The headlines I saw were irresponsible journalism, plain and simple. There ought to be some significant repercussions or at least apologies and lessons learned posts for those publications and/or authors for crying wolf.
I cant say exactly which ones, but the main problem to me is the "second hand news".
probably most news outlets didn't made any research, they just rewrote what the previous outlet published.
as in, "we don't know either, but those guys do!"
so they probably went confident that they weren't wrong with the argument that someone else did the research for them.
i wouldn't dare call them journalists, and it is rather unlikely all of them independently reached the same conclusion that this is a "massive vulnerability".
If companies are implementing unfair policies like non-competes then the invisible hand of the free market will cause employees to leave those companies or never join them! I mean it's really not very likely that the 2-3 CEOs we currently have for each industry now could possibly find time to meet in a room together in order to pad their pockets with billions more and help squash further competition.
I gave finasteride (and dutasteride) a try in my 20s. It didn't work, but I'm lucky that I didn't end up suffering any of those side effects you mention. I was definitely reckless in taking it without really considering the negative possibilities.
Absolutely not. Read the specs [0] there as well if you truly want to know. XML canonicalization is a special kind of hell that I've done once and wish to never do again. And the enveloped signatures of xmldsig are also pretty complicated to get right. And it's a wild west as to how the specs are implemented on RPs and IDPs alike (more so, in my experience, than OIDC by a long shot).
If you trust the election results, and I generally do because I have no proof otherwise, then the American people voted for this. But it certainly looks like an authoritarian power transfer.
I am affected by this and I didn't vote for this. It's easy to say that "the American People" voted for this, but it's not correct to say that I am personally being affected by my bad choices.
I think the elections were "fair", for what its worth- I just don't agree that "fairness" makes me blame-worthy when I face the consequences of other folks actions.
I agree with you completely, but this gets at a debate that's been going on since the ancient days about whether democracy is actually good or not. Whether a tyrant is elected by a fair majority or inherits the throne at best (or Divine Right of Kings, whatever) makes little difference IMHO.
That said, while I have criticisms for democracy and do enjoy pointing out it's imperfections when people talk about democracy as some self-evident ideal, I do think it's probably the best system of government in a sea of less than ideal choices.
I'd argue the problem lies less with democracy, more with the media. Democracy requires an informed populace. The success of populist politicians shows you don't have that
This is why early democracies limited voters to a subset which was perceived as better informed or more responsible - rule of any person passing thresholds (like e.g. land ownership) that proved a minimum level of capacity.
It would be more accurate to say that it was intended to (and did) limit voting to a subset that was perceived as more loyal to the social order, such as property laws and other arrangements that define who's on top of the social pyramid.
The US revolution did not upset the foundational structures such as property rights, though. People who owned the most in US before it were still, by and large, the top dogs after. If anything, they improved their position - where previously they had to share with the metropoly, now they were fully in charge.
They were informed. Trump told them that science is crap, that tariffs are good, that we should punish immigrants, that he would pardon the jan 6th people, etc.
This is what people voted for and what they wanted. Hate and retribution.
When Democrats finally stop with this false narrative that if only people knew better, they'd vote for Democrats, maybe we'll start actually winning again.
Sure, they heard from Trump that tariffs would fix inflation. But they still aren't informed because they didn't actually know what tariffs are [1].
> When Democrats finally stop with this false narrative that if only people knew better, they'd vote for Democrats, maybe we'll start actually winning again.
Really do not hate to point this out. Democrats are really responsible for a lot of this mess. Both Republics and Democrats really love to blame the other one but they're really just the Father and Mother and when the child is having problems, it's both of their faults.
Personally, I think it's gotten this way because of the whole first-past-the-post so if you have a belief like "far right" or "far left" then your best bet politically is to run underneath Republican or Democrat and push out the "moderates" in a primary as opposed to making a new political party that actually has your beliefs.
I don't think it's just FPTP, given that other countries that have it are nowhere nearly as polarized.
I think it's actually the combination of FPTP and open (or at least broadly accessible) primaries. In Canada and UK, parties generally have much more control over their primaries, and party elites generally try to exercise that power to ensure that candidates don't upset the existing arrangements too much. Not even necessarily as a deliberate strategy, but when you have to work your way through the "smoke-filled rooms" as a candidate, that filters out the purists and favors those willing to compromise. US was also like that for a long time, and notably we didn't have this degree of polarization then.
But once primaries are wide open and the party no longer controls the candidates, it seems inevitable that more extreme candidates will win. They appeal to the more ideologically motivated voters who are generally more likely to show up and vote (especially so in the primaries), and so any candidate who wants to win there has to appeal to them first.
