To me, English punctuation seems chaotic compared to Bulgarian, which could be hard but logical. English spelling is better than, let's say, Greek or French.
As a developer, I'm surprised people write either "Hello world!" or "Hello, world!" In Bulgarian, as in Russian, the addressee is always set off by commas.
With modern technology, we might be in the first era where direct democracy is truly viable. Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation.
The normal approach is to compromise across topics.
Maybe one should have a finite number of winning votes in a period. Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on.
I think that would reduce the sense of urgency where there is non, equalize involvement, foster debate with the barely involved and ofc create a focus on things one wants rather than things one doesn't want.
Who knows, maybe one should be able to spend more than one vote per topic.
> . Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on.
Rule of the thumb: everyone will not 'just' [1]
The majority is not a single person that will somehow behave like a rational being that will count their votes and vote only for "things that matter". People view very different things as "things that matter", and the system is easily gamed. Run a few popular, but pointless votes, exhaust available winning votes for the period, then try to pass a meaningful legislation. You will have riots form people who have spent their votes, but still want to vote for something truly important.
And that's before we start talking about whether people should directly vote on removing building code regulations for example. Or whether or not measles vaccines should be mandatory.
I'm just playing with the puzzle. It's not like I deeply thought about it and this was my conclusion.
Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accumulate votes over time.
Of course the proposals could repeatedly go against a specific group. Not sure if you could create a unit of accounting for it or have some kind of independent jury examine the gaming.
I also wondered if the price could scale with the % victory. Like, if 100% votes A it costs zero votes. 51% would be the most expensive.
Maybe give the proposal makers a bunch of tokens, filling a proposal costs x, each vote against it costs y.
The core thought is basically, if people are overly attached to something they will get it but will have reduced influence on everything else.
Russia has been probing NATO for several years now. NATO is a paper tiger that seems to be content to do nothing. As long as the probing is in the lesser members: the Baltics, Romania.
When (likely not if) Russia decides to attack the Baltics, NATO will just shrug and send a strongly worded memo.
At the time when the jet violated Turkish airspace it wasn't a territorial threat either. Strangely enough no jet has violated Turkish airspace since (but a few drones have landed in Turkey during the war in Ukraine).
Meanwhile Russian drones, cruise missiles (!) and planes violate NATO airspace almost daily it seems. And are being launched from within NATO arispace quite frequently (see Germany).
And no, the drones are not the "Amazon delivery drones".
E.g on September 8 Geran-4 flew 120 km unopposed through Romanian airspace, took a leisurly turn above a small town with population of ~20k people, and then flew back, eventually crashing in Moldova.
I imagine the author saw this release as "macOS Tahoe but not sucky"
I liken it to Windows Vista and Windows 7. Although fundamentally similar operating systems under the hood, Windows 7 smoothed out Vista's kinks and brought forth additional polish.
I wouldn't mind if they (unofficially) adopted a tick-tock release cycle. New features on even years, refinement and under-the-hood changes on odd years.
It lists all instances, you can drill down into each one of them, see which services are affected, and each affected service pops up the incident timeline?
Isn't it actually amazing, and not "the most salesforce thing ever"?
> Some of those ways come from just plain object initialisers. Which are amazing and sorely needed in Java.
They really aren't, and they are IMHO an antipattern since they break encapsulation. One might argue that encapsulation doesn't matter with mere data classes, but Java will cater to that use case by introducing withers.
> They really aren't, and they are IMHO an antipattern since they break encapsulation.
They don't. Java had to come up with the extremely verbose builder pattern for the exact same thing. And withers are basically the same tedious manual builder pattern, just with a different name.
Doesn't mean you won't be tracked by about 15 other means.
reply