Please avoid making this argument, it's a false equivalence. Youtube is not self-censoring those things.
If you want me to ask a similarly misleading line of questioning based only on trying to draw false equivalence from principles: Currently Youtube is self-censoring porn. Is the side of "youtube should become a porn site" really the side you want to root for?
No. I don't want to continue this discussion based on this line of questioning, sorry. Let's be good people and not fight, I'm sure you're a kind soul.
>It's like a blueprint for what to review further.
Why? Something going viral on social media is not proof or evidence that it happened or not. And as you know, without these policies anyone can spread false information about any election for any reason they want.
And the thing is: we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact. It's great to review things and to theorize about what would have happened if elections were run differently (there was a lot of this around the 2000 US election for example) but just saying something like "the election was fraud, Gore really won" is egregiously false and does nothing besides undermine the democratic process.
>” we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact.”
Yes, it is a legal and historical fact these elections had a certified winner.
This misses the point, though. If the integrity of the election is in question, then let people discuss it.
Perhaps, in due time, the consensus will eventually shift and historians will recognize some underhanded things took place. We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect because of Chicago/Illinois. We know that there were major discrepancies in Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 Texas Senate primary. It’s all pretty well documented at this point. People who “voted” for LBJ signed affidavits that they never voted in the runoff and yet ballots were cast in their name. Sure, it does no good to declare that Nixon really won, or that Coke Stevenson should have been Senator. But it does mean the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight.
I don't see how I am missing the point. Everything you've said would be mostly within the guidelines. Where you would get into trouble is if you did start saying "Nixon really won" or otherwise trying to say the election was fraudulent, because that would be false. You may want to re-read the guidelines to double check this.
But you may want to be careful with statements like "We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect". The election is not suspect and the end results (Kennedy won) are not going to change. It was settled decades ago. Specific events like you mention might have been suspect, but the election itself was not, it was settled legally according to the way the system worked at the time.
>the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight
But that's the thing though, just this saying this on social media in the context of any election is not meaningful and can cause harm, and is causing harm. Every election has statistical oddities, errors, disputes, recounts, and other issues. All of these mentioned election processes already do have oversight and formal reform procedures in place. That's all a normal and expected part of the process. It's a constant ongoing process to improve them. We can never make a perfect system so each election year we just do our best and then resolve the resulting legal disputes in the traditional manner. That's the way the system works.
>“The election is not suspect and the end results (Nixon won) are not going to change. It was settled decades ago.”
From my point of view, “settled” does not mean the issue has been decisively proven or disproven. More often than not I see “settled” as meaning “nothing can be done about it”. Especially in terms of fraud and organized crime.
If you really dig into the 1960 election there are a ton of discrepancies and oddities that were investigated by partisan committees or had suspects end up having all charges against them dropped. In the 1948 Senate example, the SCOTUS case about the discrepancies was not taken up on jurisdiction grounds. So in that sense, no true ruling was ever made about the challenges in the case. But it is considered “settled” all the same.
>”In 1990, Robert Caro said, "People have been saying for 40 years, 'No one knows what really happened in that election,' and 'Everybody does it.' Neither of those statements is true. I don't think that this is the only election that was ever stolen, but there was never such brazen thievery." Caro said that Johnson was given the votes of "the dead, the halt, the missing and those who were unaware that an election was going on"
I've read about plenty of this, all of that is completely normal. Every election people will try to game the system. It happens. We deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we do a better job than other times. It's not fundamentally different from any other social system.
>does not mean the issue has been decisively proven or disproven
Yeah you're technically right but the point is: that doesn't matter to the election. It's of historical interest only, you can't use it to try to prove that an election didn't happen the right way because our system doesn't work like that. Elections aren't decided based on an investigation that happened 60 years in the future, if that was the case then we could never have an election because we'd have to wait 60 years for the results.
>” Elections aren't decided based on an investigation that happened 60 years in the future, if that was the case then we could never have an election because we'd have to wait 60 years for the results.”
That’s not quite what I’m getting at. The reason why I’m pointing to these 60+ year old elections is because people aren’t as emotionally charged about those elections in particular.
Elections can indeed be decided in the here-and-now, but the integrity questions still remain. That’s the key.
I feel like too many people are declaring the suspicions as moot and settled without actually looking taking the time and effort to investigate fully and properly. Emphasis on the fully and properly, because in the historical examples as well as the more recent examples, I see investigations being dismissed along partisan lines or because the courts did not want to get roiled in a constitutional crisis or a political revolt.
For those previous elections? No, they don't. The elections themselves are settled. You are asking questions about something different which is future elections, that's an entirely different question and it's a mistake to conflate them entirely with past elections.
>I feel like too many people are declaring the suspicions as moot and settled without actually looking taking the time and effort to investigate fully and properly
I really wish you would stop coming at it from this angle, it's not a productive way to look at things. The suspicions are moot and are settled by the courts. That is a fact. The elections are over. No amount of investigation is going to change the results of those past elections. No matter how many more people you get to investigate this, it isn't going to change it. An investigation could change future elections, but we would only know about that if an investigation was conducted during the period of time when it's legally allowed to happen.
And just to make it clear, there is nothing wrong with having suspicions about holes in an electoral process and discussing what we can do about it. Where you going into bad territory is when you slip in things like "there are open integrity questions" and "the election needs more investigation and isn't settled" and other things that are sowing doubt about the validity of the whole process. In the best case, those statements are misleading, and in the worst case, they're completely false. We may not like that some concerns are dismissed for partisan reasons but you're leaving out how in a lot of cases, that is completely legal and is the system working as intended. I'd love to fix this too but engaging in this type of rhetoric on social media is not going to help there.