Cycles, yes, but what we have right now is more of a spiral - there's clearly some kind pf a positive feedback loop in the system that consistently drags parties apart, and that wasn't there before.
I think it started somewhere during the Reagan admin, going very slowly but steadily at first, but the wider the gap between the parties is, the faster the process goes, so it became really visible somewhere around Obama. The relevant rule changes wrt primaries and conventions date back to early 70s, though.
The problem is the Democrats aren't far left, they aren't even really left. There is no viable political counterbalance to the right wing in US politics anymore, the so-called left is moving right, and the right is moving further right. Kamala Harris' whole campaign (such as it was) was an attempt to court "moderate" Republicans rather than the base who was never enamored with Biden to begin with.
I agree that first past the post is a problem and this election was more lost by the Democrats than won by the Republicans, but I think it's a myth that any of it has to do with the Democrats going "too far left." Call me when any Democratic Presidential candidate openly calls for dismantling American imperialism and scaling back the military, or criticizes capitalism and endorses nationalized healthcare, education and UBI, or doesn't kiss the ass of police or curry favor with Evangelical Christians, or has immigration policies that actually materially differ from those of Republicans.
Is it the media or unfettered capitalism? Traditional media (newspapers, and local news) is dying slowly, they cannot successfully compete with centralized juggernauts with global footprints sucking up all the ad dollars. Was it Thiel who remarked that capitalism may not be compatible with democracy? One guess on which he'll choose to keep.
I do think a big part of the problem is the two party system. It makes negative campaigning far to effective. That way you get pathological choices, like Biden vs Trump when you wouldnt entrust any of them with running a small business you own.
"Willing" in what sense? What's my realistic alternative? Lay it on me.
I didn't vote, for what it's worth. I don't think it's ethical to participate in that kind of thing.
The US is 2 crimes and a real estate scam in a trench coat. When I was younger, I indeed thought that maybe it had some legitimacy, but after having read quite a lot of the history of the millions that the government here has enslaved and murdered I no longer thing it's legitimate.
I understand that they have the guns and the power, but realistically I am not a willing participant in this system.
Yeah, "just colonize somewhere else" is pretty much the response that I expected.
I spent last night doing a shift till 4 in the morning at a warming center for folks who don't have houses, and I've spent the last several months working on taking an off grid chunk of property to a place where I can host full families of folks to "come and play music".
None of that makes the US government one bit more legitimate.
All eligible voters are collectively responsible for the outcome of the election. You can't be proud of democracy if you won't shoulder the blame when it renders poor outcomes.
I 100% agree with what you said, but no one looks back and remembers the people who voted against Hitler, or says 'there were some good people in Nazi Germany'.
States rights has been too closely associated in the popular mind with slavery and racism (via arguments over what the civil war was really about). It'll be tough to disassociate those enough to make a persuasive argument for secession.
At the point you actually want a secession movement people aren't worried about the optics of it. It's not happening because the actual cost of secession, civil war and everything else is staggering. These are one way, permanent changes where a large number of the agitators will not live to see the better world.
It's compromise, carnage and collateral damage. Doing anything else is a better option 100% of the time.
Nobody's going to hear "we're seceding because we're sick of dying from lack of healthcare" and think "ooh, I wonder if it's secretly about slavery?"
Authoritarian power transfers usually involve (immediate) executions, or at least the imprisonment/exile of important people from the previous government/administration/regime, to stabilize the new regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
The Heritage Foundation (who is behind all this and has been at it since 1973), says that the transfer of power will be bloodless if we allow it to remain bloodless.
Presumably authoritarian regimes only execute/imprison/exile dissidents if they think it's necessary to eliminate opposition. An authoritarian regime which does not think there's much of a threat to opposition probably wouldn't bother.
Serves to prove it's not an authoritarian regime? They know they won by not so much and are likely to lose next time, especially given Trump can't run anymore.
TBF, we're only on day 2. (I am 90% certain it won't come to that, but there's a 10% queasiness left that hasn't been ameliorated by the haphazard approach untethered from legality that we've seen so far)
"This guy is running around giving everyone pardons. The funny thing, maybe the sad thing, is he didn’t give himself a pardon. And if you look at it, it all had to do with him."
I fully expect Trump to ruin Biden's final years with investigations and court cases. Maybe that's not out right execution, but Trump definitely wants revenge.
I mean if Biden actually was making corrupt deals trading influence/access for money then he absolutely should be investigated and prosecuted for it. And there's already hard proof that Hunter was selling access to his father, and that the foreigners he was selling said access to believed he could actually provide it.
If we didn't have the DOJ and other institutions protecting Biden for the last several years it would be pretty easy to find out if he actually did sell influence (vs. Hunter deceiving the people he was making deals with) with just a couple of warrants and subpeonas.
