As usual with Quanta, the actual article didn’t explain anything well and was a waste of time (which is funny because Quanta is usually off the deep end with pages of esoteric babble that is gibberish except to genuine specialists. In this case, not only was there no ‘simple math’ - there was no math!). I’ve really got to stop clicking on Quanta links.
For an actually well written and deeply informative ‘how it works’ for public key cryptography, see:
Militarism and ‘strong regimentation of society’ are two that very obviously don’t apply to Trumpian politics. Trump was an isolationist militarily in his first term - an expansionist nationalist military is a sine qua non of fascism.
And Trump’s fetish for deregulation works against the second one.
> Fascism rejects the view that violence is inherently negative or pointless but rather views imperialism, political violence, and war as means to national rejuvenation
Trump has advocated for nationalist, North Korean style military parades and the use of the military against protesters etc. And there this myth of him being anti-interventionist but America was very active in Syria during his term.
I think you are conflating nationalism and fascism.
Nationalism has a lot of gradations, and while it can be a subset of fascism it isn't inherently fascistic. Fukuyama said: "But it is not clear that nationalism represents an irreconcilable contradiction in the heart of liberalism. In the first place, nationalism is not one single phenomenon but several, ranging from mild cultural nostalgia to the highly organized and elaborately articulated doctrine of National Socialism."
And using the military against mobs of people that are ransacking cities is not under any construction 'fascism' - property rights are after all pretty important in the Western Anglo-Saxon tradition and using force to protect property rights is not 'fascism'.
Not sure what you mean by America being active militarily in Syria, either - are you referring to Trump ordering the bombing of ISIS targets? By that logic when Obama ordered the Navy Seals to kill bin Laden the US was engaged in a fascistic military adventure in Pakistan which... would probably make you the only person in the world to think that.
Trump is a lot of things. A fascist as that word is understood by historians is not one of them.
By banning them from operating in the US. The implementation really isn’t complicated - it’s a simple statute outlawing the company on national security grounds, and all the tech companies (viz Apple and Google) will have to abide by it or face huge fines and criminal sanctions.
This isn’t about data. This is about pubescent brain rot and foreign influence and misinformation and attention spans and depression and anti-sociality and suicide.
Same exact thing that happened in 2016: if you repeatedly demonise a section of the population, don’t expect that section of the population to be honest with you about its opinions when those opinions are what led you to demonise it in the first place.
I would say from the outside American politics seems to have devolved into this ultra-polarised culture war/identity politics that doesn't seem to benefit the left at all electorally. It probably helps the biggest proponents of it (on either side) in terms of playing to their base, but it feels like it's overall a net win for the right.
But I don't know how big a factor this is in reality versus the economy.
In 2016, the majority of outlets gave Clinton a 90% chance or more. This time almost everyone said it was 50:50. The result is somewhat similar, the predictions could hardly be more different.
For one, they said Clinton had a 70% chance of winning.
But perhaps more importantly, people's poor understanding of stats meant that many people interpreted that as "She's going to get 70% of the vote" (i.e., a landslide, "and so I don't need to vote").
Whilst this is objectively true - this result is basically within the margin of error of most polls. I highly doubt this argument is going to be accepted by most people. It'll be exactly like Nate Silver screaming into the void for the last 8 years pointing out he gave Trump a ~30% chance of winning and that happens... 30% of the time!
This isn’t an interesting statement. I could pull any numbers out of a hat in (0, 1) as probabilities and regardless of the outcome could use the same excuse because there is only a single event to observe.
But do you have literally anything to back this up factually? The polls were surprisingly accurate this time around. Several states were called as a tossup because it was a near 50/50 split.
Exactly this. In many work places, you can't say you vote for Trump. Many Democrats visibly say something along the line of "if you vote for Trump, you are dead to me", and these are your colleagues.
I don't know whether a poll is anonymous. The poll has no impact on my life. I'll either lie to be safe or just don't take the poll at all.
On a regular day, you would be called racists and evils.
You can try an experiment where you say out loud that you vote for Trump in your work place, and you can see how it goes.
People support Democrats visibly at their workplaces, and that is totally fine. But if you support Republicans visibly, you will have a lot of issues at work.
So, if a poller asks you who you would vote for, you would not risk it. You would just say Dems or just avoid the poll altogether.
That's because Trump has said many racist things so the implication is if you vote for him, you must support that too.
