So someone who was previously unknown brought all this attention on themselves while being a coy billionaire? We live in strange times so it's possible but doubtful.
It's still absurd, because justice in this case doesn't come from equating these financial costs, this is an unfair system that privileges those with big pockets.
Few put it better than Tolstoy (from "What is Art?"):
"Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.
Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious Idea of beauty, or God; it is not, as the æsthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress towards well-being of individuals and of humanity.
As, thanks to man’s capacity to express thoughts by words, every man may know all that has been done for him in the realms of thought by all humanity before his day, and can, in the present, thanks to this capacity to understand the thoughts of others, become a sharer in their activity, and can himself hand on to his contemporaries and descendants the thoughts he has assimilated from others, as well as those which have arisen within himself; so, thanks to man’s capacity to be infected with the feelings of others by means of art, all that is being lived through by his contemporaries is accessible to him, as well as the feelings experienced by men thousands of years ago, and he has also the possibility of transmitting his own feelings to others."
I don't think what you shared is an exhaustive or even a valid answer to "why do people read novels?" It's just one author's thoughts on art, and it's debatable how accurate they are.
I really don't understand why people can't stop thinking that people like Tolstoy, Kant, and Hitler were beyond human beings who weren't absolutely influenced by the common thinking of their time. Almost every great writer/philosopher had massive blind spots that could only be fixed over time.
Yes, the categorical imperative still stands as a sound idea, but Kant also thought African people lacked the natural intelligence and emotional faculties that Europeans possessed. Does not sound that categorical to me if you're willing to consider a race of human beings as subhuman.
The point is that it's not just Tolstoy; a lot of views shared by some of the "greatest men" are absolutely vile garbage, and we must talk about that as well when we talk about them, instead of making an intellectual martyr and using their quotes as if they have any valid objective truth behind them to answer genuine questions.
Ideas can stand for themselves, the quote can stand for itself. You don't need to take all the things Tolstoy ever said and average their badness to decide whether a quote is true. You can read it yourself and see if it resonates with how you think of things.
Similarly, if you find that the quote resonates with you, you are not on the hook as endorsing every bad thing he ever did, or stupid thing he ever said.
There's a class of people who are so unfamiliar with ideas and critical evaluation that they cannot separate the idea from the person. These same people are the kind that typically excuse horrible ideas from people they admire/idolize.
That is a quote (not from one of his own writings but from a retelling from one of his friends) that is preceded by a one page disclaimer. I'm sure Gemini can find you a better quote than that if you want to slander Tolstoy.
But if you really are interested in knowing about Tolstoy's views on women, go read Anna Karenina. There is good reason why it is considered one of the greatest pieces of art ever written.
I know that there is not one particular reason why people read novels, as I have more than one particular reason just in myself. Given just that one data point I suppose there must be many reasons why people read novels.
The AI researchers seem to think that mainly for book reports for school and being able to sound smart (read the AI generated summary and blurb bits of it out loud)
So what's the allowed level of voter fraud we should accept? And the fact check is about votes not registered voters. Funny how it focuses on national elections when local elections can be swayed by handfuls of votes.
What level of suppression of legitimate voters are we willing to accept in order to avoid voter fraud?
See, there are always two kinds of errors. In the case of voting, one kind is where you let someone vote who shouldn't, and the other is where you don't let someone vote who should. And when you try to decrease one, you increase the other, because you don't have a perfect system.
So, how much suppression of legitimate voters should we accept in order to decrease voter fraud? I think the answer should be "no more voters should be suppressed than there are fraudulent votes cast, and preferably fewer".
Well, how many fraudulent votes are cast? There is little evidence that it's a large problem. In the absence of such evidence, I do not thing that there should be large changes to try to eliminate the fraudulent votes that exist, because they are likely to cause more problems the other direction.
Note well: I do not approve of fraudulent votes. But even more I disapprove of creating a large problem to fix a small one.
If you read the link I provided it shows that what happened was an administrative error and a relatively small number (~400) of those people voted, but they likely didn't engage in intentional fraud -- they likely thought they were entitled and did so.
But to the point of even 400 non-eligible voters participating, that is 400 too much.
If find the framing of your question bordering on disingenuous but I'll charitably assume that it is willfully ignorant.
We should have zero voter fraud. We should have zero electoral fraud.
Voter fraud itself is incredibly rare in US elections:
But you position yourself as expecting fair elections, and if you really do, you would understand that fair comprises not just keeping ineligible voters from doing so, but also allowing eligible voters to do so.
There's been an incredible amount of fuckery by the GOP to disenfranchise citizens of their rights to vote. But do you care about that?
Do you care that Trump is working to install loyalists into positions of election officials who are loyal to him, rather than the historical position of neutral officials who honor the democratic process?
There's plenty more where that came from, but I doubt you'll look at any of that because that isn't likely a concern of you.
So I ask you: is your concern about "your team" not winning or about free and fair elections. I'm pretty sure what that answer is but would welcome your response.
You gave me an idea :). The original motivation was to explore the Bible like I explore Wikipedia. I think this UX for Wikipedia would be really amazing. Someone should build it. I hope I don't get the itch to do it this weekend!
What does that look like in practice?
reply