He ran on “lock her up” in 2016 and never followed through.
I find it hilarious that everyone is scared of Trump when there was a concerted effort by the other side to use the justice system to stop him from ever running again.
Need I remind everyone of multi-year Russiagate investigation that was all made up? The misdemeanor charges that becomes felonies with massive fines? The media collusion to silence the Hunter Biden laptop story when the FBI knew at the time it was real?
It’s the pot calling the kettle black. It’s the thieves accusing everyone else of stealing.
> I find it hilarious that everyone is scared of Trump when there was a concerted effort by the other side to use the justice system to stop him from ever running again.
I honestly don't get what you mean by this. Lets say all your comments about Biden, the FBI, laptops and whatever else are 100% true. How does that change if I should be worried about stuff Trump might do? To use a totally extreme example, if John Wayne Gacy went around talking all the shit in the world about Jeffrey Dahmer, does that somehow make Dahmer not a serial killer?
> He ran on “lock her up” in 2016 and never followed through.
So that proves he lies and makes promises he can't/won't/doesn't keep? Is that a positive trait in a politician? How are we supposed to determine when he is 'just joshing, bro' and actually is being truthful? And yes, I know Biden and the dems also make promises they don't keep, but again that doesn't excuse Trump from doing the same.
An established bureaucracy used to "following orders" will just soldier on assuming the authoritarian comes in legally. The most well known example is Germany. The Führer came in elected, got voted to dictator after the Reichstagsbrand and then never left power - and barely anyone in the executive resisted.
And this is likely also where the US are heading. The putsch will not be loud and with a bang like Syria, it will be slow as molasses but about as difficult to impossible to stop like a broken dam worth of water moving downstream.
I mean, it's pretty clear they want to sue Fauci and more. Attacking dedicated public servants working for the health of the country is going to have serious negative effects.
It seems unlikely that any court case would "uncover the truth" about the decision making behind that. Unfortunately, this has become so politicized that determining the steps that lead to NIH funding research in China, determining if a law was broken, and what the intent was, are unlikely to happen in the future.
It seems very unlikely to me that a knowledgeable head of an NIH institute would break the law in a discoverable way. My guess is that when this occurred, the decision-makers did not believe they were doing anything illegal.
(I think NIH funding virology research in China is dumb. That should not have happened.)
A couple things make me think they knew they were doing something illegal. One, they changed the definition of GoF when questioned about it, in a way that makes no sense. Two, they tried to avoid transparency laws like FOIA as well:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/nih-foia-covid-ori...
If you keep using HN primarily for political and ideological battle, we're going to have to ban you. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and we've asked you more than once already.
Understood.
Gain-of-function is one of those terms that only really makes sense with a lot of biological context and knowledge. Trying to explain that to the general public or politicians (especially in an adversarial context like a congressional hearing) is just not going to work.
Trying to hide things in their chat messages and texts and emails was dumb. I still can't believe they did that (one guy even used the exact scenario that we learned at Google: don't say anything in email that would get printed in a negative light on the front page of the NY Times; I had a manager there who actually did have one of his emails, as part of the Oracle Java court case, in a prominent article in the Times). Public employees of the government should assume that literally everything they produce as part of their job (including on personal devices) will eventually be seen externally by people without the necessary context to understand.
From what I can see, Fauci already admitted he made a collection of bad statements and decisions. For me, that's the end of the matter. Suing him over this is just going to damage the country. For example, next time there is a crisis, all those hardworking public servants are going to look at what happened and conclude "no, I will not be the public communicator that helps the country understand the situation we are in and how we are going to get out of it".
>I think NIH funding virology research in China is dumb. That should not have happened.
This gets really subtle and tricky. This type of thing is closely linked to biological weapons research and we want collaboration and transparency to an extent to maintain access to information.
> (I think NIH funding virology research in China is dumb. That should not have happened.)
I'm not sure why "in China" is your point of concern here? Lots of virology research presents minimal danger, and seems fine to me to fund even in geopolitical adversaries (after calculation of the diplomatic and scientific costs and benefits).
My concern with the WIV's work is that they were searching for deadlier and faster-spreading human viruses. So if their research succeeds, then they're deliberately just a containment failure away from a novel human pandemic. China's laxer safety standards compounded that risk, but I'd oppose such work in Baric's lab at UNC too.
Ok but that is where the bats are. And funding gives you access. Even with funding China blocked a lot of investigation. Just wait until we get Ebola 2 or what not.
Unfortunately, a good chunk of people who voted for him really didn't pay much attention beyond him promising to lower prices. But this is the electorate we have - a lot of them just can't be bothered with much detail as attention spans are short these days.