It's a weird spot, because most Trump supporters don't really support him. They consider him a liar at worse, and a jokester at best. Telling Trump supporters what Trump has said is almost always met with "well he didn't mean that!"
Why do people vote for someone they don't even believe? Not sure, maybe they hate the other side just that much, or maybe they do believe him but don't want to admit it. Maybe they're hoping deep down Trump really is just joking.
Not mine, but actually every single company in the US, yours included. I don't know of any companies that tolerate racism or bigotry in general.
I don't think Trump supporters or conservatives are evil at all. I think they're largely radicalized at this point. Most conservatives I meet seem completely unable to voice conservative opinions without resorting to bigotry - this includes our president elect.
There's nothing wrong with conservative opinions and actually everyone is on the same page about that. But can you be pro-life without calling women sluts and whores? Can you be anti-gay without telling people they deserve AIDS? Can you be anti-trans without calling them tra*ies?
For a lot of conservatives, the answer to those questions is no. Okay, then the next question is - is that type of behavior allowed at work? Of course not.
So put the pieces together yourself - where does that leave those people? This isn't a rhetorical question.
It doesn't count. It will never count. Even if they see it, they won't acknowledge it. It's not hypocrisy, it's loyalty. The only real sin is disobeying the hierarchy or breaking the chain of command, which is what calling it out would be for them.
"You" in this case is "the people taking the polls". The media is only trusted by 12% of Republicans and 27% of Independents [0]. Right or wrong, most pollsters will be treated as belonging to "the media", and the lack of trust will almost certainly show in the polls. "The media" demonized the right wing, so "the media" can't expect to have people self-identify as such to them.
Democrats were absolutely demonized by Trump, but their trust in the media is double that of Independents and quadruple that of Republicans. So to the extent that pollsters are treated as part of the media, they'll get more accurate answers out of Democrats.
> It's a fairly pro-business paper, certainly not very critical of Israel
Sorry, are we both talking about the New York Times in 2024 here? Not a day goes by that there isn’t an article crying about Palestinians and bashing Israel - there’s one right now, just scroll down to the section just above sports.
Calling it the preeminent progressive institution in America media today is axiomatic.
The NYT is most definitely pro-Israel - so much that after October 7, it made up[1] a story of mass rape[2] to justify the attacks on Gaza. Just because it's not as pro-Israel as you doesn't mean it's not pro-Israel.
This comment will be deleted by moderators, though, just like every other comment which points this out. Yet no moderator has ever mentioned why they are doing that. It's factual and relevant to the discussion.
I'm sorry, when did the NYT call Isreal's behavior genocidal? I must have missed it.
Any objective observer would call Israel's behavior abhorrent wrt Gaza. In fact, it seems like the majority of the planet is doing that, if the UN is representative.
But given the positions of AMD, Apple, and Nvidia, they aren’t. The only real concerns would be warranty obligations, but it isn’t like Intel would just disappear over night - they’d be gobbled up by somebody bigger (which at this point is literally everybody else in the industry) and presumably as part of an acquisition or Chapter 11 the buyer would have to agree to honor warranty claims for it to pass regulatory or court approval.
Gonna be one hell of a show watching them death spiral. 60ish years of inertia and corporate ego will will surely not go quietly into that good night, even when it’s inevitable.
The scariest thing about COVID wasn’t diabetes or heart disease but the brain damage (microhemorrhages) and in particular the dementia-associated lesions it appears to cause in long-COVID patients.
The ciphertext is not the plaintext (obviously). So an encrypted password is not a password. An encrypted password is a string resulting from the application of an encryption algorithm and a key to a password. Uploading that string is not uploading the password.
The fact that Apple's software can access the keys stored on the device to decrypt the password after you securely authenticate is neither here nor there.
No, it's related to Astigmatism. The eye lens gets distorted. Bright light shrinks the pupil, meaning the light goes through less of your lens and hence is not as distorted.
You said: “ 1. No light mode (why does everyone want dark mode, it sucks for anyone older than 30)”
I’ve had astigmatism literally my entire life and, once again, have loved dark mode anywhere it’s been offered (except my Kindle, which just looks weird).
Every programmer over the age of 30 that I know uses dark mode exclusively, and there’s a reason companies offer it: it is widely used and demanded.
Acting everybody in the demographic of people over 30 feels the way you feel about it on account of their age is just laughable.
For an actually well written and deeply informative ‘how it works’ for public key cryptography, see:
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-the-crypto-story/?em...