>” I really wish you would stop coming at it from this angle, it's not a productive way to look at things. The suspicions are moot and are settled by the courts. That is a fact.”
If there’s election fraud going on, it literally does not matter because they found a way to get away with it.
All suspicions are moot. The system has been designed to be investigation-resistant and I just have to accept that. Because, again, it is literally settled and utterly futile to look into these things.
It’s also a vicious cycle. It’s pointless to investigate past elections, and upcoming elections - if contested - won’t be investigated because all the past elections turned out just fine. We didn’t go looking for fraud, and we know that our elections have virtually no fraud because we didn’t find any.
The practical effect is, no matter what vulnerabilities and exploits can exist in our elections, none of that matters because you’re not allowed to look into it.
>You could strip out systemd and put in a custom init system that doesn't conform to the typical Unix daemon startup expectations.
I actually don't think you can do this, or would even want to. Systemd doesn't really do anything special beyond putting some tooling around various Linux features. I've seen a lot of other Linux inits and all of them have to conform to those expectations because that is how Unix and Linux are supposed to function, if the init doesn't do those jobs then the system doesn't work.
>You could write your own X11/wayland-like display server thing (like Android does)
Conceptually the Android window system is not really that different from Wayland. X11 is more the outlier. If you're building a new window system, you probably want to do things with a very similar approach to how Wayland and SurfaceFlinger work. No matter what you do there you're going to be constrained by the requirements of getting OpenGL and Vulkan apps to work.
You spent a lot of time explaining this and I agree with everything you said. But that's a really long-winded technologist's way of putting it. I'd personally phrase in a simpler way: music is useless and has no value. It serves no purpose besides entertainment. It can be made trivially for literally zero cost by anyone who has working hands or vocal cords, no technology or investment is required. NFTs certainly don't and can't change this. (Disclaimer: I am a musician and I've spent a lot of time working on music apps. It's a hard sell out there for everybody)
I tried really hard to like SerenityOS but I think the decision to make it a UNIX-like POSIX system is a mistake. The POSIX API is outdated and broken in a lot of ways. I wish people would stop making UNIX-like operating systems, we have enough of those to deal with considering just the Linuxes and the BSDs.
> I wish people would stop making UNIX-like operating systems, we have enough of those to deal with considering just the Linuxes and the BSDs.
Your strong opinions on the matter may be warranted from your personal experience, but there is nothing wrong with doing such, there is zero track to you that someone somewhere on this planet is tinkering with an operating system you do not agree with the design decisions of.
> The POSIX API is outdated and broken in a lot of ways.
Curious if you could elaborate your claims. Is it a case of the old APIs must stand (and the baggage therein), or were there some fatal flaws other OS APIs avoided?
>there is nothing wrong with doing such, there is zero track to you that someone somewhere on this planet is tinkering with an operating system you do not agree with the design decisions of.
I don't understand why you're saying this or what this has to do with my comment at all. I'm a random person on the internet commenting on what I would like to see. You don't have to agree, it's fine for us to feel differently.
>Is it a case of the old APIs must stand (and the baggage therein), or were there some fatal flaws other OS APIs avoided?
I can't really name any POSIX APIs that I think are actually good. In my experience, any real programming for Linux and BSD requires a ton of non-standard non-POSIX APIs anyway. One major problem is: almost all of the core POSIX syscalls are blocking which IMO is really useless for modern programming. Since the past 10 years I haven't used any language runtime that focuses on single-threaded blocking tasks. Everything is about concurrency and async now. Also see this thread for various other problems with it: https://hackertimes.com/item?id=27183784
I understand that you or others may want to tinker with this stuff but please consider that an OS designer can be missing some valuable information that could be learned from people with decades of experience deploying these APIs on Linux and BSD and the various other UNIXes. That's the stuff that could save a lot of development time. In my opinion POSIX is really a red herring for OS designers, now the big thing people talk about is "Linux compatibility" which includes a significant number of other things besides POSIX.
I was initially not in the camp POSIX APIs are the devil. I felt there's inherent tradeoffs and design decisions a serious modern operating system seems to need from your comments, but ignoring that, I was suprised that is was a botherance to you?
> we have enough of those to deal
Thanks for sharing some context on why it's bad though. Cheers.
With a reputation system you'd still want to do your due diligence and manually check things. Even the most trustworthy people make honest mistakes sometimes.
Not sure about other browsers but this is incorrect for Chrome and Firefox. They both have flags to disable WebGL and WASM. Please be careful not to spread misinformation, we owe it to ourselves to research our posts well.
I don't think the regular user even knows what WebGL and WASM are, they will just wonder why their browser game isn't working and then google the cryptic setting that they have to change to get it to work.
Sorry I misread your comment, ignore me. Although I will add: It might be possible that someone gets high-DPI working eventually in XWayland. It's unlikely that X11 will ever support multi-DPI in the same way as Wayland. There is an open MR for something like it though: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests...
Use of the term "alsa" is confusing here because ALSA refers to both the kernel interface in /dev and the userspace API in alsalib. The ALSA userspace API is mostly not relevant to applications, new apps probably will not target that and will instead target Pulse, Jack or Pipewire. Of course, Pulse, Jack and Pipewire still use the ALSA kernel API internally, and do implement compatibility for its userspace API just so that older applications still work.
You're correct that XWayland is likely not going away any time soon but I would suggest avoiding it if you can, it's only for compatibility with legacy apps. It still has some of the same security issues as Xorg but they're confined only to other concurrently-run XWayland apps.
If you want me to ask a similarly misleading line of questioning based only on trying to draw false equivalence from principles: Currently Youtube is self-censoring porn. Is the side of "youtube should become a porn site" really the side you want to root for?