I listened to and watched a lot of interviews with people who voted for Trump. They just said he didn’t mean it whenever they were confronted with quotes from Trump that obviously disagreed with their views as evidenced by earlier questions in the interviews. Or take the many Muslims in Dearborn who still claim Trump is better than Harris would be on Israel/Palestine - they refuse to believe the evidence despite action days in,(or from trumps last term) it’s not possible to argue rationally with these people. Not only are they barely paying attention, they only see and hear what they want to.
> If you trust the election results, and I generally do because I have no proof otherwise, then the American people voted for this.
No, if you trust the election results, it's a legitimate election by defined process and there are no grounds to contest it.
But "The American people voted for this" is a distinct, strong, affirmative statement that doesn't hold.
The people that voted for this are the people that voted for it, and even among the people who voted for the incoming administration (who only represent a third or so of eligible American voters and an even smaller share of American people), this isn't what many of them were voting for.
> ... even among the people who voted for the incoming administration (who only represent a third or so of eligible American voters and an even smaller share of American people), this isn't what many of them were voting for.
Yes it is. I understand the argument that this type of outcome wasn't their motivation for the ballot they cast. But it's also an entirely predictable outcome of their vote, which to me means this is exactly what they were voting in favor of happening.
I think one of the biggest issues with democracy in the US and probably democratic countries in general is infantilizing voters into being able to take credit for their intent rather than judging them based on the totality of the outcome of their choices. If you buy an Italian sports car because it's cool and your spouse is mad because it's also unreliable and can't fit your childrens' car seats, it's generally not considered a wise defense to say you only picked it based on the 0-60 time so it's not your fault it was less great by other metrics. Democracy would be a lot better off if we thought about voting the same way.
> Democracy would be a lot better off if we thought about voting the same way.
civic duty should be emphasized in school more. It's not a 10 second exercise every 4 years. It's something to be vigilant about indefinitely, and forever. Any change to laws, or any votes, require scrutiny, rational thought on the choices, and personal maximization.
Unfortunately, people are too lazy, or too dumb, to do this, and choose to listen to someone else's recommendation on votes.
So democracy represents somewhat of an averaged choice of the population. As the population becomes dumber due to lack of good education or cadence, their choices become increasingly worse.
Authoritarian regimes don't have this problem. The average person in one don't get to make many, if any, choices. The elites make them all - and if the elites are more altruistic, the country generally do better than average.
So, Trump loses popularity over his original administration over lies and underdelivered promises, "we" vote him out. Then 4 years later we vote him back in?
At what point do we come and accept responsibility for falling for lies? And yes, there are in fact some people that voted against their best intertests because they fell into partisan politics; they still got their results, they just didn't read the fine print of the Devil's contract.
voter turnout was slightly low, but well within ballpark of every other Us election.
If this is your position, you must conclude no American election is a strong signal of anything.
Furthermore, this is just bad stats. We received a massive sample of the population, that sample is not without bias, but at least is geographically distributed. Do you think if had a 100% sampling rate the result would be dramatically different?
I suspect that missing portion is going bias towards low information population and immigrants who have no interest in US election. Democracy is not about finding every adult with a pulse. You must build a coalition of citizens with a vested interest in their community to get on your program, and take physical action to indicate that support you.
If this isn't what they were voting for, what did they think they were voting for? Did none of them believe that he would actually do the crazy shit he said he would? Did none of them pay attention to the insanity of his first term?
I have a simpler explanation: they all know what they were voting for, and none of them give a shit. It's the same as the mob cheering and applauding the sieg heil on Monday. They know it's deplorable and unamerican and they don't care. Because the only thing that matters is that their boy will stick it to the enemy.
Given the binary choice, much if the American people simply didn't vote. You can't present a false dichitomoty, and then act as if any downstream choice is full approval.
Not voting is a choice. It's a choice for "I don't care how this train moves, I'm moving with it". So yes, those non-voters tacitly approved of the idea of Trump being elected. They didn't hate it enough to get to the polls.
Those who thought "nothing would change no matter what"... well nothing has changed I guess. I suppose Harris would have done mass deportation raids and cutting funding from science and healthcare at all, right?
I lived in New York during the election, nothing would have changed regardless of who I voted for, because New York went to Harris anyway. So in my case, “nothing would change no matter what” was objectively true.
Do you really believe that the majority of Americans — or even the majority of Trump voters — are applauding the use of Nazi symbols? That is completely divorced from reality. The only people openly supporting Nazism are the extreme fringe right which is fortunately still nowhere near the majority in the real world.
Ask some trump voters about what they think of it, and you'll get your answer. I have, and I don't like the answers. They are too busy on cloud nine, cheering how their king is back and is signing hundreds of executive orders and getting rid of the deep state.
They simply don't care about the details. And the ones that do think it's hilarious that he's owning the libs.
I think you are wrong about the overwhelming mandate unless you are solely using the electoral college total as the yardstick. The popular vote is much closer.
- carried the Republicans to maintain a majority in the House
- helped increased the margin of seats in the Senate to a majority
Many members of the Republican party had been against Trump. This election, most were pro-Trump. His popularity helped pull both houses.
And did this after the opposition tried every tactics possible to ruin him - a fake Russian dossier that was peddled unquestioningly by the media, a misdemeanor crime gets prosecuted as a felony in the hopes to bankrupt or disqualify him from running again.
Against those odds? That showing is remarkable. Oh and he was almost assassinated, twice.
Then add on top he increased Republican share in solid Blue states like NY and CA by double digits. He increased Republican votes with black and hispanic voters.
He basically increased every single voting group across the board.
In light of the challenges, the outcome is a clear showing that a significant percentage of the US voters support him and the people in his party that are aligned to him.
I'm not sure what else you'd need to show a clear mandate.
I never saw anything but a favorable GOP outcome in the Senate in 2024 predictions and no one thought that was possible except the Democrats running in red states sending out fundraising emails, I never saw any analysis saying the 2024 Senate election was favorable to the Democrats in the run up to 2024. Show me anything that was printed prior to the election in 2024 that is not from one of the 2024 Democratic campaigns. That just one of your points where you state that as a clear mandate.
The assassination stuff is just not germane to a discussion about mandate nor your purported fake Russian dossier.
Trump won with 49% of the popular vote vs Harris' 48%, with one of the smallest margins of victory ever - just 0.15% of eligible voters. He won just a handful more electoral votes than Biden in 2020, and far fewer than Obama or Reagan.
That is not an overwhelming mandate, nor does it represent a majority of the country.
But then Trumpists never let the truth get in the way of their own mythmaking. They said they had an overwhelming mandate and the support of most Americans even in 2016 when literally millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton. Hell, they didn't even think they actually lost in 2020. I'm surprised they can square the cognitive dissonance of Trump being elected to a third term.
> Trump won with 49% of the popular vote vs Harris' 48%, with one of the smallest margins of victory ever
Irrelevant, we don't elect presidents by popular vote.
> That is not an overwhelming mandate, nor does it represent a majority of the country.
He won the Senate as well. Increased the majority in the House. Increased his votes in NY, CA. And among blacks and hispanic voters.
All while almost being assassinated (twice!) and having the mass media peddling lies against him for the last 8 years (Russiagate!). He wasn't like Obama who had the media backing him.
It absolutely is a mandate. It's a clear mandate because his Party has both houses and the Presidency!
> Irrelevant, we don't elect presidents by popular vote.
How the details of the election process actually works is tangential to what kind of mandate they have.
If some bizarre election mechanism that a country followed meant that a party getting 1 vote more than the opposition gave it 100% of the power, that's how elections in that country would work, but that doesn't mean the winners would have a strong mandate from the electorate as a whole.
In Nazi Germany, Hitler made the argument that, well, since 33% of the voters (17% of the population) voted for him, far ahead of the runner-up (who only got 20% of the vote), and his party made up the majority of the ruling coalition (196 out of 267 out of a total 620 seats), he should have all the power.
The system certainly gave him power for all those reasons, but it's farcical to say that 17% of the population voting for him was an 'overwhelming' mandate for Germany to embark on their insane politics, and it's also farcical to say that +1% of the vote is a clear mandate. It's a mandate, but a slim one.
The system was also designed with a lot of checks and balances and social norms in places, but as it turns out, if you collude with what were supposed to be adversaries and break all the soft (and hard) rules, you can get a dramatically radical agenda implemented, disproportionate in its scale to the popular support you enjoy.
More eligible voters didn't vote for any candidate then for Trump or Harris.
Trump won a slim majority of the people who did choose to vote, but it's hardly an endorsement by a majority of Americans, much less the American people as a whole.
Choosing not to vote is a vote for the status quo. That still is a choice.
There are BS loopholes we need to correct, but people who can't do the bare basics to reserve a morning to fill out a ballot fundamentally have themselves to blame.
Nonsense. If you live in one of the ~40 states where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, who you vote for makes no more difference than it does in Russia. It’s reasonable to protest by refusing to participate in that unfair system, and doing so doesn’t mean you support one candidate or the other.
36% of eligible voters - 90 million people - likely had a similar attitude. The margin of victory was 2.3m votes. What's that phrase? Something about how no single raindrop thinking they're responsible for the flood.
while it's true that there's quite a few non-votes that far outweight the margin of victory, they're all spread out and not in states that held marginal votes. It may actually indeed be the case that their turnout would not affect the results.
