Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nxzero's commentslogin

Has anyone seen analysis of elections nullified by vote?

For example, voters would be allowed to put the status of any and all candidates as null and/or a top vote as null. If the majority of votes cast as were null, another election would be run with all candidates from the prior election removed.


In the mean time between the next election (with all the time it would take to find/vet brand new candidates!), would the incumbent keep his/her spot?


That would be the most obvious resolution in the case that another election was required, though might be exploited as a means to get around term limits.

Another option might be the delegation of responsibility to the voting population to force a timely resolution of the election, greater understanding of the issues at hand, etc.


>> "This has been shown in several studies"

Have links to these studies?


Are there any examples of the FBI creating or enabling predators so they are able to hunt them?

If so, is this illegal, and if not, why?


Always fun watch someone go cold turkey, since it becomes obvious to them their an infozombie really quick; reaching for a phone in their pocket that's not there every few minutes, going through withdrawals from not being able to read feeds/email, etc.


Somewhat unrelated, but I think it's funny how quickly these devices have turned us into their slaves.

Among people who can afford a smartphone, which is a wide swath from the working poor on up, it seems like _everyone_ is swiping at their phones all day. I like to imagine them in as many variations as possible: judges, programmers, hells angels, movie stars, school children, cops, window washers hanging from a rope...[1]

It then becomes fun to try to think of people you don't see using phones as much: construction workers (too busy with hands), surfers (in water and heavy surf), astronauts maybe ?...

[1] http://www.boredpanda.com/portraits-holding-devices-removed-...


I can't stand when someone does that so that's the one thing I NEVER do is reach for my phone when I'm in any way engaged with people IRL. It's just annoying as fuck to talk to someone who's a slave to communication coming in through their phone.


Just wait until machine learning gets really good at providing information that's of value that you "must have" to get through the day.


This service does a rather good job of summarising individual articles:

http://smmry.com/


I'm not sure nxzero (and I) think that is a good thing.


I got the impression that nxzero thought it was a good thing. Filtering out the signal from the noise.


There are two value judgements in there: that there is a such thing as "must have" information that could be provided by such technology, and that a technology's ability to provide that information means it's getting "good."


Here's Moxie's related press release on doing E2E for Allo: https://whispersystems.org/blog/allo/

Curious if he'll comment on what happened:

https://twitter.com/moxie

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=moxie

___

If you don't know about Moxie, highly suggest learning more about him:

https://thoughtcrime.org/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moxie_Marlinspike


The best new friend of Facebook Moxie?

His "trust us, we checked FB Messenger code and it's all good" pitch made for a very entertaining read.


Yes, moxie "knows it all" wants to control his apps so much he doesn't want them to be on f-droid https://f-droid.org/posts/security-notice-textsecure/


Do you feel f-droid's build security should be trusted, an if so, why?

>> ""F-Droid has received criticism for distributing out-of-date versions of official applications and for its approach to application signing."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid


> F-Droid has received criticism for distributing out-of-date versions of official applications

Thats not a bug, it's a feature


Aware of that issue (asked moxie about it on HN) and other issues too, but it doesn't change that there's zero reason to believe Moxie's intent is malicious and it's a stretch by any means to claim his contributions are anything but positive in sum.


I'm not sure why Moxie gets so much grief on some of these issues. To his credit, he's released just about everything under a free software license -- with reproducible builds and all.

Ultimately, it's his baby and he can do what he wants with it.


While speculation, Moxie's projects appear to have gotten (deservedly) a lot of attention, which brings a lot of feedback that's unfounded and potential malicious; for example, the f-droid comment about in my opinion fails to reflect both sides of the issue, and build security is VERY IMPORTANT and often ignored.

I don't know Moxie, but we've exchange messages before and never got the sense that off the cuff he was discounting any feedback. At a very highly level we agree about what he's doing, though I get the sense that anonymity is something we don't exactly agree about, but do understand a little of why he feels the way he does.


The pH level of most drinks are not low enough to eat metal, roughly a level of 2 depending on the metal and reactions: http://www.sheltondentistry.com/patient-information/ph-value...

Citric Acid will eat metal, which is why liquids like orange and lime juice are not stored in metal containers.


Might be wrong, but my understanding is that China currently leads the world in robotic labor; meaning all robotic labor preformed by robots own by Chinese companies regardless of where the robots are.


True or Not, it makes no difference, given the choice between a robotic product made in china delivered in two weeks and a robotic product made in the USA delivered in 24 hours, consumers will always pick the later. And given this example why would the cost be any different to the consumer? If anything you would expect the Chinese example to have higher shipping costs. When talking about a truly competitive global economy which we do not really have no because of wildly different costs of labor. A robot in the US costs just as much to run as in China.


There may well be more robots in China than anywhere else in the world, but they don't manufacture most of them.

Most articulated robots are manufactured in (unsurprisingly) Germany, Japan and South Korea.


If robots can be put anywhere, you put them where your customers are.


Where your customers are, insofar as there is capital and labor (even robotic factories break down) there to support it. That might mean onshoring for Americans, but I don't think that's true everywhere.

Look at how China is investing in Africa. In this hypothetical future, I can still see a country with large amounts of robotic equipment, lots of people educated to operate and program them, and good shipping infrastructure dominating global trade.

It will just be a highly developed China shipping to developing nations, instead of a developing China shipping to developed nations.

You can plug in your choice of robotic manufacturing country for China if you'd like, the point stands, but I see China as well positioned to maintain their lead in manufacturing if they are very smart.


Super annoying feature, since Google hijacks the URL in the process.

There should be a way to opt-out that is simple and does not require the user to be signed-in to do.

Ironically, almost positive that Google hates when links are wrapped like this.


But google already does that


Unless I'm misunderstanding you, believe you're talking about the search result redirects that Google does; which is different, because the user get redirected the the real URL.

AMD'd links never redirect, if you click the X you're sent back to Google's results, there's no way to get to the real URL that an average user would easily be able to do, if the link is bookmarked the link it's not the real link, etc.


They don't redirect for mobile devices, that is. If you visit an AMP URL on a non-mobile device, you'll end up at the original piece of content.


As you likely know, AMP'd stands for Accelerated Mobile Pages Project; meaning AMP'd is for mobile traffic.


Open Source Version referenced by AJ: https://github.com/codevise/pageflow

Given this is in fact the source code that the developer in question has admitted was the basis for their code, it would be interesting to know if they were correctly using the MIT License here: https://github.com/codevise/pageflow/blob/master/MIT-LICENSE


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: