Oh, wait

Hannah Monta!

Hannah Montana!

Well, she didn’t do the scene.

I mean, using your voice to influence the outcome of politics is kind of how a democracy works. Ideally, at least. But I agree with your sentiment.

Also, for a second I imagined a scenario where voting is done by small groups in booths, booing for the politicians they don’t like and clapping for the ones they like, and then someone would watch the tapes and just count how many people booed and clapped at every politician.

Consensual? Kids cannot consent. Kids are confused, curious hormone bombs who are easily manipulated and tend to put a lot of trust in adults who sound like they know what they’re doing. That’s the entire point of why we place that responsibility on the adults, and not the kids who don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.

Seize the means of production, but first, seize the means of test and staging

Or a future president.

Well, incidentally, porn bots. And he doesn’t want to lose them, too!

What drawbacks?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

At the same time, I feel like we shouldn’t let that happen because imagine if he actually succeeds? And then we just have immortal crackhead Lex Luthor with a hallucinating ChatGPT whispering further delusions directly into his brain. That can’t be good for any of us.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

How would it feel to just uninstall?

You should note that this was a Gmail feature that is now made available by a bunch of email providers, but you might wanna check that you do indeed get your emails delivered to plus addresses before you rush out to change your contact info everywhere. Some providers have lacking support and sometimes emails may fail to send to plus addresses even if your side does support it. Using a catchall will always work because you know, that’s just how email works.

It is definitely the exact opposite of this. Even though I understand why you would think this.

The thing with systems like these is they are mission critical, which is usually defined as failure = loss of life or significant monetary loss (like, tens of millions of dollars).

Mission critical software is not unit tested at all. It is proven. What you do is you take the code line by line, and you prove what each line does, how it does it, and you document each possible outcome.

Mission critical software is ridiculously expensive to develop for this exact reason. And upgrading to deploy on different systems means you’ll be running things in a new environment, which introduces a ton of unknown factors. What happens, on a line by line basis, when you run this code on a faster processor? Does this chip process the commands in a slightly different order because they use a slightly different algorithm? You don’t know until you take the new hardware, the new software, and the code, then go through the lengthy process of proving it again, until you can document that you’ve proven that this will not result in any unusual train behavior.

deleted by creator

I’ve thought of it many times and it hasn’t helped me for shit