However, turnout don't only affect the results, but future results.
Politicians look at votes to determine their future trajectory - those who don't turn out won't be seen at all, and would be treated as if they don't exist. After all, why hadn't the native indians got the vote until legislated, and why slaves too, until some compromise was reached?
So voting, regardless of your effect on outcome, is important. I only wish the vote was easier, as some people need to take time off work to vote, or have to trek far, or make arrangements which would be inconvenient. For example, making postal voting easier to get is a good starting point.
43% of eligible voters in Mississippi didn't vote. 42% in NY and 38% in CA. That's a significant amount of people who could have swung the election either way despite them being "safe" states. Any state can be in play if turnout ever increased significantly. And even if your state voted your way federally, did every local/state race go to what would've been your preferred candidate? I doubt it.
If someone clicks on "click here to update your password" in a phishing email, are they choosing what actually happens, or what they thought would happen? Even if they should have known, and could have known, I think it's objectively true that they didn't.
it depends on the advancement of society to be honest. I wouldn't blame someone getting scammed in 2000 over a "Hot sexy singles in your area, click now!". I would 100% blame them in 2020+.
I don't know how far we've come in regards to email phishing to make a call on that.
Americans also voted for their US Senators and Representatives.
It's funny how these discussions forget about that, which is part of the problem.
It's also worth remembering how the Trump campaign consistently denied Project 2025, and ridiculed those who suggested it was their agenda. Maybe it won't go there but so far it seems to be headed in that direction, and if so actively lying about your agenda raises questions about exactly what the American electorate was voting for.
It doesn't look like, it is. e.g. violent coup and Nazi salutes during inauguration. Are people expecting the rise of authoritarianism to look different or something? This is the exact same fascist playbook that's been run every time. I really thought WW2 would have taught humanity as a whole the lesson but apparently not.
I take it you haven't encountered the contempt that Trump supporters have for "mainstream science," particularly anything to do with biomedicine? Not even remotely a stretch. Ever since COVID they view those "health research capabilities" in the same way everyone else views the experimentation of Joseph Goebbels and Unit 731. Most of them still think Biden and Fauci cooked it up in a lab.
Trump got 49.8% of the vote. 50.2% went to other candidates (48.32% Harris, 0.56% Stein, 0.49% Kennedy, 0.42% Chase, 0.42% others).
If anyone is curious, here are the Presidents since the 19th century who got at least 50% of the vote:
Biden
Obama (both terms)
Second Bush (second term)
First Bush
Reagan (both terms)
Carter
Nixon (second term)
Johnson
Eisenhower (both terms)
Second Roosevelt (all four terms)
Hoover
Coolidge
Harding
Taft
First Roosevelt
McKinley
The lowest since 1900 is Wilson's first term at 41.8%, followed by Clinton's first term at 43%, Nixon's first term at 43.4%, and Trump's first term at 46%.
You might think that Wilson at 41.8% must have lost the popular vote but actually he beat the person with the second highest popular vote total by over 14%. That was back when the US had more than two viable parties. The vote went 41.84% to Wilson (Democrat), 27.4% to Teddy Roosevelt (Progressive), 23.17% to the incumbent Taft (Republican), 5.99% to Debs (Socialist), and the rest to a few others.
Similar with Clinton's 43%. That was about 5% more than second place. That year Ross Perot running as an independent got 18.91%.
Same with Nixon. His 43.42% was the biggest slice of the popular vote, followed by Humphrey at 42.72%. George Wallace running for the American Independent party got 13.53%.
Trump spent a huge amount of his time during the election disavowing Project 2025. Did people vote for a change in government? Yes, but they didn’t vote for this this theocratic authoritarian bullshit.
If you believed his disavowl, I've got a bridge... fuck it. Just give me your bank account number and I promise there will be $47 million in it tomorrow morning.
This is the informed voter thing, right? We know Trump is a liar, and beyond that perhaps the most documented liar in human history, and we also can plainly see who is involved in the campaign, his cabinet, his inner circle and easily cross reference them to the people whose names are directly on Project 2025. That is to say: to anyone paying even the minimum amount of attention, it was obvious that there is a 100% negative correlation between Trump disavowing Project 2025 and the expectation that he would lean in hard to it.
Trump has been pushing theocratic authoritarian bullshit for nearly a decade. It's what Trumpism is known for. It's what his supporters are known to support. We're not doing this historical revisionism now. This is exactly what people voted for.
You'd think he'd do that? Go on the ~~internet~~ podium and tell lies?
nevermind he never had a plan for any of the issues people voted for him on. A still vague plan on fixing inflation (spoilers: he cannot do as much to fix inflation as many think), still rough numbers on what these tarriffs are supposed to do. What else did conservatives think he was going to do...
