central Park 5 in 1989. These are contemporary issues.
When Mississippi Republican lawmakers voted to gerrymander their state in May _2026_, they decided to convene in the old state capitol. The one the Confederate used.
This isn't the past. This is pretty much the present and the future. This, together with the restoration of Confederate names and monuments and the president and vice-president lying about Haitians and Somali is clear, pure, objective racism. It is not six degrees. It is who they are.
I'm asking something that specifically targets black Americans as a group - the VRA doesn't target them (at least as my understanding goes) but rather as you said is allowing gerrymandering which more divides down political lines than racial ones unless you are suggesting that every person of a racial group thinks and votes the same.
I guess to put it more directly if we took a hypothetical black male named Steven and a hypothetical white female named Sally who have the same job, live in the same neighborhood, etc - what rights has been rolled back on Steven that were not on Sally.
Here's NPR, a notoriously left-wing news source in the US
"Although we often talk in a partisan context about voter fraud and voter suppression and whether voters have access to the ballot, the reality is, over the past 25 years, we've greatly increased the convenience of voting for almost all Americans," said David Becker, the founder and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which authored the new report."
If you actually read the article, you'll see that the argument is that, since the year 2000, it has (as of 2024) broadly become easier to vote. But:
"The South, with its history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, has long lagged behind when it comes to voting access. The CEIR data shows that, although some states have slowly started expanding options for voters, generally it is still the most difficult region for voters to cast a ballot."
And it's only gotten worse since. I strongly suggest you do some cursory research in the future before making comments like this.
* real efforts by some Republican-led legislatures to restrict access at the margins*
The lies about early voting, the lies about voting machines and efforts in some state legislatures to roll back some of the election integrity and convenience measures
He says that they "almost all" failed -- meaning some are succeeding, and they're always disenfranchising the same people. The average is better, but that doesn't tell you anything about those worst affected.
He's also not talking about gerrymandering, which has gotten worse and worse over time.
> You start out in 1954 by saying, “N$, n$, n$.” By 1968 you can’t say “n$”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N$, n$.”
That's the problem, none of the legislation says "black people can't be allowed to vote" but we know based on statistics that things like voter ID disproportionately harm people in lower income brackets, which are disproportionately minorities. So we get these wheedling "not racism actually" rulings. There's a massive compounding effect that the restriction of economic opportunity has had over generations.
One of the more direct actions was the dismantling of affirmative action, which was an intentional set of rules set to undo some of this historical aggregated harm.
Just decades of statistics and a good number of quotes from numerous politicians that validate the efforts. Like this reported from John Ehrlichman, White House legal counsel under Nixon:
“You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
We're literally in a thread about the FBI trying to get Martin Luther King Jr to commit suicide, and you're waltzing in to claim that there's no evidence? There are piles of it! at least pretend to be arguing in good faith.
The only reason gerrymandering works as a tactic in the first place is that neighborhoods DON’T have a statistically uniform distribution of the population. So “Steven and Sally live in the same neighborhood” is not a very good way to look at issues like these.
Yes, in aggregate -- the whole group, not cherry-picked individuals -- racial groups vote differently from each other. In 2024, if only Black people had voted, we'd have President Harris now. This is beyond dispute.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the midterms, because the current administration, have been going after Hispanics and Asians without hesitation. Maybe those groups will finally learn something. If you’re black or American Indian, you know the score.
The Republicans lost California because Pete Wilson and the Republican Party in California (late 1980’s) could not shut their mouths up, demonizing Hispanics at every turn, it turned the whole state around to the Democrats, and the same group is slowly but surely turning Texas blue with every year that goes by. And the same is also true of Arizona and New Mexico, just keep demonizing Hispanics. It’s not going work out in the long term.
The next governor of California will be a democrat of Hispanic dissent the Republicans had better be nice/respectful to him because they are losing the Southwest slowly but surely, every year, and being respectful also includes Mexico.
The Republicans just don't want to campaign in urban centers.
Barely any major city in America has a Republican mayor. It's frankly insane for a mainstream party to just basically give up.
While this is indeed not how trees work, it puts the number into a useful perspective.
Finland, comparable in size to Montana, is basically one huge forest (75% tree cover) dotted with lakes, and a lot of those forests are harvested every year. Of the entire EU, this is probably the place where trees are the least rare.
250 thousand trees cut down in England would have been a very different story.
Exactly. There's a whole gestation period where the mom tree carries the baby tree to term. Then the baby tree needs years to mature and develop. And because the dad tree was lost in the great google felling of 2026, the baby tree will be raised in a single tree family household, which will put additional strain on its development.
What's to be embarassed? These are busy community moderators, not whitehat hackers. They don't owe anyone a writeup of technical vulnerabilities. They owe the community clear communication of rule changes and most people expect explanation of why rules were changed, and they delivered both.
They did actually made a technical claim, which is fine, but then when someone said this is serious and asked for details, they responded with attitude and defensiveness. The mods don't need to be white-hat hackers, and even if they were, they're still dumb. They could've just said, all we know at the moment is we kept getting redirected to this malware site, so we're blocking this.
The craziest part is the guy asking even apologized, probably cause he was getting downvoted too much and actually cares about appeasing them.
Community moderator is a stressful thankless job, especially on a subreddit with a reasonable amount of (often political) content, PARTICULARLY on one regularly brigaded by trolls and antagonists from a competing subreddit, so I'm going to cut a lot of slack to the unpaid volunteers who put up with a lot of hate directed at them.
> I'm not quite sure what caused the decline over 3+ decades
Finance. Everything is a number to be optimized that must constantly grow. The US abandoned antitrust, worker protections, social safety nets, and more in the name of greed.
For workers to care you need to treat them as humans. People care about a team and a family that care about them back.
The mythical story of the person who started in the mailroom and worked their way up is gone. The mailroom, secretary, custodian, and as many roles as possible have been replaced with contractors without benefits or any future in the building they currently work in who will facelessly cycle out in a few months for another contractor.
Employees have been abused too much to believe the lies. If I work twice as hard, my reward is a sub-inflation raise and no realistic hope of promotion. Feedback employees give is ignored, so there's no motivation to push to improve things. The management class has a desperate dream of all people being fungible so they can throw them out and get cheaper ones, and fungible is what you get - if you want a generic interchangeable cog, that's what you get, but don't complain about how the cog doesn't "care enough".
(I don't love this analogy and consider it extreme and not overly accurate)
reply