-----
‘You want to come to America? Earn it, like I did’
well he is indeed hastening the deportation... nevermind conservatives with undocumented workers only lose from this and don't want to pay americans minimum wage. Well done.
'He invokes fear in the rest of the world’
Yeah, I guess pissing off all our friends and getting cozy with China/Russia will invoke fear.
Hey, Maybe Trump is more honest than I thought. Of course, when it comes to making lives worse for the world.
This constant false equivalence between parties is part of the reason we got here.
The Democrats are terrible but somehow I doubt Kamala Harris would be doing this much damage two days in. I don't think people would be wondering whether Tim Walz actually did a Nazi salute at the inauguration. It can be the case that both parties are evil, and they are, but that America still chose the greater evil.
So many false equivalences and assumptions in these few sentences alone lol. Why don't we wait at least a few months before deciding if their actions are evil or not.
Why are we suddenly pretending that Trump is an unknown quantity? We know what he's about, and we know what his agenda is. It was literally published to the public with bullet points and everything.
This is more of a fundamental issue with the way we rely on DNS to secure *gestures wildly* all the things. The fact that domains can expire and be registered by someone new allows the new owner to do almost anything the old owner could have done when it comes to anything trusting email addresses, or anything else relying on DNS (ACME certs) for authentication.
It's great for "do they own this right now" validation and that's what we use it for, but beyond that links will be saved, email addresses will be added to databases and address books alike, and that's more or less a reality of most systems. For example, my snail mail (and occasionally packages) is still mistakenly delivered to my former addresses from time to time just because it's hard to track who has that address, and update it everywhere. The same goes for internet infrastructure.
I was able to take over an Instagram account because I received a password reset email to a domain catch all address that I'd set up years ago. Turns out it was a whole brand, but they refuse to change the email address and don't understand that I'm going to shut it all down. It totally makes my site look bad (it was an adultish brand and I was working on a community project) and I now have the power (and ability to do whatever with the account and any other that I happen upon with an email at that domain.
With OIDC, that's what the `sub` identifier is for. Apparently, this changes for 0.04% of accounts (according to "a staff engineer at a major tech company" quoted in the article), but it's what Google tells you to use to identify a user. When a domain expires and you re-register for OIDC with Google, the `sub` claim will differ and the application should refuse your login attempt.
If the `sub` claim does indeed change for no good reason, that's a bug on Google's side, but I can't find anything online to corroborate that claim. The sub value changing when accounts are recreated could be a pain for large companies to deal with, but other than that the solution is pretty simple.
There are no good alternatives for email addresses that are also human readable, unfortunately. Some web3.0 cryptocurrency projects do encryption based authentication that solves this problem (but makes your accounts impossible to recover if you lose your key file). Passkeys/WebAuthn also try to solve this problem by foregoing the entire username requirement, but websites still ask for email addresses just in case.
I disagree. DNS stores enough information in WHOIS to see if ownership has changed, it's not DNS' fault that nobody looks.
Probably the least-wrong thing to do with current DNS is to have authentication servers keep track of the WHOIS UpdatedDate of email domains. If a WHOIS UpdatedDate is newer than the corresponding user's linked email address verification, that user's email address is no longer trusted. Next time they log in ask them to update or re-confirm their email address, and if they try to password reset they can't use an unconfirmed email address.
Yes that's more tricky work. Authentication is hard. Nobody should be DIYing authentication anymore in this day and age, it's just too much.
You can put whatever you want in WHOIS, including just replicating the information that was there previously. What if the WHOIS email is an email on the domain in question?
Maybe registrars could set a unique ID per registrant, and if a domain expires and is purchased by a different entity/account than the previous one the registrant GUID is refreshed. That could then be a signal that all previous reliance on the DNS of the domain name should be null and void
2) RDAP does specify that the registration date should be of the last time registered - if a domain has lapsed and picked up by somebody else it's supposed to use the verb "reregistered". But of course, you're depending on the registrar to do that. It does look like "registered" is properly followed - I looked into some known cases of poached lapsed domains and checked their RDAPS and the registration date corresponds to the date the domain drop-caught but no past expiry or re-registration is listed (example[1]).
3) Either way, don't use the content of the WHOIS/RDAP, just the dates.
Yes, but the user had to go through the process of "wait do I still have that email address? Did I receive it?"
Like, let's say I have an email address pxtl@example.net, and I used that to register an account on service.com, and example.net goes under.
In theory I know that this event has occurred, I no longer have access to my email address at pxtl@example.net.
So I log into my service.com account and get told "hey your email was pxtl@example.net - example.net has changed ownership. Is that still your email?" and I'll say "no" and put in a new email.
Or maybe I don't realize that example.net is gone. So I try to verify the account, find that I'm not receiving the email, and realize my mistake and set up a new email account, and click the button that says "I did not receive the email". The authentication server can prevent this window of time being an attack vector by forcing a delay between email validation and password reset, and by de-validating the email address (and treating it as a red flag on the whole domain) if the user clicks "I did not receive the email" a few minutes after the email address has been verified.
And if I forget my password and try to reset password on service.com using my unverified pxtl@example.net? "example.net had an ownership change since this email address was registered, please use another means to reset your password like SMS". Which is the main benefit of this process. Which I know doesn't require full verification.
Now, obviously the WHOIS updateddate is a noisy signal. Ideally the DNS system would expose a more granular ownership-change date - for example, gmail.com lists a WHOIS updateddate of July 11th 2024. UpdatedDate isn't supposed to change with every renewal but lots of things aren't supposed to happen.
That's part of the problem, there is no silver bullet. I implement it by not being racist (or sexist or any other -ist) personally and refusing to support anyone who is.
That's largely all anyone can do (and I have a lot more ability to do something about it as a business owner than the average progressive), which I'm sure feels inadequate and leads to roving bands of thought police members looking for perceived transgressions to attack.
And how do you decide whether someone you're considering supporting is or isn't racist? Do you, by chance, use the way they talk about black people or other minorities (man that's a mouthful, maybe just shorten it to BIPOC) as a way to gauge it?
For example, if someone said the N word in front of you, or made an uncomfortable joke about a Mexican, would you decide not to support them? If so, then does that make you one of those roving thought police? You'd obviously be censoring free speech if you decided how you treat them based on what they say!
On the other hand, people are clever, they know not to be too obvious or it may cause them social issues. So, as long as they don't do something too untoward right in front of you, does that mean they gain your full support?
Of course, I won't be surprised if those proponents of free speech decide to censor me by downvoting instead of engaging speech with speech
> And how do you decide whether someone you're considering supporting is or isn't racist? Do you, by chance, use the way they talk about black people or other minorities (man that's a mouthful, maybe just shorten it to BIPOC) as a way to gauge it?
The same way I determine anyone's beliefs on any other topic, which is watching their actions over time, including what they say.
> For example, if someone said the N word in front of you, or made an uncomfortable joke about a Mexican, would you decide not to support them?
Probably, but context matters.
> If so, then does that make you one of those roving thought police? You'd obviously be censoring free speech if you decided how you treat them based on what they say!
And here we go. I'm not censoring anyone by not continuing to associate with someone I don't agree with. I'm also not digitally screaming to ostracize someone I disagree with over terminology, as is the case with cancel culture advocates.
> On the other hand, people are clever, they know not to be too obvious or it may cause them social issues. So, as long as they don't do something too untoward right in front of you, does that mean they gain your full support?
See what I said above about how I assess people. But if someone is a closet racist and I know nothing about it, what am I supposed to do?
> Of course, I won't be surprised if those proponents of free speech decide to censor me by downvoting instead of engaging speech with speech
If my using the same rhetorical devices as you annoys you, maybe consider how you come across to others? Phrases like "roving bands of thought police" make you sound like a child, and makes it easy to dismiss your opinion out of hand.
You aren't using the same rhetorical devices, you're assuming a lot and pretending to be helpless.
Exactly what term would you use for the groups of terminally online people who dig through decades of social media posts looking for something like a mildly offensive tweet to blow out of proportion?
When you don't have an understanding of racism as a systemic issue, this ends up being the conclusion. Which is why "woke" people (the ones who aren't just adopting the aesthetics and being annoying) typically discuss social issues in systemic terms (prison, policing, discrimination, etc). Which requires not just individual actions but collective action.
The inability to understand this concept is really just a lack of imagination that comes from internalizing the status quo for too long. Not to the fault of anyone, it's only natural. But I think this is why "woke" looks like a bunch of nonsense from the outside.
For example: the US has 2M people in prison more than any other country. An insane number, but to live in the US is to accept that number as normal.
Sticking with the hiring situation, if you notice that a recruiter only ever recommends hiring people with say the last name Pandit then ask them about it. A lot of times people are not ashamed of their views and will just straight up tell you that they could tell the other candidates were inferior because of their name.
But as somebody else mentioned, there is no silver bullet here. Racism varies from instance to instance. A solution to fix racism in hiring isn't going to fix red-lining. You need to be keeping an eye of things and looking for patterns that don't make sense for the given sample size.
I went through the list of open source licences in my VW ID and was pleasantly surprised that bash-completion is included. So when I gain shell in my car, I should be able to use tab completion! These lists are often quite interesting.
reply